Talk:British Empire in World War II

Raison d'être

The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of World War II on the British Empire, an expansion of the World War II section in the B.E. article. It's not meant to be a military history article per se. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Singapore strategy"

The article section Pre-war plans for imperial defence makes reference to a "Singapore strategy" as

"Defence of the Empire in the Far East and Australasia had centred around the "Singapore strategy" since 1923."

and then goes on to, roughly, provide a synopsis of the strategy with a single sentence and a citation:

"This made the assumption that Britain could send a fleet to its naval base in Singapore within two or three days of a Japanese attack, while relying on France to help defend the Mediterranean against Italy and to provide assistance in Asia via its colony in Indochina."<ref>[[#refLouis]] p. 315 </ref>

That is fine, and I have nothing to offer to improve on it. However, I would suggest that editors of this page consider adding a ===Singapore strategy=== subsection heading prior to that paragraph. If this were done, it would be possible to Wikilink "Singapore strategy" in other Wikipedia articles to come to this article and find out just what "Singapore strategy" means. If other editors have no problem with it, I'll make the change in a few weeks or so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Empire or Commonwealth

Re the page move: The British Empire up to, during, and after World War II. The Commonwealth as the term is currently understood, did not come into being until 1949. There were indeed Commonwealth Realms from 1931 when the Statute of Westminster granted legislative independence to the Dominions, but this is needlessly complicated for high-level articles. If we are generalising - as we have to - then it is better to say "British Empire" for this period to cover all the variations, partly because most of the constituent (modern) countries were part of the Empire, not the Commonwealth, and partly because that is how it was seen from outside. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Easily the common name too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had this conversation, or similar ones, so many times I am getting better and better at it.

1. As the Oxford History of the British Empire (p. 558) makes clear:
(i.) "Commonwealth" has been a synonym for the whole Empire since 1766, if not earlier;
(ii.) "British Commonwealth" was (quote) 'popularized' (unquote) during World War 1;
(iii.) "British Commonwealth of Nations" entered legal usage in the Irish Constitution of 1921 and;
(iv.) the 1926 Imperial Conference and Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised both the "equality" of the Dominions with the UK and adopted the name "British Commonwealth of Nations".
2. British Commonwealth is the short form of the official name, as in: British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (established 1939) and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (1945).
3. While "British Empire" is unavoidable when it occurs in proper names during 1926–49 (e.g. British Empire Games), its use in relation to other things during 1926–49 is misleading, controversial and arrogant.
(v.) Because it implies that the Commonwealth was a coherent, unified political/military entity (it wasn't) and/or that the UK government oversaw everything that happened in the the whole Commonwealth (which was not the case).
(vi.) Because the name/s varied from country to country during 1926–49.
(vii.) Because there is an official name that is equally understood and recognisable, i.e. British Commonwealth;
4. The claim (by "Wiki-Ed") that "British Commonwealth" is "needlessly complicated" for a "high-level article".
(viii.) It isn't clear how or why "high-level" is being employed here, nor how this article qualifies for such a category.
(ix.) Wikipedia's rules regarding 'readability and accuracy apply equally to all articles.
(x.) Moreover, British Commonwealth is less "complicated" than terms that "Wiki-Ed" uses, such as "Empire and Commonwealth" [sic] or "British Empire and Commonwealth" [sic].

Unless someone can come up with a new and substantial consideration that overrides all of the above, I will de-revert the title, to "British Commonwealth in World War II".

Regardless of the title/location of the article, the simultaneous usage during the Second World War, of different names for the same entity is worthy of mention and needs to be addressed – whereas "Wiki-Ed" deleted my passage mentioning the adoption of the name Commonwealth in 1926.

Grant | Talk 05:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant65, you are of course welcome to open a requested move but there is clear opposition to a simple move to your preferred title so treating it as unopposed or uncontroversial is perhaps rather disingenuous. Particularly since you have not heard the reactions of any other users to your comment. Regardless of the minutiae, and your comments, your proposed title in my belief still unnecessarily over-complicates matters in the eyes of the casual reader ("Commonwealth"=post-decolonization?), there is a very good case to be made that British Empire equals a WP:Commonname. In addition, it clearly had contemporary usage and appears in contemporary scholarly works on the subject (see here for just one example). I for one would oppose such a move, but perhaps that's just me being "misleading, controversial and arrogant". In any case, why not add to the (currently extremely stubby and incomplete) article before fighting over the title? Best wishes, —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I don't think revisionism will get anywhere, but if he wants to request a page move I guess he can do so. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed: as a Wikipedia editor of 10 years standing and an admin for six years, I am well aware of my ability to request a page move. It isn't yet necessary, there are more commonsense options and I would rather show my respect for other editors, by asking them to justify their positions. Your claims that something – I'm not sure what – is "needlessly complicated", and that this is a "high-level article" still need to be justified. Your subsequent allegation of "revisionism" is a shallow one: as any professional historian, or anyone who has studied the subject at an advanced level knows, all historians and works of history integrate and "revise" past works. If they are doing their job.

Brigade Piron:

1. I must admit, before I moved the page I simply assumed that the old title resulted from unawareness of the Balfour Declaration of 1926. I can now see that other factors are at work. That is not to say that I was treating the matter "as unopposed or uncontroversial"; I would hardly be discussing it here if I was.
2. As for me adding to "to the (currently extremely stubby and incomplete) article before fighting over the title". That's exactly what I did. Such a casual dismissal, as "minutiae", of my detailed and easily-verifiable response above is refreshingly blunt. But it is not in the spirit of consensual editing.
3. On a related note, perhaps you are unaware that the deletion of referenced, obviously relevant material from an article – as you have recently done – is a violation of Wikipedia policy? Either way, you do need to explain your position that the official name of the entity in 1926–49 is unworthy of inclusion?
4. It is also a novel idea that we, as Wikipedia editors, should ignore (or censor) relevant facts because they "over-complicates matters in the eyes of the casual reader ("Commonwealth"=post-decolonization?)". Novel, but also in breach of basic Wikipedia policy. And there is no requirement to underestimate the "casual reader".
5. I'm glad that you raise WP:Commonname, which says: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." [my emphasis]. That is the official Wikipedia policy on what you refer to as "contemporary usage" and terms that "appeared in contemporary scholarly works on the subject": they are not irrelevant, but they are less relevant than the latest historiography (assuming that it has taken them into account). I think you would have to agree that "Commonwealth" is now the common name for the whole entity? That alone makes "Commonwealth in World War II" a more appropriate title than the present one. British Commonwealth in World War II is even more historically accurate, better reflects the official name at the time, makes the title less ambiguous and also alludes to the unique international relationships of 1926–1949.

Grant | Talk 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant, I don't like lecturing an admin (or anyone else) on WP policy, but Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I think would clearly explain to you why I reverted your edit, and why you are in fact edit warring now you have re-reverted it at this early stage in the discussion. Your reading of WP:Commonname is extremely exotic too - in my interpretation, it calls for the "most recognizable and the most natural" title, which is unquestionably "British Empire" for this period. I suggest that rather than fight about this here between the three of us, or attempt a unilateral move, we bring up this discussion on WP:MILHIST and WP:British Empire. Grant, I don't deny that "British Commonwealth" is one possible name and I imagine that your preference to the term originates in the fact that you are more interested in the dominions rather than the African, South American or Asian colonies by the way? I can understand this point and an explanation of this in the text would be logical, but as I say, the title "British Empire" seems infinitely clearer to me. On top of this, remember it would fit better with a British Empire in World War I article in the future. Please note that the modern commonwealth has absolutely no equivalence to an "empire" in any meaningful sense of the world, but this is a side point.

As for sources supporting "British Empire" as a common name, please see:

• The British Empire and the Second World War - an academic book written by Ashley Jackson (historian)
• An academic research group ("British Empire at War")
• An academic conference "An Imperial World at War: The British Empire, 1939-1945"
• Not to mention a whole variety of linked books, all of which take British Empire in the title (Cinema and Society in the British Empire, 1895-1940, Music and Orientalism in the British Empire, 1780s-1940s, Raising revenue in the British Empire, 1870–1940, Shameful Flight : The Last Years of the British Empire in India etc.)

Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• • The issue is not the name, it's the scope. The Statute of Westminster on 11 December 1931 meant that the Dominions were no longer ruled from the British Parliament, and were independent kingdoms with a direct relationship with the Queen in their own right. This article should only include those territories that were still part of the British Empire in 1939. That doesn't include Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada and the Irish Free State. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Only in Canada, Ireland and South Africa did the Statute of Westminster even apply in 1939. Australia only adopted it in 1942 and New Zealand after the war. Newfoundland never did; it just joined Canada. In any case total sovereignty was not achieved until 1981 in Canada and 1986 in Australia and New Zealand. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Empire does not necessarily mean rule from Westminster (that is an American War of Independence view) an alternative is to see the Empire of that time as a personal Union with the commonwealth realms as those with self government, within the Empire, or as Churchill put it "if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years", If seen that way then New Zealand's deceleration of war in WWII fits into that paradigm.
• The word Commonwealth is not the benign word that some people take it to mean. For example, Scotland was a member of the first British Commonwealth (1649–1660) by military force and Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth while the Irish were being given the choice of "to Hell or Connaught".
• The eventual self-government of India as seen by the British Government during the inter war years was seen as a gradual move to dominion status within the Empire from direct rule to indirect rule and a member of the Commonwealth -- leaving the Empire/Commonwealth was not foreseen as an option in the short or middle term.
• I suspect that the terminology is not something for which there will be a unified point of view, because it involves fundamental issues about how history is taught in schools of the different members of the Commonwealth today. I suspect that most countries teach that the Empire ended when their country obtained self government within the Commonwealth, until about the middle 60s when all that was left was of the Empire was "Malta Gibraltar and sweet Rock All".
• Whatever term is used, in law the difference between Commonwealth and Empire did not really strike home until the various realms (including Britain) changed their citizenship criteria so that the right to abode anywhere in the Commonwealth was removed. At that point for everyone (but the Queen to whom it did not apply) realized that they were legally bound to states within the Commonwealth rather than to the amorphous mass of territory within the Commonwealth (one sees those in favour of an ever closer union within the EU using the right to live anywhere as a factor which helps to bind the Union together).
• Today in Britain I suspect that for the period of the Second World War "British Empire" is a short hand for Churchill's "British Empire and its Commonwealth" while for Australians today "British Commonwealth" is the shorthand for the same phrase (primarily because of schooling which follows on to common usage in society). One option for the article name is "British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II". Although of course it is a mouthful compared to the current title it would be the sort of camel/horse solution that inclusive consensus tends to settle upon. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think removing Aus, Can, NZ and South Africa would be the ultimate conclusion of Grant65's proposal, which I think is what we should try to avoid. If I recall correctly this page was started because of a disagreement between myself and Redhat (the editor who created the page) over the amount of WW2 military content in the British Empire article. That article is a high level article and so is this - it doesn't go into much detail on each of the countries involved. If it is expanded from being a stub then we could start thinking about defining their status - be that dominion, colony, protectorate, mandate or other territory. However, if we're generalising (as we are) then we should go with the common general name, and perhaps seeks contemporary sources from outside those countries to support that (e.g. the US perspective).
• Looking at the map[1] most of the countries, most of the people and most of the resources were located in other parts of the world (i.e. not the Dominions). I wouldn't dispute that the Dominion contribution was, militarily, far more important than all those other parts combined, but we can't ignore the other countries which were not covered by the Balfour Declaration. I think we have two options: (1) we create a new article for the "British Commonwealth" countries and this one focuses on the rest of the Empire; or (2) We keep all relevant content under the well understood common term of "British Empire" and acknowledge the different legislative positions of each contributor under country-specific sub-sections.
• However, changing the title of "British Empire", right across Wikipedia, to "British Commonwealth" for this period is not an option. Previously I called the proposal to change the title "revisionism" - I meant this in the negationist sense insofar as the proposed title change appears to be a novel interpretation of facts/sources to present a parochial point of view as established history. That may have been a bit harsh insofar as it implies Grant is pursuing some sort of ideological agenda and I'm sure that's not the case - apologies for not assuming good faith. Nevertheless, we as Wikipedia editors cannot present revised interpretations of past works, even if professional historians can and do (I assume that's what Grant meant and not literally "revise past works). In this case the weight of RS is quite firmly in favour of the term British Empire and we should reflect that position.
• For the avoidance of doubt I am in favor of my proposed option (2) above - we can then reflect the status of each country accurately and neutrally, and in doing so improve the coverage of this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just seen PBS's post. I think he's spot on with Churchill's speech - that's exactly what I had in mind. His proposed compromise title might be clunky, but I'm be fine with that. Although I do think we should expand the coverage of the article to clarify the differences.Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II would solve the problem, since the Empire certainly existed, with holdings that are now British Overseas Territories, and Singapore and Hong Kong, which were not Commonwealth but Imperial possessions at the time of WWII. Alternately, we could just remove the mostly independent Dominion powers, but that would mean the article would remain as British Empire in World War II -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would we need to remove the dominions? To quote Balfour directly they are (or were), "...autonomous communities within the British Empire..." We might have to remove India if we go with 'British Commonwealth' though as she was specifically left out of the 1931 statute; and 'Commonwealth' is even worse, with member states not part of the Empire and vice-versa. I would suggest we decide what we want the article to include then edit it and label it accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• The conception that the Statute of Westminster on 11 December 1931 meant that the Dominions were no longer ruled from the British Parliament, and were independent kingdoms with a direct relationship with the Queen in their own right is quite wrong. The Dominions were already autonomous and self-governing. The point is that independence came from legislation in the United Kingdom parliament, which was now declaring that it would not attempt to change that. In fact, it had not done so in Australia since long before 1901. Nor did it establish a direct relationship with the Queen; this would come later. Looking through the documents, the term "British Commonwealth" seems to have come into vogue after the Balfour Declaration of 1926 for autonomous communities within the Empire. "Commonwealth and Empire" appears in the early 1930s. "British Empire" was still used through the Second World War years to include the Commonwealth. The article is something of a mess, but I think it would be better to go with British Empire in World War II. Nobody is going to be confused, nobody stepping in from 1945 via a time warp would think it was wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments. There are a few misconceptions at work in the above comments.

First, I am advocating a change to the name of the article, not the exclusion of discussion of the Dominions from the article.

Second, "British Commonwealth" was the short version of the official name of the whole entity from 1926, i.e. including the Indian Empire, the Crown Colonies, dependencies, and other overseas territories.

In other words, the Imperial Conference of 1926 effected two changes:

1. the UK government recognised the (quote) "equal" (unquote) status of the UK and Dominions and;
2. a name change, i.e. the whole (pre-1926) British Empire was now referred to officially as the British Commonwealth.

The dropping of "British" from the name followed in 1949, reflecting in part the granting of Dominion status to India etc. If anyone wants proof that "British Empire" was already regarded as archaic and obsolete during the Second World War, or that there is an ideological dimension to the insistence on "British Empire", "Empire & Commonwealth", "Commonwealth & Empire" etc., see this discussion of the matter, from a book published in 1962 by Ivor Jennings (then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge and constitutional lawyer):

In official documents, including the Covenant of the League of Nations [1919], "British Empire" continued in use until the Imperial Conference of 1926, when it did not suit General Herzog (South Africa), excerpt in a context which took away its nasty flavour.

From 1926, the British Empire disappeared, except among the die-hards.

Mr Winston Churchill sough a compromise in his Mansion House speech of 1943: [...] "some people like the word Commonwealth, others, and I am one of them, are not at all ashamed of the word Empire. But why should we not have both? [...]

"Commonwealth and Empire" [or "Empire & Commonwealth have] ...generally been regarded as a fad of the Churchillian wing of the Conservative party, an innocuous relic of Victorian imperialism. [my emphases]

(Ivor Jennings, 1962, Party Politics, vol. III, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 294n.)

Why the archaic and/or pedantic names for the post-1926 entity have lingered (or perhaps made a comeback) among lesser authorities and non-authorities is a mystery for someone else to solve.

I think the logic is inescapable.

• British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II, British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II (etc) should redirect to British Commonwealth in World War II, for the same reasons that:
  • President of the United States of America redirects to President of the United States, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland redirects to United Kingdom, i.e. the long forms are unnecessary and archaic, while the short form is unambiguous .

• British Empire in World War II should redirect to British Commonwealth in World War II, for the same reasons that
  • Maori War redirects to New Zealand land wars, i.e. the common name is archaic, and;
  • Princess Diana redirects to Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e. the common name is egregiously incorrect on a technical level.

Grant | Talk 05:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Another of these utterly pointless, time-wasting Wikipedia arguments, for an article that I started but probably noone will ever finish or read. Anyway, I'm opposed to Grant65's page move - whenever a Wikipedia editor resorts to "logic" you know original research is involved, or shall we say, original logic. I'll defer to Volume IV, Chapter 13 of the Oxford History of the British Empire: "The Second World War marked the greatest and the ultimate 'revival' of the British Empire." Grant65, I used to waste my life getting involved in these types of arguments about headings and article names and maps and then I realised two things: (1) that these kinds of fights don't really contribute much to Wikipedia or help the user - how about working on expanding the article instead of arguing about its title? and more importantly (2) life is too short - go out and enjoy it! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
TOGETHER

IWM PST 8457

Pat, thanks. If you aren't "enjoying life" maybe you should lead by example? "Go out" and leave the rest of us to it. Especially since, as you suggest, you are no longer interested in an article that, in your opinion, "probably noone will ever finish or read?

Regarding that quote from the Oxford History of the British Empire: in fact, the UK still has an empire, in the general sense of the term, in the form of its overseas territories. It's just that "Empire" has become increasing unfashionable since the name "Commonwealth" was officially introduced in 1926. By then it was not just old-fashioned; it also had what Phillip Jennings (see above) called "a nasty flavour". I guess he means an association with things like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre or the Black and Tans. It's curious that no-one else seems aware of, or is troubled by those non-NPOV implications of "Empire".

Neither was the Commonwealth of 1939–45 politically or legally (i.e. constitutionally) much like the British Empire of Boer War or WW1.

As shown, for instance, by the slogan on this variant of the article pic, from 1941 (upper left).

In fact, even the choice of the current image is interesting, as the IWM has several versions, including some (not yet uploaded to Wikimedia) that mention the British Commonwealth (lower left).

It also seems to have escaped the attention of many here that WP:TITLE defines "common name" as "a commonly or frequently used name", i.e. not necessarily the most common name. I wonder how many citations/examples from 1939–45 will suffice to illustrate that not only was "British Commonwealth" technically correct, it was also one of the common names for the whole "Empire" during WW2. Grant | Talk 05:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• some points I see one is this isnt the high level articles its a daughter article of British Empire it even has its own section there, now from an Australia perspective WWII was seen as the trigger for the "End of the Empire" psyche its credited with a shift to the importance of Australia having an independent relationship with USA, NZ and other countries especially in the SE Asia region. IMHO British Empire is an appropriate term in this context though the use of Commonwealth would not cause a dramatic misunderstanding to the casual reader. Yet using Commonwealth could affect those looking into that period and subsequent aftermarth of Australian history where the psychological distinction is significant to the understanding of other events. Gnangarra 08:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not entirely convinced by Ngrams, mainly because they only include stuff that's been uploaded (obviously) but also because there isn't a way to define the context; however a search of Google books reveals this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=British+Empire%2C+British+Commonwealth&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1926&year_end=1945&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CBritish%20Empire%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBritish%20Empire%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBritish%20empire%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBRITISH%20EMPIRE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CBritish%20Commonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBritish%20Commonwealth%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBRITISH%20COMMONWEALTH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBritish%20commonwealth%3B%2Cc0 That aside, my main problem with using the term British Commonwealth is that its meaning changed through the course of history and is now almost entirely synonymous with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth (as I'm sure we all know) is an entirely different commonwealth to the one being discussed in the article. Empire, in my opinion, is far less ambiguous and probably the most common term during the war.--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I count nine editors opposing the proposed change, presumably on the basis of the fact there are countless reliable sources, both contemporary and modern, using the phrase "British Empire" as the common term up to, during and after WW2.

User:Grant65 asks how many examples he needs to provide. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources so I think the first part of the answer has to be: lots of high quality sources which specifically say that the term "British Commonwealth" was used in preference to the term "British Empire" before 1947. For information I have already identified one RS which directly and explicitly contradicts his quote from Ivor Jennings above. And I note that said gentleman was himself quite content to publish a book entitled "Constitutional Laws of the British Empire" in 1938, the title of which he did not revise until 1957. Perhaps he was a closet "die-hard".

However, finding a few sources is not going to be enough. There is a firm argument to be made about undue weighting: a few secondary sources and posters does not change the balance of the scales here. I'm reluctant to turn to Google as User:Ykraps has done, but I acknowledge it reveals a trend. It seems to have escaped User:Grant65's attention that most historians do not use the term "British Commonwealth" as an alternative to British Empire; those that do appear to be Australian (I would be interested to know what editors in other "dominions" find if they take a quick trip to the historical section of a book store or library). Sources in the UK use the term British Empire - to the extent that this proposal ought to generate a WTF response.

Finally, I think the basis for User:Grant65's arguments is that he thinks the Balfour Declaration changed the name for the entire entity in 1926. This seems to be at odds with the actual text.[2] Perhaps he could give us a page and paragraph reference to support his assertion as the definition in Section II, paragraph 1 applies only to the Dominions; contingencies for the rest of the Empire are covered elsewhere, as illustrated in the appendix.

This is, of course, all rhetorical. We have offered a compromise position. It's barely acceptable on the basis of the weighting of available sources so I'd suggest he takes the offer while it remains open. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's important for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia to distinguish what term was used historically and what term is generally accepted nowadays and appears in reliable sources about the period in question. Obviously, noone referred to the Middle Ages as "the Middle Ages" at the time, nor did the "Anglo-Saxons" refer to themselves as such, and yet obviously it would be silly to suggest that we cannot have an encyclo in the 21st century that uses these terms when those are the terms people in the 21st century use. That said, I dispute Grant65's premise. The 1926 BD defined the British Commonwealth as a subset of the British Empire, members of which were equal in status etc. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also just to remind everyone, the name of this article carries close to zero informational content for the reader, and editors should ask themselves why they are investing so much of their time arguing about it when there is so much actual constructive work that could be done to improve the article. Anyway, Grant65, I'm off to enjoy my life. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Gnangarra/YKraps: in fact, we are dealing with three phases and three short, common names for one entity:

• British Empire (1707–1926);
• British Commonwealth (1926–1949) and;
• Commonwealth (1949– ).

Wiki-Ed, I could find nine editors who agreed with me if I wanted. So what? As George Orwell said "sanity is not statistical". By the way, if want to persuade others of your opinion, it's better to defend it here you spent as much time here justifying your position, rather than scurrying to the talk pages of agreeable editors, "rallying the troops" to intercede here. It smacks of deliberate systemic bias

Since you raise "exceptional claims": there is nothing whatsoever novel or exceptional about the idea that the "British Empire" officially changed its name in 1926. Or that "British Commonwealth" was a common name. Or that British Commonwealth" was widely used "in preference" to British Empire. (By 1943, as Jennings points out, "British Commonwealth" was so widely used that even Churchill was complaining about it and calling for a return to the old name; see the Jennings quote above). If anything is "exceptional", Ed, it's your implication that British Commonwealth was virtually unknown/extremely rare or confusing to people in 1939&45.

For what it's worth, I think there is evidence that South Africa, Ireland, and Canada (which was the hub of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan from 1939) adopted "British Commonwealth" more quickly than Australia and New Zealand.

Regarding the significance of the Balfour Declaration: what I am saying is that (1) there was some usage of "British Commonwealth" for the whole empire long before 1926 and; (2) while Balfour extended equality with the UK only to the Dominions, the name "British Commonwealth" quickly became adopted as shorthand for the whole thing. (See the poster above.)

Pat Ferrick's point that it is sometimes acceptable to impose names on subjects from the past is a good one; however, it doesn't apply here, because in 1939–45, "British Commonwealth" was widely used and understood, even by those who didn't use it, as the new name of the Empire.

Grant | Talk 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the confusion is now. You the see the British Empire, The British Commonwealth and the Commonwealth of Nations as the same thing, whereas I (and I think everyone else here) sees them as three separate entities.--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion lies a bit deeper than that. User:Grant65 appears to think that they were "officially" defined entities. The British Empire was never legally or otherwise defined - the Balfour Declaration even says as much.

• Regarding the significance of the Balfour Declaration: what I am saying is that (1) there was some usage of "British Commonwealth" for the whole empire long before 1926 and... We can agree that the term "Commonwealth" is not new to British history. However, the assertion that "British Commonwealth" was used as an alternative for the whole Empire before 1926 is not supported. 1, there were alternative terms like "Commonwealth of Nations" (1884) which predate the first recorded use of the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" (1917). 2, it is unclear what the authors intended these terms to cover. It is anachronistic to assume that Archibald Primrose's concept of "nations" in 1884 is the same as what we see as "nations" today. 3. the term "British Commonwealth" doesn't appear in a legal document until 1921, and it isn't defined until 1926 when it was applied specifically to the Dominions.
• (2) while Balfour extended equality with the UK only to the Dominions, the name "British Commonwealth" quickly became adopted as shorthand for the whole thing. (See the poster above.) This, then, is the contentious point. Institutions [3], events [4], ship names [5] and even the King continued to use 'empire' or 'imperial' in their title for decades. Apparently there are a small number of few sources like this Jennings fellow who contend it all changed in 1926, but he undermines his own argument by publishing a book with the term "British Empire" in the title. Other, more reliable, sources for this period like M. R. D. Foot in his Oxford History of the Second World War and Jan Morris in Pax Britannica acknowledge the attempt to define boundaries, but state clearly that the entity was called "British Empire" during this period.

We can agree that the term "British Commonwealth" might have been recognised, to varying degrees, but that's a long way short of being seen as an equivalent common name. The claim is exceptional, undue weight is being placed on a contradictory source and the user is relying partly on analysis of primary evidence, which is OR.

PS. User:Grant65: Drop the silly accusations: I drew the attention of Redhat to this article a) because he created it and b) because I know he has access to one of the sources you originally referred to. I haven't solicited opinions from others - you'd know about it if I had. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to Wiki-Ed's good points, Grant65, how is that poster evidence for your claim? There are six flags there: Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sout Effrika, and India which again are a subset of the British Empire. This whole argument reminds me of one I got involved in with an editor (eventually banned) at Gibraltar who was adamant - on the basis of similar sorts of original research that are being employed here - that (1) there was no such currency as the Gibraltar Pound [6] and (2) that the term "British overseas territory" was incorrect, that it was "UK overseas territory" [7]. He proceeded to waste multiple editors' time for months on end while we resolved it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ykraps: not exactly. The article already concerns the whole, heterogeneous entity (UK, Dominions, Indian Empire, Crown Colonies, dependencies etc) in 1939–45; I don't see a push to change that. If so, it then becomes a question of what we call the article. "British Empire", by 1939, was already a controversial name (as I have demonstrated above), (1) because of its historical baggage and (2) because it no longer technically applied to the Dominions. Which is why British Commonwealth is the best term for the title.

Wiki-Ed, you're a mass of self-contradictions. Earlier you disdained appeals to logic as "original research", which is certainly an original definition and has not stopped you attempting to use logic yourself. I also find it "exceptional" when you claim that the British Empire was not the official name of the thing before 1926 and, in almost your next breath insist that "the King" continued to use 'empire' and 'imperial'....for decades". In fact, King George VI had a quid each way. For instance, on May 24, 1940, he said: "One year ago today I spoke to the peoples of the Empire from Winnipeg in the heart of Canada. We were at peace. On that Empire Day I spoke of the ideals of freedom, justice and peace upon which our Commonwealth of free peoples is founded." Note the use of "Empire" and "Commonwealth" interchangeably. And as Jennings's quote of Churchill shows, usage of "Empire" exclusively, in preference to "Commonwealth" was already self-consciously archaic and recalcitrant. David Cannadine refers to "the 'British Commonwealth', that had lapsed in 1948" (Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, p159). In other words, my claim is, in your terms, clearly far from "exceptional" and does not place "undue weight ... on a contradictory source". (Before today I had already cited several sources; you could easily find plenty more, if you were interested in seeing them.) I have demonstrated widespread usage of British Commonwealth in 1939–45 without "relying" at all "analysis of primary evidence". (For you to say this suggests that you do not understand what primary evidence or original research are.) And, to use your terms, British Commonwealth was a "common name". Merely repeating empty and unsubstantiated claims and allegations, Ed, does not validate the repeater. Why don't you try providing evidence for your position?

Red/Pat: I'm not sure what purpose an anecdote about someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the Gibraltar pound is supposed to serve. You, after all, are effectively saying that British Commonwealth did not mean the whole entity in 1939–45. But it did: as is shown by the "Together" series of propaganda posters, printed in Britain and distributed around the world. They demonstrate that the UK government during World War II used "British Commonwealth of Nations", in preference to "British Empire & Commonwealth", or any other formulations, for the whole entity. Your approach and that of Wiki-Ed reminds me of the editors who periodically moan about how Association football is not at Football – mind you, the same mindset used to moan even more when that article was at Football (soccer). A case that nicely illustrates the insularity of some cliques of editors and perfectly illustrates (first) how some common names are unsuitable, and (second) how consensus includes compromise. Don't worry; we have along way to go before we plumb the depths of some debates on Wikipedia.

Speaking of World War II propaganda posters from the UK, I also like this one, entitled The British Commonwealth. The IWM description says: "a map of the world, with countries that form part of the British Commonwealth coloured red". The text on the poster says:

THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

The PEOPLES of the COMMONWEALTH
United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 47,387,000
Dominions ..................................................................................................  33,000,000
India and Burma ......................................................................................  380,000,000
U.K. and Dominion Dependencies Protectorates and Mandated Territories  65,000,000
.................................................................................................................  525,387,000
KEY
Great Britain, Colonies, Dependencies and Protectorates
Self-governing Dominions and their Dependencies
India and Burma Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
British Mandated Territories
Dominion Mandated Territories

Printed in England by Fosh and Cross Ltd., London.

Grant | Talk 07:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of inane snipping at other users, can we all just read Wikipedia:Civility and just open a proper move discussion (in which some kind of concensus either way may be reached) and simply vote on the whole thing there? That way we can all just move on... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Grant65, you are engaging in histogriographical original research not history, I'm afraid. Picking primary sources such as posters or declarations or whatever, interpreting them yourself is original research. It's what contemporary sources use that we must follow. Otherwise, what on earth would we call an article on the origins of the BE, before Britain existed as a state and before anyone called it such a thing? (John Dee excepted). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red/Pat, you clearly do not understand what original research is.

Brigade, as I've said before, I was hoping to resolve this without the formalities, but you're probably right in this instance.

Grant | Talk 11:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor for almost a decade, I have a perfectly good grasp of what original research is, thank you very much. Quoting from that policy page (not a guideline page, btw), "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." That is exactly what you are doing with these contemporary posters etc. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. You don't understand what constitutes primary and secondary sources. Hence your misconceptions of OR. Grant | Talk 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read Primary source. "A primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study". The original text of the Balfour declaration is a primary source, but a book or paper analysing it would be a secondary source. Your "Nazi tyranny" poster is a primary source, but a book or paper analyzing its significance would be a secondary source. The "British Commonwealth" map poster is a primary source, though if it appeared e.g. in the Oxford History of the British Empire, drawn by one of the authors in the late 1990s it would be a secondary source. To repeat again from WP's policy page, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

From Requested Moves:

• "A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus. To place a formal request for a potentially controversial page move, please see Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.""

Without commenting on the merits of the argument - there's clearly no consensus for a move and neither side is presently convincing the other of their case. The conversation is also becoming unproductive and somewhat hostile. If proponents of the move still want it pursued they should take the formal step outlined above, and lodge it as a Requested Move. Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary

Since the question has now arisen again, let me summarize this long and learned discussion so it doesn't get get lost. CW == Commonwealth or British Commonwealth. Hoping I have gotten the summary of everybody's position right.

Supporting "British Empire"

• User:Wiki-Ed -- CW did not even exist before 1949, and 1) most of the constituent (modern) countries were part of the Empire, not the CW, and 2) Empire not CW was mostly used at the time particularly by Americans, Russians, etc.
• User:Brigade Piron -- yup, Empire per WP:COMMONNAME.
• User:Ykraps -- Arthur Balfour says the dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire". And using CW means we might have to omit Indian forces. Also, behond this Ngram which favors "British Empire" over "British Commonwealth" by much.
• User:Hawkeye7 -- all in all, British Empire best for various reawsons.
• User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, article creator -- opposed to the move for various reasons.
• User talk:Gnangarra -- It's complicated, but "British Empire is an appropriate term in this context" although CW has different merits.

Supporting "British Commonwealth"

• User:Grant65 -- many points, hard to summarize easily, but per WP:COMMONNAME. And it implies a degree of unification, and direction from London, that didn't exist. Many other points.
• User:Peacemaker67 -- "This article [under the "British Empire name"] should only include those territories that were still part of the British Empire in 1939. That doesn't include Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada and the Irish Free State."

Unclear or other

• User:Srnec -- contra User:Peacemaker67, "Only in Canada, Ireland and South Africa did the Statute of Westminster even apply in 1939..." [But does she mean the article should keep the "British Empire" name and omit Canadian forces while keeping New Zealander? That would be awkward -ed.]
• User:PBS -- depends on where you are, "Today in Britain I suspect that for the period of the Second World War 'British Empire' is a short hand for Churchill's "British Empire and its Commonwealth" while for Australians today 'British Commonwealth' is the shorthand for the same phrase..." suggests "British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II" but admits that also has problems.
• User:65.94.169.222 -- seconding ""British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II"
• User:Euryalus. Stop. Too long. You are become unproductively entrenched. Make a formal WP:RM or don't.

---

Both User:Wiki-Ed and User:Grant65make the point that of the Five Virtues of WP:Article Titles, two -- Recognizability and Naturalness -- are better met by the familiar "British Empire" rather than "British Commonwealth". Various examples are given. The counter from User:Grant65 is Precision since CW is more correct and accurate.

Various other arguments and points were made at very great length mainly between two or three editors, and nobody really convinced anybody. By my reckoning the headcount was

• 6 to keep "British Empire"
• 2 for "British Commonwealth"
• 1 or maybe 2 for ""British Empire and Commonwealth"

And we can fold those results and the arguments above into any future WP:RM, once we figure out how this article interacts with Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War, which question I'll address below in a separate section. Herostratus (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect|Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War

This article was initially almost exclusively about the British Empire military activity in the war. Content about the war was significantly expanded and a new topical article created in line with Wikipedia practices - Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War. An article on the British Empire in World War Two, may be usefully developed into one about the seminal trends and developments within the Empire during the period of the war, in areas such as politics, immigration, nationalism, colonialism, anti-colonialism, etc... I will endeavour to initiate new content as soon as possible. Robert Brukner (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

But the people who created and worked on the article intended it as a military history of the Empire/Commonwealth/Empire+Commonwealth. Rather than redoing the article to be about something else, I would have recommended retitling this one to be "Military History..." and adding your additions and changes here. This not having been done, let's have a merge (see the discussion pointed to below).

Stuff about politics, immigration, nationalism, colonialism, anti-colonialism, etc. I would suggest should go to into an entirely new article.

There certainly could usefully exist an article specifically about just the non-military experiences of just the colonies, or an article about the military and non-military experience of just the colonies, or an article about just the non-military experiences of both the colonies and the dominions.

How these would be titled I'm not sure, but for any article that has "World War II" in it that isn't military, you might well want to start off with something like "Political and economic aspects..." or whatever, so as to clarify. "Entity X in World War II" I think many people are going to expect to be mainly about military stuff. In the same way that "Military history of X in WWII" explicitly clarifies this, an article about politics, immigration, nationalism, colonialism, anti-colonialism, etc. should probably be titled something like "Political and social history of X in WWII", for clarification. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Request for approval to merge" discussion

See Talk:Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War#Request for approval to merge Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move despite good arguments on both sides. Forking out a specific article on military events and expanding the coverage of this historical period in the British Empire would probably resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties involved. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

---

British Empire in World War II → Military History of the British Empire in World War II – This is probably going to be uncontested but I want to be sure, so let's take our time. Important note: this strictly about whether or not to prepend "Military history of..."; the Empire/Commonwealth thing is off the table, we will have a separate RM about that after this one. This article is a military history, and it is standard to prepend "Military history of..." to these articles (searching on "prefix:Military history" yields 100+ matches). This article is large already and shoehorning in non-military stuff would make it unwieldy. If someone wants to create an article on the political events, economic dislocation, and social unrest in the Empire/Commonwealth during WWII, that's a separate article; what the name of that article should be is a separate discussion. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, as proposer, just on the question of prepending "Military history of the". Again clarifying that I do not have a position on the Empire/Commonwealth question and that's to be decided later and please let's not muddy the waters by discussing that question now. (N.B. by "Empire/Commonwealth question" I mean whether the article shall be titled "Military history of the British Empire..." or "Military history of the British Commonwealth..." or "Military history of the British Commonwealth and Empire..." or some other thing." Everyone will have a chance to have their say on this soonest.) Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that we should keep the empire/commonwealth discussion out of this, but I really oppose the move. No WWII-related article could ever totally ignore military content altogether - especially the major strategic plans which the empire's defence created. A quick glimpse through Template:WWII history by nation makes it manifestly clear that "Foo in WWII" is more common than "Military history of Foo".—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also add that the article is only so vast because of the huge (and, to my mind, unnecessary) lists which have recently been added. Not to mention the lengthy and imprecise bibliography added today... —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, but just to point that there are 15 instances for X in titles "Military history of X in World War II" (Australia, Gibraltar, the United States, Italy, Canada, Greece, Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, Finland, South Africa, the Phillippines, New Zealand, the Netherlands, France, and Latvia). So its far from unheard of. On the other hand, there is no X for the Soviet Union Belgium, Poland, Romania, and so forth. So it's far from universal.

As to Template:WWII history by nation, a lot of those countries didn't have a lot of military activity, so Argentina during World War II and so on makes sense as an article covering all aspects of this time for that country. The Commonwealth/Empire had a lot more going on.

I gather that what you're saying is keep the title and fold in the non-military stuff. I think it would maybe be unwieldy to have the Malaya Campaign, and pre-war defense plans, and the evacuation of British children to Canada, and the Indian independence movement during this time, and the political and economic development of Australia toward more self-sufficiency, and so forth to be in one article. I could be wrong about that if all of these are summarized succinctly with pointers to the main articles. But even then I don't see the benefit really. Too unwieldy. Herostratus (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Do I really understand you correctly? Are you actually saying that it is impossible ("too unwieldy") to have both social and military history in the same article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I mean, it depends on how the article's structured. If it's structured (as this is, mainly) as a list pointing to other articles, you can shoehorn in an awful lot -- if you want to. I don't know as we want to. There's a limit. It's a matter of opinion I guess. But its not madness or idiocy to hold that sticking to just strictly military stuff in this article makes for a less sprawling article. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The title of this article implies more than just military history. The reason for its creation (as stated by RedHat on 27 Dec 08) is to cover the wider impact and PBS has made a good argument on the other page. It would be no more "unwieldy" than a history of, say, a large geographical area over a period of 500 years, which we have somehow managed with the parent article... Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: It is bad form to make substantial edits to an article during a discussion like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Ed (talk • contribs)

No one has done so, so that is complete non sequiter. You may be confused with your timeline. Another article was merged into this article, and then this Requested Move was initiated. Herostratus (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

a) There have been 16 edits between now and the time you started this discussion, including one substantive edit to the content by you. b) The fact you and other editors have merged or added content - including contentious wording and ridiculously long lists - immediately before starting the discussion means we're discussing something different to the (admittedly incomplete) article that existed until a week ago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I was unaware of the protocol. No further edits will occur. On the question of "ridiculous". I would ask that we press pause on comments about editorial techniques and the method by which a group goes about constructing an article collectively, until after we sort out the other issues. Robert Brukner (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, As noted above by Wiki-Ed, the original intent of the article was to cover the wider context of the period. What content the last pre-merger version of British Empire in World War II had, while incomplete, was focused solely on the war. My expansion of the article focused on military content, following on its then existent content. The topic of the British Empire and Commonwealth during this period is multifaceted. The social, political, geographic and military components are too large for one article. The content, as it is now, is the Military history of the British Empire and Commonwealth in WWII. Content about the wider context needs to be developed. I support taking all the current content of British Empire in World War II and placing it into Military history of the British Empire in World War II. If there is a desire to prepare content suitable to a broad spectrum article about the British Empire in WWII then that article should be written into and titled British Empire in World War II Robert Brukner (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

On the question of "Military history of..." It is the subcategory for Category:Military history by country. There are well over 200 articles using "Military history of..." and over 150 categories using "Military history of...". It is a major reference point for the exploration of the military history of all nations. I don't see how we can avoid it.Robert Brukner (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I request the input of @Llammakey: @Mr rnddude: who partially commented on this matter in the last discussion, and of @Peacemaker67: Robert Brukner (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I gave at Talk:Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War#Discussion. -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Just to expand on a point I made earlier... we have these 15 articles:

• Military history of Australia during World War II
• Military history of Gibraltar during World War II
• Military history of the United States during World War II
• Military history of Italy during World War II
• Military history of Canada during World War II
• Military history of Greece during World War II
• Military history of Bulgaria during World War II
• Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II
• Military history of Finland during World War II
• Military history of South Africa during World War II
• Military history of the Philippines during World War II
• Military history of New Zealand during World War II
• Military history of the Netherlands during World War II
• Military history of France during World War II
• Military history of Latvia during World War II

However some other articles just omit the "Military History of..." prefix:

• Soviet Union in World War II
• Belgium in World War II
• Romania in World War II
• Hungary in World War II
• Yugoslavia in World War II which redirects to World War II in Yugoslavia

and some done't fit either rubric, at least in the targets of their redirect:

• Norway in World War II which redirects to German occupation of Norway
• Poland in World War II (it's a redirect to History of Poland (1939–45))
• China in World War II (it's a redirect to Second Sino-Japanese War)
• Brazil in WWII (it's a redirect to Brazilian Expeditionary Force)
• Japan in World War II is a redirect to a section of Military history of Japan

I wouldn't count countries that weren't significant combatants; they would be expected to not have "Military history..." type articles. And most (not all) of the remaining non-"Military history..." titles are for countries that didn't really have an extensive battle history, such as Belgium and Norway and Yugoslavia, where most of their WWII history was being occupied or whatever. But you do have the Soviet Union and Romania and so on. So while most of the articles are "Military history of..." it's certainly not universal.

So anyway, looking at the Five Virtues of WP:Article titles, we have: Recognizability ("The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize") and Naturalness ("The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles") not clearly favoring either "Military history of the British Empire..." or just "British Empire..." in my personal opinion.

Precision ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects") clearly favors "Military History of..." since that is more precise, but then Conciseness ("The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects") clearly favors just "British Empire...".

So then the tie breaker would be Consistency ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") which tends to favor "Military history of..." since we have 15 other articles with that title, and by fewer than than (of countries that fought major military campaigns) that don't have that title.

So there's a tendency for us to to go with "Military history of...", and if we're not going to do that, I'd like to see arguments along the lines of "Well, the article about the British Empire/Commonwealth in World War II is or should be sufficiently different from similar articles about France and Italy and Canada and so forth such that we should title it differently, because _______" and I'd like to see what would go in the blank. Maybe it's "because it's not a country" or something (although I'm not sure why that should matter). Or something else.

But absent that, I think the person closing the requested move is kind of bound to consider that the policy (consistency) tends to favor "Military history of..." at least a little, and that probably matters some. Herostratus (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, If we go with Military history of..., than that allows us to reserve "British Empire in World War II" for a more expansive article about the many other social and political events that impacted the British Empire during this critical period. British Empire in World War II is the main article. Military history of... becomes a secondary article. Robert Brukner (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Requested move 22 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus to Move I am loath to rely on disjointed and isolated discussions (as was the case here) in making a move decision. There is just too much chaff in amongst the substance and no clear positions one way or the other. Although the current title may seem inappropriate given the complexity of British history, it clearly is not ambiguous nor does it give the reader any false leads. Comprehensive redirects and reconciling/clarifying content would be the better solution. All that said, if another RM is burning a hole in some editor’s pocket, then it should be conducted here with clear and concise Support/Oppose arguments based on a specifically recommended new title and not an endless rehash of the tit to tat discussions above. RM’s with no new title suggestions are like floating in the open ocean in a raft, no matter which way you go you will get somewhere, but no one knows where that will be. If a new RM is open, be specific with the new title recommendation. Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

British Empire in World War II → Something else – The new name could be:

• British Commonwealth in World War II, or
• British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II

or something else, or of course keeping the current name of just "British Empire in World War II", and let the closer decide which has the best argument and most support.

The arguments over changing or keeping are discussed exhaustively (and somewhat acerbically) above: Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth, usefully summarized here IMO: Talk:British Empire in World War II#Summary, where we see a strong majority favoring just "British Empire" (and the closer should peruse this section and count those voices, if they don't re-appear hear), but this was not formatted as a Requested Move so there was no final decision, so as promised I present this as such.

Just to point out, the question is for X in "X in World War II" where "X" is the name of political entity; the question of adding "Military history of..." or anything else of that nature has just been decided and is off the table. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II even though it's long. The reason for using "Commonwealth" is that "Empire" is not an accurate way to describe the dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand) which were much the non-UK contributors. The reason for adding "and Empire" is that, as others have pointed out, otherwise we exclude India and other entities. Maybe or maybe not, but the argument's been made and its reasonable.

"British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II" gives us the best "recognizability" -- using just "Empire" implies that the dominions won't be covered. It gives us the best "precision", as (at cost of length) it makes very clear what we're talking about here. It's long, but "conciseness" asks us for the shortest title that is consistent with precision and this is it IMO. "Consistency" is off the table IMO since we don't really have many similar articles. It does lack "naturalness" since most people are going to be writing or using either "British Empire" or "British Commonwealth" rather than this lengthy combination. But there's really no very "natural" title since the naturalness is split between British Empire and British Commonwealth.

I'm not interested in official names or what people said in 1945 or 1965 or 1985 but only in serving the reader of today. There's no perfect solution, and as someone pointed out it matters whether the reader is in Australia or England and we have readers in both places (and many others). I don't think it's possible get good data from Ngrams or anywhere else, so I'm forced back to some degree on my own personal reading experience (as an American), which tells me that serious writers most often refer to Australian etc. troops and activities as Commonwealth rather than Empire or Imperial. Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure this is how requested moves work. Don't you actually need a proposed new title to vote on? Either way, I'm dead opposed to changing the current title for reasons that have been amply discussed above. Since this particular dead horse is well and truly flogged, it would be nice to see Herostratus spend as much time improving the article as discussing its title... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure it works OK this way User:Brigade Piron. Not all choices are binary, and our closers can tease out from the discussion the course of action that best fits. I promised to run another Requested Move in order to sort out the whole mess caused by the (inadvertent) content fork and subsequent merge and this I am doing. OK we'll put you down as opposed to a move based on the totality of your experience and research as to what is the common name, and everything's all Sir Garnet. Herostratus (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The Five Virtues of WP:Article titles are:

• Recognizability – Someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

"Conciseness" might militate a little bit against "British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II" since that is long, but only if its not more precise -- that is, more correctly describing the entity -- than just "British Empire..." or "British Commonwealth...". Other than that, we mostly want the WP:COMMONNAME, to find that name that people (nowadays, not people living in 1945) would most likely search for or write into a link ("Naturalness") and mostly like get what the article is about as soon as they see it ("Recognizability").

Data on what is the common name is hard to come by. this Ngram favors "British Empire" in an "armies of..." context, but then this one seems to favor "Commonwealth" in "armed forces..." context, and this is hard subject on which to form a decisive Ngram query it appears.

"Consistency" I also cannot seem to get useful data on... we have 15 articles that begin "British Empire..." 6 that begin "British Commonwealth...", but these are all official names of things, so that's no use. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you meant to say "British Commonwealth armed forces" rather than just "Commonwealth armed forces?". That seems to return a different result. Turning to the criteria you've quoted:

• Recognizability – I take this to mean a way of distinguishing a title from something similar. In this case we could assume that most readers will look for "British Empire" because there is currently a "British Commonwealth". However, the current incarnation is very different to the 'Commonwealth' of the 1930s/1940s. There was, of course, also an English Commonwealth in the 1600s which readers in the UK would know about, even if readers in other, younger, parts of the English speaking world are less familiar with it. Also, by way of example for those readers with longer memories: the "British Empire Games" were so called from 1930–1950; they became the "British Empire and Commonwealth Games" from 1954–1966, the "British Commonwealth Games" from 1970–1974 and then the "Commonwealth Games" since 1978. If we take this to indicate common contemporary usage (as we should) then the term "British Empire and Commonwealth" was not current during WWII.
• Naturalness - The term "British Empire" is shorter. I would assume that the formal name for the political entity during 1930s/1940s is not as well known so readers are less likely to look for it.
• Conciseness – "British Empire"... obviously.
• Consistency – I don't see any point trying to assess this. You'd need to identify articles which only cover the short period, but against a backdrop of articles like the "Historiography of the British Empire" which cover 500 years. I think we could reasonably expect that most articles would use a short form unless it is actually a formal title (e.g. British Empire and Commonwealth Games).
• Precision – This is the only arguable point. We can use a precise title (e.g. "British Empire and Commonwealth" - words in that order) or we can use a short form (E.g. "British Empire"). However, we cannot use "British Commonwealth" as a short form for the British Empire. This is inaccurate and confusing: for the time period in question it refers only to a proportion of the British Empire, not the whole entity, and in our current time it refers to a different entity altogether.

I would, of course, argue that conciseness, naturalness and recogniseability trump 'precision' in this case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editing Suggestions

If there are CONTRIBUTIONS to make please outline them or provide them. Deletion of material does not progress the communal development of material for this article, and is extremely hostile in the context of the recent debate. The lists provided in this article exist as a reference point to potential areas of development and information of value to those interested in further understanding the British Empire in the Second World War. Robert Brukner (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the lists currently on the page (except the list of colonies/possessions which is reasonably helpful) detract from article. What are the criteria for inclusion? Where are the citations? Does it really make it any clearer for the reader? It's worth looking at the guidance at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Is it not rather strange that half the article should be taken up by a glorified "see also" section? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If the editing process for this article is to remain transparent and open for comment, then we need to share our ideas and concepts. As you can see, my initial listing of battles is now contained in a Campaignbox template. That has always been the intention. I invite comment, and offer suggestions. Currently, I am trying to work out a way to effectively direct the reader to matters pertaining to the various home front histories. Right now it is just a section of lists. Even with prose, there are a lot of outbound links to encompass. Perhaps another Campaign style box. Not sure. Any thoughts? Robert Brukner (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)