I vote we delete the whole thing. Clearly a butthurt Remainer trying to use TV Tropes as a platform for their agenda.
That remains an option, but for now I have edited the section to showcase both sides of the debate, hopefully it reads a bit better now.
Two years late to this party, but howsoever. This isn't Wikipedia. Blatant bias is discouraged, but the very way this site is constructed encourages broader strokes.
Also, this reads like an autocue speech from a Tory party conference. Or possibly a letter to the Spectator. More to the point, it reads like an Author Tract.
Either way, the edit on that subject has been zapped, and something approximating neutrality has been put in its place.
Ahem..."and another place with a load of penguins that the Argentinians tried to take back a quarter of a century ago."
As a loyal subject of the Empire I take offence to that turn of phrase. "Take back" implies it belonged to the Argentines in the first place. I strongly suggest something more neutral, like
"and another place with a load of penguins that the Argentinians have strong feelings about."
Hide / Show Replies
You won't make mucy headway given the rather severe bias of this entire page. One feels like replaying the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch.
The newly added Brexit section is incredibly biased and states opinion and speculation as fact.
There is no proof, and quite a bit to the contrary, that Brexit was inspired by a nostalgia for the Empire. This is certainly a discourse proposed by many European leaders and intellectuals and some quarters of the former "remain" camp, but not even a generalized impression of this is given by most "leave" voters, leaders and intellectuals.
Most polls of Brexit supporters do not even list the Empire amongst the reasons for their support of leaving the European Union, with a desire to assert sovereignty over UK law and an associated direct-accountability of politicians being the most cited reason given by Brexit voters for their decision, and control over borders and desire for economic opportunities outside of the EU usually trading places for 2nd place depending on the poll.
Likewise the reason why nations such as India and Australia have been particularly focused on for post-Brexit trade agreements by many Brexit voters is either due to a desire to align with future economic powerhouses (India) or nations with shared perceived values (like Australia which far more closely aligns with modern British values than say the US or China) or nations that can serve as gateways to other multi-national trade agreements (again, like Australia as I will discuss below), rather than some ostensible nostalgia for the Empire motivating the British public en masse. Afterall, many of the nations Brexiteers in government are most enthusiastic in engaging with and forming trade agreements with are not former vassals of the Empire, and some were even were opponents of it, such as Japan. Take for example the Uk's recent engagement with both Canada and Australia for a trade agreement, from such a biased perspective these are Imperial-inspired overtures inspired by nostalgia, whereas in fact they're simply 2 of the 11 signatories of the CPTPP that the UK wishes to join. Is it so surprising that with a historical Empire so expansive that the UK will inevitably have to court favour from one or more former territories when trying to join ANY multi-national orgnisation?
If this section is to remain it should make some efforts to demonstrate that this is simply ONE interpretation of Brexit and that there are similar schools of thought on the subject that assert that this Imperial reading of Brexit is itself a projection on this issue using the Empire and its modern associations in order to demonize Brexit and its supporters. Which itself is quite interesting and telling of the modern reception of the British Empire and its dubious legacy.
This website should strive for neutrality, balance and objectivity.
Edited by lordnastrond Hide / Show Replies