Talk:English overseas possessions

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gibraltar

I'm just wondering whether Gibraltar should be mentioned in this article since the territory was captured prior to the Treaty of Union. Any thoughts? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

A map would be great, saves time scrolling though the article to look for what regions England controlled in 1707. I might create one myself sometime. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Pale of Calais, Dunkirk and Heligoland?

Bet there was other English owned stuff over in Europe too... Bet there was other English owned stuff over in Europe too...like Aquitaine, Normandy, Hannover and abodes and so forth...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Heligoland, not mentioned at all. It was British from 1814 to 1890. The main Heligoland article does not make it clear whether it was an overseas territory, or had any self-government.

David Atherton 09:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction of Slavery

I personally would be interested in the idea of any sources that documented how the colonies reacted to slaves introduced. This article has plenty of sources that are wide-ranging, and uses both book and online sources. Though I found one or two online sources that wouldn't show up(The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island 1978, p. 54), i found the article to have informative sources.— RobertCurtin (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English overseas possessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English overseas possessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109220606/http://www.essaysinhistory.com/review/2011/33 to http://www.essaysinhistory.com/review/2011/33

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Empire in the lead

This reversion in of challenged content [1] will not do. I will revert it back out shortly, but as my reasons are several, I thought it better to create a talk section where this can be discussed properly before reverting, so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Firstly, let's get one thing quite clear: I am not saying that we cannot use the term "English empire" at all in the article. Some scholars have written about an English empire (more on that below), but also used other terms. The article could and should discuss all of this. But what is wrong with the simplistic "or the English empire" in the lead is as follows:

This is a MOS:LEADCITE compliant lead that has and needs no citations, because the lead is properly a summary of the main text. Adding the text back with a reference damages the LEADCITE compliance and is done despite the fact (and the reference added because the fact) that this is novel information in the lead that does not summarise discussion in the text.
We have not established anyone historically called this the English empire, which would surely be necessary for a bolded mention in the first line of the lead. It would need to be a significant alternative form to warrant that per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES
British Empire was also a term that was already in use from Elizabethan times.
[John] Dee envisaged 'this incomparable Brytish Empire' as reaching to the north-east coast of America and the coasts of France and Germany and derived these expansive claims from the exploits of King Arthur and the Welsh Prince Madoc, who had allegedly discovered America four centuries before Columbus (Armitage, 2004:274).
The reference added is to a book chapter on the British Isles, which retrospectively speaks of the English empire, but actually not exactly. I quote:
It was characterised by the emergence of an ‘English empire’, or, more precisely, an empire based on the wealth, population and resources of southern England over the rest of the British Isles, and, in due course, over the east coast of North America and the West Indies (Kearney, 2006:157).
His thesis is a little more nuanced. He argues that a southern English polity exercised control that had little to do with the North of England and elsewhere, and he cautions
The history of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has been distorted by a tendency among historians to write about England without relation to other cultures of the British Isles (Kearney, 2006:162).
This would all be good stuff in the main, but it simply does not support adding that text in the lead with no explanation.
See Map 15 (Kearney, 2006:158). What Kearney is talking about is not exactly the overseas possessions. He includes Scotland and Wales, for instance, and the map has Ireland but is for the period before the American colonies. This does not match the page subject exactly.
There are other references that could be read and used here. In particular, The First English Empire 1093-1343. (2000). But note the date. Limiting the term "English Empire" to the Tudor period obliterates the first empire entirely. The overseas possessions are not synonymous with "English Empire".

So for all of these reasons, this is coming out of the lead, but no objection to some discussion of Empire (having actually read the sources, and not just googled them), in the article.

Armitage, David (2004). The Elizabethan Idea of Empire. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14, 269–77.
Davies, Rees (2000). The First English Empire 1093-1343. Oxford:OUP
Kearney, Hugh (2006). The British Isles - A History of Four Nations, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]