420:
because we would have the deliberate aim of making such a counter-argument. I do appreciate you don't like this book, and I don't like it either. But I truly fear there isn't much we can do. Plus, to go about trying to prove this book cannot be taken seriously as a textbook is also POV; we must be neutral in our approach. I do think, nevertheless, that most people can work out from reading this article that the book is, to quote
Quentin Davis on a TV show, a "loo book".
204:
404:. Historical sources have shown that, whilst we sold Lee Enfield rifles to the Confederacy, we were in no position to support them militarily due to the threat to the cotton trade on British textile mills. I'm not saying list all 101 examples - that would make the article too long and pedantic - but just a few examples just to highlight the fact that this book cannot be taken seriously as a textbook.
145:
194:
176:
128:
462:"Getting beaten in wars against Third World nations" Because in that simple british mind "winning" a war means whoever burns down the others country wins, right? America certainly isn't getting "beaten". But, you know who did lose a war against farmers armed with shovels, right? The british empire. And how arrogant are you to say Ireland and Australia have done nothing? What does Britain
71:
21:
419:
says that we shouldn't go about taking other sources completely unconnected to the book, and then applying them to the arguments of The Evil Empire. To do so is an element of original research, since we are artificially creating a counter-argument to The Evil Empire's contentions, and inherently POV
380:
I am confused by your request. Max
Hastings is quoted already: e.g. "as if every bar bore in Philadelphia, where the author hails from, got together one night and wrote down every half-assed insult they could remember about Britain, somewhat handicapped by the fact that none did high school history
333:
isn't a valid reason to go about changing an article. I don't like the book, and I certainly don't agree with what it says, but regardless the coverage it got means it is notable, as the AFD also concluded. Also, if this were POV, it would never made it onto the front page of
Knowledge as a DYK.
447:
I suppose the argument is that if it exists, it's encyclopaedic. Of course, an
American writing about Britain's evil history is of great ironic value; perhaps he will write a sequel in the present tense about how his own country is currently ruining the world, getting beaten in wars against Third
41:
328:
I'm
English too. In fact, I live in Berkshire. If you look above, you can see this article was nominated for deletion 9 days ago. It was concluded that it is a notable book. Plus, I researched heavily across the Internet to find more info, but couldn't find it. Also, Conservapedia isn't a
315:
bias of the work. Instead, it just reads as simply: "this book came out, the Brits hated it, end of story." I'd recommend that this article be expanded to accomodate the two areas I mentioned earlier, and expand the
Reaction section to mention responses to the book in countries other than the
381:
past sixth grade." Plus, please remember (if I'm right in presuming you are talking about a previous version of the article that you said you voted delete for) this current version is a heavily improved (as noted by several editors in the last AFD article) analysis of the book.
370:
article itself? At present, it seems to me as though
Knowledge isn't making any effort to highlight such inaccuracies, which was one of the reasons why I voted for deletion - its simply a list of newspaper reviews about the book and not an actual documentation on the book itself.
51:
329:
reliable source. Like
Knowledge, it is edited by almost anyone, so it can't be reliable. Plus, how is the book being advertised? Most of the coverage on this article is negative. I have removed your recent edits as they are being somewhat disruptive.
311:, but that is not the reason why I am questioning its neutrality. The reason I am questioning it is because this page reads more like some advertising gimmick for the book. There is no attempt to highlight the historical inaccuracies or the overtly
395:
My apologies if what I said isn't very clear. What I'm basically requesting is a handful of examples of claims made in the book contrasted with academic sources that prove that the claims are false. Some of them are relatively easy - take
634:
LOL, a two sentences explanation of what the book is about and then two articles against it? Typical anglo bs There aare even triggered
Angerlanders who wish for this articles to be removed! USA and uk always aim to hide their evil
537:
At the moment, this seems a little short compared to the
Reaction section. Should we expand Synopsis to include other arguments made in the book or should we just expand on the existing points already listed?
613:
It does appear to be a deliberate piece of performance art rather than a serious work of popular history. The fact that the author conflates England and Britain may be part of the joke, or just ignorance.
448:
World nations, etc? Anyway, at least a book about Britain will have plenty in it. How many pages would the author manage in a tome about Ireland, Australia and other countries who have done nothing?
576:
There seems to be very little info on the author. Perhaps this needs to be expanded. After all, his critism of the English seems pretty forceful - I, for one, would like to know whether he has:
598:
I have removed completely uncited edits and following the source material given the article a semblance of context, which is this: it's a joke and we all need to view as such, best wishes.
352:
bias of the work" This I am also amazed by. Max Hastings's quotes on the article alone tackle these two things, and he's not the only one to do so that is featured on the article.
103:
489:
that the book cannot seriously be considered to be an academic work, and all this article seems to do is just highlight the strain the book made on the so-called
557:
The article states that this is a non-fiction work, which I believe is clearly untrue, given the absurdist claims such as that British nobility are homosexual.
647:
120:
657:
224:
652:
289:
580:
274:
The reception section is largely based on the words of two articles, all against the book. It needs a cleanup to remain neutral.
228:
288:
I'm not aware of any article that viewed the book in a positive light, it is widly regarded as an anglophobic and racist book.
623:
607:
588:
566:
547:
524:
510:
457:
429:
408:
390:
375:
361:
343:
297:
283:
91:
156:
218:
181:
579:
a) any kind of agenda that motivates such a withering attack. b) any kind of academic credibility that justifies it.
27:
415:
I'm sorry I misunderstood. I understand your reasoning behind your idea, but unfortunately we cannot do it.
144:
515:
Out of interest who came to this conclusion? It doesn't appear to meet a single criterion for WP:N (books).
506:
470:
425:
386:
357:
339:
279:
520:
293:
307:
As an Englishman, I personally take offence that this book has been given such prominence on a site like
330:
162:
86:
516:
584:
543:
490:
232:
20:
416:
449:
603:
502:
421:
382:
353:
335:
70:
466:
453:
275:
562:
486:
539:
494:
405:
400:. According to Grasse, the proof is simply that the Confederate Battle Flag resembles the
372:
321:
236:
619:
493:
when first released. In my opinion, that does not make it notable enough for an entry.
317:
109:
641:
599:
203:
209:
558:
349:
312:
113:
401:
199:
501:
See above; only 9 days ago an AFD was held, and it concluded it is notable.
348:"There is no attempt to highlight the historical inaccuracies or the overtly
615:
482:
367:
308:
81:
30:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
193:
175:
223:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
366:
If that's the case, then could they please be placed within the
138:
65:
15:
126:
481:
Is there any real need for this book to have an article on
104:
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World
78:
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World
235:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
142:
231:. To use this banner, please refer to the
170:
108:, author Steven A. Grasse argues that the
94:). The text of the entry was as follows:
229:discuss matters related to book articles
237:relevant guideline for the type of work
172:
121:Knowledge:Recent additions/2009/April
119:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
215:This article is within the scope of
161:It is of interest to the following
14:
127:
202:
192:
174:
143:
69:
19:
648:Knowledge Did you know articles
26:This article was nominated for
485:? It's already been stated on
398:They Supported the Confederacy
1:
284:21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
608:11:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
497:, 11:21 GMT, 23 April 2009
245:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
674:
658:WikiProject Books articles
594:View it For The Joke It Is
567:15:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
511:10:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
430:09:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
409:06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
391:14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
376:13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
362:10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
344:10:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
248:Template:WikiProject Books
653:Start-Class Book articles
624:12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
525:15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
324:06:32 GMT, 24 April 2009
298:04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
187:
169:
90:column on 14 April 2009 (
589:12:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
548:04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
458:11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
112:was responsible for the
80:appeared on Knowledge's
40:, 19 February 2017, see
151:This article is rated
132:
130:
100:... that in his book
50:, 15 April 2009, see
491:Special relationship
157:content assessment
133:
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
219:WikiProject Books
137:
136:
64:
63:
60:
59:
665:
487:Talk:Evil empire
253:
252:
249:
246:
243:
225:join the project
212:
207:
206:
196:
189:
188:
178:
171:
154:
148:
147:
139:
129:
73:
66:
32:
31:
23:
16:
673:
672:
668:
667:
666:
664:
663:
662:
638:
637:
632:
596:
574:
555:
535:
479:
474:
406:User:Crablogger
373:User:Crablogger
322:User:Crablogger
305:
272:
250:
247:
244:
241:
240:
208:
201:
155:on Knowledge's
152:
12:
11:
5:
671:
669:
661:
660:
655:
650:
640:
639:
631:
628:
627:
626:
595:
592:
573:
570:
554:
551:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
478:
475:
464:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
331:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
318:United Kingdom
304:
301:
271:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
257:
256:
254:
214:
213:
197:
185:
184:
179:
167:
166:
160:
149:
135:
134:
124:
118:
117:
110:United Kingdom
74:
62:
61:
58:
57:
56:
55:
45:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
670:
659:
656:
654:
651:
649:
646:
645:
643:
636:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
593:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
571:
569:
568:
564:
560:
552:
550:
549:
545:
541:
532:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
503:JEdgarFreeman
500:
499:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
476:
472:
468:
465:do nowadays?
463:
460:
459:
455:
451:
431:
427:
423:
422:JEdgarFreeman
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
383:JEdgarFreeman
379:
378:
377:
374:
369:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
354:JEdgarFreeman
351:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
336:JEdgarFreeman
332:
327:
326:
325:
323:
319:
314:
310:
302:
300:
299:
295:
291:
286:
285:
281:
277:
270:POV reception
269:
255:
251:Book articles
238:
234:
233:documentation
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
211:
205:
200:
198:
195:
191:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
173:
168:
164:
158:
150:
146:
141:
140:
125:
122:
115:
111:
107:
106:
105:
99:
96:
95:
93:
89:
88:
83:
79:
75:
72:
68:
67:
53:
49:
46:
43:
39:
36:
35:
34:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
633:
597:
578:
575:
556:
536:
480:
467:IMagainstYOU
461:
446:
417:WP:SYNTHESIS
397:
306:
290:94.168.210.8
287:
276:IMagainstYOU
273:
217:
216:
210:Books portal
163:WikiProjects
102:
101:
98:Did you know
97:
87:Did you know
85:
77:
76:A fact from
47:
37:
553:Non-fiction
517:Maverickbar
153:Start-class
114:Vietnam War
92:check views
48:speedy keep
642:Categories
581:82.5.68.95
572:The Author
540:Crablogger
495:Crablogger
402:Union Jack
350:anglophoic
313:anglophoic
303:Neutrality
52:discussion
42:discussion
483:Knowledge
477:Relevancy
368:Knowledge
309:Knowledge
131:Knowledge
82:Main Page
630:Pathetic
600:Twobells
533:Synopsis
28:deletion
450:Guv2006
84:in the
559:Kansan
159:scale.
242:Books
182:Books
620:talk
616:Ef80
604:talk
585:talk
563:talk
544:talk
521:talk
507:talk
471:talk
454:talk
426:talk
387:talk
358:talk
340:talk
294:talk
280:talk
227:and
38:keep
644::
622:)
614:--
606:)
587:)
565:)
546:)
523:)
509:)
473:)
456:)
428:)
389:)
360:)
342:)
320:.
296:)
282:)
618:(
602:(
583:(
561:(
542:(
519:(
505:(
469:(
452:(
424:(
385:(
356:(
338:(
292:(
278:(
239:.
165::
123:.
116:?
54:.
44:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
