Talk:Empire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

History High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skip to table of contents

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knagayam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline?

A timeline is mentioned, specifically as a chart, but none is present. Before I delete the section about a non-existent timeline, I want to confirm that I'm not missing something here. Trumblej1986 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section Empire#Timeline of empires. Perhaps the mention could be improved to link t this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a section, but there is no chart or actual timeline, at least that I can see. That's why I'm asking about removing the section. Trumblej1986 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section begins with The chart below shows..., with a very large timeline chart following. Are you not seeing it? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section needs rewriting

The lead section contains grammar errors, is poorly written, and the use of quotes is, in my opinion, unnecessary. 2407:7000:9F9D:5100:9DA6:9D49:B63F:77F8 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV for United States

The section for the U.S. is a one-sided argument and not neutral. There's too much time devoted to arguing why the U.S. wasn't founded on imperialist principles, which isn't necessary, and there lacks any argument that says the U.S. isn't an empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristorin (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fritrum (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug>, I actually found the current version biased in the other direction, solely arguing for the view that Americans have 'ideological blinders' on that their nation is an empire & don't know it. Regardless though, there are a few things that can certainly be cleaned up:

1) remove the 'according to whom?' note re: American Imperialism being controversial... the provided citations later in the same section from Ludden & Miller should be more than sufficient to satisfy proof of there being a controversy. Can people PLEASE stop begging for citations on a sentence by sentence basis? It's stupid & asinine. 2) I'm also removing the adjective 'false' from the phrase 'Even so, the false ideology that the US was founded on Anti-Imperialist...', not only is this CLEARLY indicative of bias against the cogent ideology, but it doesn't even make logical sense, an ideology can't be false, people either believe in it or they don't. An ideology based on mumbo jumbo is still an ideology, & Wiki policy clearly constrains that kind of flowery addition outside of direct quotes - which this is not. The section still needs a rewrite, more clearly attributing the 1st few sentences to Ludden as opposed to just-so facts, but baby steps. Changes to follow this talk post :p 74.134.30.21 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything in the Ludden source justifying the idea that the "American Empire" characterization is controversial, so I removed that bit. — Freoh 13:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge chapters

I would merge chapters "Transition from empire" and "Fall of empires" and also move passage on the US from "Modern history" to chapter "United States" in "Contemporary usage." --Maxaxa (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Freoh (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Maxaxa (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Hi all,

Recently added some cleanup tags and did some minor edits. The neutral point of view (in favor of the US being an empire) and tone (too flowery and scholarly) of the article are questionable. I tried to at least do some minor edits to make the article sound less scholarly, but wouldn't know where to start on making it more neutral.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]