Talk:Colonialism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

List of Colony Names

I believe these should be re-ordered alphabetically as there is no logic to the current order, but am too lazy to do it myself. So I hope some other editors will do this. ParthikS8 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Term "exploitation"

In economic literature this is called "extractive" colonialism. "Exploitation colonialism ... includes trading posts" Calling commercial exchange "exploitation" implies that the exchange is somehow unfair, due to coercion, deceit or other factors. But natives went willingly to coastal trading posts to exchange local goods for imported goods. By the same token all international trade could be called "Strambotik (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)exploitation".

Ottoman Sultanate as an European colonial power?

Ottoman empire was a great muslim sultanate and had nothing to do with European Christian colonialism. Please someone correct the article.--5.125.254.244 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and this issue has been talked to death in the past. Inevitably however when anyone removes them, they will cherry-pick sources that use the term "colonial", despite other sources mentioning that such a term is not so appropriate. To begin with, some sources state that the term is contested.

Ottoman colonialism is a relatively new and often debated concept [... which] does not fit the formal or informal colonialism molds, but instead denotes an alteration in Ottoman state perspective toward the outer provinces of the empire, in which a center desired centralized control over its periphery and reconstituted it as a colony.

— Stanton, Andrea L., et al., eds. Cultural sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: an encyclopedia. SAGE publications, 2012.

Other sources flat out criticise and reject the idea:

Note that while the Ottoman state was imperial in design and purpose, it also cannot easily bedefined as colonial in the sense that the term is used in the context of European colonialism(Gocek,2013, p. 79). There are at least two key differences. First, the Ottoman territorial possessions were largely contiguous. Second, while the Ottoman court was dominated by SunniMuslims, the Ottomans were not necessarily‘alien’to the societies they ruled over. Additionally,they recognized as well as acknowledged the diversity of the populations within their domain.From an historical point, this is hardly surprising. The Ottomans‘started as the rulers of a pre-dominantly Christian population’(Barkey2014, p. 471) and‘owed great deal of their successto the cooperation of local Christian elements’(Veinstein,2013, p. 121)

— Kadercan, Burak. "Territorial design and grand strategy in the Ottoman Empire." Territory, Politics, Governance 5.2 (2017): 158-176.

Moreover, we have clear sources that say it does not have colonies:

We should, moreover, clarify that we are referring here to “Ottoman colonialism” in the absence of colonies. It is a matter, therefore, of colonialism without colonies. For a critique of the theoretical construction of “colonialism… A criticism of this theoretical extrapolation does not mean, however, that the Ottoman Empire had no imperial ambitions; these were crystallized at the Berlin Conference on Africa organized in 1884-1885. In order to protect the imperial interests of their “Sublime State” in Africa, the Ottoman diplomats, who were great masters in the art of diplomacy, adopted a very “legalistic” approach and, during the final decades of the nineteenth century, they put forward arguments based on rights inherited from the past and the notion of precedent. To this end, the concept of hinterland was constantly used by the Ottomans.

— Türesay, Özgür. "The Ottoman Empire seen through the lens of postcolonial studies: A recent historiographical turn." Revue dhistoire moderne et contemporaine 2 (2013): 127-145.

(This is explicit and I thought should be enough to remove the section claiming the imperial provinces as colonies.)

And in the pen-ultimate paragraphs of this same source:

In concluding I would like to make one last criticism, this time of a general and fundamental nature and with a bearing on the very essence of this body of literature. This criticism concerns the use of the term colonialism, which is too loose, used as it is to designate all the phenomena noted above. In other words, I believe that it is inappropriate to refer to the new relationship that the imperial Ottoman center began to foster with its peripheral provinces from the middle of the nineteenth century as a type of colonialism. It seems to me that these historians, who are undoubtedly contributing to the enrichment of the historiography on the Ottoman empire of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by focusing on the centralizing administrative measures and the rhetoric connected with civilization during this period, have lost sight of the fundamental elements of modern colonialism, a historical phenomenon asserted during the second half of the nineteenth century. Of the four constituent elements of modern colonialism, it is only in the discourse concerning the Ottoman civilizing mission, without any racist or racial coloring, that we can see a certain influence from European colonialism affecting the world view held by the Ottoman bureaucrats from the imperial center. It is difficult, not to say ridiculous, to think of the existence of a modern colonialism without its underlying dynamics, above all if we are to rely purely on the existence of a discourse drawn from a few narrative sources.

— Türesay, Özgür. "The Ottoman Empire seen through the lens of postcolonial studies: A recent historiographical turn." Revue dhistoire moderne et contemporaine 2 (2013): 127-145.

And what would our interlocutors argue? They would bring sources which merely use the term, or use it in a restricted sense to refer to a Tanzimat and post-Tanzimat restructuring of the state, or attitude to certain nomads. Of the two sources currently in use, one of them is arguably not academic nor suitable for this topic, and another is simply using the term "colonialism".

On top of this, I have had a long argument above in the section Talk:Colonialism#Colonialism v Imperialism and Ottoman Empire, arguing for why if we take the liberal defintion of colonialism that some editors wish, we should arguably include all historical colonial empires, including the Romans etc. To further prove my point, here is a source referring to "Manchurian" colonialism of the Qing Empire, a laughable concept:

The Qing Empire of China was a colonial empire that ruled over a diverse collection of peoples with seperate identities and deserves comparison with other empires.

— Perdue, Peter C. "Comparing empires: Manchu colonialism." The International History Review 20.2 (1998): 255-262.

I was not bluffing above, if you seriously make this argument for colonialism, you literally should admit every single empire referred to in literature as "colonialists". But I don't see anyone listing the provinces of the Qing Empire do I? And when I made arguments above that "Colonialism" does not apply to contiguous land empires, and evidenced that (and a new source here explicitly links this with the Ottomans for those editors crying OR), all I see are editors unwilling to accept that. Some editors think that "X group were brutally treated", well in Empires throughout history, ethnic groups have been mistreated, genocidally killed etc. - that doesn't make them "Colonialists".

You know what is happening here? A few white, west-centric, would-be-orientalist editors are disturbed at the idea that the concept of "colonialism", that their forefathers invented, is only being applied to them. So what a better thing to do than to take an empire, that was politically a victim of western imperialism and colonialism, and spin it as a "colonial empire" with "colonies". Well I can't wait for our former colonial masters to add all the other empires of history (of course we know they won't do that, despite sources like the one above). Evidence of the west-supremacist, orientalist mindset is given here:

Those who identify colonialism and empire only with the West either have no sense of history or have forgotten about the Egyptian empire, the Persian empire, the Macedonian empire, the Islamic empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese empire, and the Aztec and Inca empires

— D’Souza, Dinesh. "Two cheers for colonialism." Chronicle of Higher Education 10.1 (2002): 7-9.

Yes the Mongols and even the Aztecs were colonisers!

I rest my case.

Will we see some brave editor remove the Ottoman "Colonies"? Maybe. They'll then be reverted. Will the Qing Empire, the Roman Empire etc. all be added in? I'm sure our former colonial masters will catch on soon enough.

After all, what a better way to misdirect attention from your own history than to start back-projecting your crimes onto others? ParthikS8 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I should point out - I agree with the IP user that the Ottoman Empire is not Colonial, I don't necessarily agree with his assessment "a great muslim sultanate" ParthikS8 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Contiguity is irrelevant. The deciding factors are dominance and difference in ethnicity. Dominance is demonstrated through conquest, and the Turks conquered their dependencies through war. Many overseas colonies were multi-rthnic and contained populations descended from both colonizers and colonized, like Anglo-Burmese, Burghers, etc. T Ottomans "recognized as well as acknowledged the diversity of the populations within their domain". So did the British empire. Strambotik (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection?

This article now has the distinction of being the only non-redirect page within the en.wikipedia article space that is indefinitely fully protected, other than the Main Page (see Special:ProtectedPages). As far as I can tell, the stated rationale (persistent IP edits) is not consistent with our protection policy, which states that full protection is for Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. You might ask whether that instead warrants 30/500 protection, but the same policy says that 30/500 protection should not be applied as a protection level of first resort, which to my mind would certainly preclude full protection from being used as a first resort, particularly in response to IP edits. My reading of the policy is that the appropriate level of protection here would have been pending changes review.

As to the particulars of the edits—namely, changing entries in a long and mostly unsourced list that apparently nobody is monitoring—wouldn't the obvious course of action here be to delete the list? Isn't this a better job for categories anyway? I just find it totally extraordinary that the first intervention here was to totally lock down the page—an intervention that seems to be applied to no other article on Wikipedia. Just for completeness, I'll note that of the 20 or so non-redirect or non-disambiguation page in article space that are fully protected for a finite amount of time, only one of them is protected for longer than a month; the others are protected only for days or weeks. Einsof (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the problems with disruptive/weird/pointed edits here will be indefinite so it makes sense that the protection be as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Even articles on perennially incendiary topics like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which attract trouble from logged-in users and not just IP editors, are left at 30/500 protection. Einsof (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow I completely misunderstood, not sure how I missed the WP:GOLDLOCK. Maybe because as you said its pretty much *never* used. You are entirely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Graham87: Einsof appears to have made a number of excellent points and I was such an idiot to them I think the least I can do is help solve this mystery. Do you think you could elaborate on the reasons for the protection? I see this edit summary "disruptive editing, the fact that so many edits went by seemingly unchecked shows that the community cannot watch this article" and I’m wondering what the background to such a decision is? Are there any other pages locked down in such a way? Whats policy or guideline are you operating under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Einsof and Horse Eye's Back: I was operating under the policy of WP:WRONGBUTTON ... seriously, I meant to use semi ... and thanks to my screen reader usage, I didn't notice what I'd done. I also don't mind the use of blindness as a metaphor like that. I've made this mistake before but have usually caught it in time. Graham87 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Graham87: Thanks, maybe I should have guessed it was a misfire. If nothing else, I got to refresh my memory of our page protection policies... Einsof (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

According to (source) should be added to the Israel as it reads right now as a subversive move to undermine the indigenous Mizhrahi populations. Gesorgod (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

List of colonies as an own article?

Hi everyone the list of colonies gets longer and longer and a similar list exists in Colonial empire.

I think it would allow different articles to use these lists in a combined way and enhance quality if these lists would be collected in a List-article.

I propose an article, to move the said lists, with either wording:

• List of colonial possessions and empires
• List of colonies and colonial empires
• List of colonies

I think it is though necessary to have a useable definition of what a coloial possession and colonial empire differentiates them from say a conquest and integration in an empire and thus excludes from the list.

For my part a colony is a nonintegrated territory of an empire, opposed to its integrated territories (e.g. Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire, or any other territory of so many empires, etc.) ... imho Nsae Comp (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: This is a good idea. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This could cause issues when it comes to places such as Egypt under Roman rule.

Was it integrated enough to be consider “part of the Roman Empire”, or was it separate enough to be a colony? What about Islamic conquest of Egypt? Was a colony, a caliphate in its own right, integrated?

It can get bogged down quickly.

However, the idea is amazing, so I’m hopeful that a very concrete definition that to which the article refers (or as concrete as definitions can get). Gesorgod (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Slave memorial Zanzibar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

Change List of United States colonies and protectorates, remove "Tangier International Zone (1924–1956)" Lantheon (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Impact of colonisation

The follow section should be removed:

European colonisation and development also changed gendered systems of power already in place around the world. In many pre-colonialist areas, women maintained power, prestige, or authority through reproductive or agricultural control. For example, in certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa[where?] women maintained farmland in which they had usage rights. While men would make political and communal decisions for a community, the women would control the village's food supply or their individual family's land. This allowed women to achieve power and autonomy, even in patrilineal and patriarchal societies.[56]

The cited pages do not attribute these changes to colonialism. It seems like the editor who added them just attributed it to colonialism. Therefore these paragraphs should not be on this page. 27.55.78.94 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Western expansionalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Western expansionalism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Western expansionalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

See also

I think Expansionism article should be linked here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.102.175 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Colonialism Definition and Perspectives

"Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas"

OK ... the modern Language-Nazis have got to this one too!

Why do we not then view Bantu, Mongol, Chinese, Singhalese, Arab, Turkic, Malay, Polynesian, ... expansionism in the same light? Seems to me the only 'one' people this term applies to are people from Western Civilisations.

Also the purposes of colonialism are not only to acquire power but to prevent other peoples being usurped by what one people would consider to be a greater evil or harm. Colonialism has in many instances preserved peoples and cultures that would otherwise have been lost. Can we have some balance in the article please. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:69E3:AFAC:A339:9187 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Why do we not then view Bantu, Mongol, Chinese, Singhalese, Arab, Turkic, Malay, Polynesian, ... expansionism in the same light?" Because it would conflate its meaning with imperialism. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

OK ... so why do we not speak of Arab imperialism? Look for example at the Swahili Coast which was run by Omani Arabs as a sort of mini precursor template of the British Empire for about 800 years. I have never heard that described in terms of imperialism (or colonialism). With regards to conflation: Conquest "is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas". I read the Imperialism Wiki and it seems that there is confusion there about what constitutes imperialism and what constitutes colonialism (one person characterising the difference as essentially down to geography another, free-market as opposed to monopolistic capitalism (the Leninist perspective apparently)). The opening definition of colonialism is typical of the Age but not I suspect, timeless. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:69E3:AFAC:A339:9187 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"On colonisers" section removal

This section is a summary of French poet Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation yet it's under the title "on colonisers". Not only is it only talking about European colonisation but it adds nothing of value more than constantly reiterating European colonisers were "racist, sexist, otherwise xenophobic, or capitalist" and "[Europe] proceeds towards savagery". If a review of Aimé Césaire's 'Discourse on Colonialism' is deemed relevant to this page then this section should be titled something like "review of Discourse on Colonialism' or "Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation". Currently, the section is stating Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation as fact by literally just referencing his own work 'Discourse on Colonialism' - it doesn't make any sense. Sequenceses (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ireland?

As one would expect, Ireland is listed as a 'British colony' when it never actually was, at least in any legal sense, a colony of 'Britain'. In an extralegal sense the subject is at best controversial and better left for another article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would love to see the reliable sources that prove that Ireland was not a de facto colony. The Banner talk 17:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

finance of colonialism

Transatlantic trade between Europe and America was possibly the main method by which the "colonialism of the Muslim world" was maintained.

~/////08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.51 (talk)/~ 43.242.178.51 (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Profitability of Colonialism

Under the “History” section, in the paragraph starting “Asking whether colonies paid, economic historian Grover Clark (1891–1938) argues an emphatic "No!"”

Would suggest adding:

Contrary to the narrative that denies major economic benefit from colonialism, there has been recent research demonstrating otherwise. For example, the research conducted by economist Utsa Patnaik and published by Columbia University Press. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765-1938.

Citation: Patnaik, U; Chakrabarti, S. (Eds.). (2019). Agrarian and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Tulika Book. 2601:8C0:37F:B390:F5F6:FAC5:F8D8:4F9E (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguing that it was costly for colonies is not the same as arguing that it was profitable for the colonizer. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split

The article is much beyond the 100k guideline for a split, and creating a separate list article, or several, would make the most sense. Some such lists already exist, such as List of French possessions and colonies. However, splitting may run into the problem that plagues the article as a whole, clear definition of the term, which determines what the list(s) should contain. There are ancient (pre-modern) empires, and those within the period of Western colonization, which should perhaps be different topics with their own articles. There are also entities such as the Protectorate of Peru which existed only a year. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nsae Comp (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There should be a single page that discusses the term "colonialism" and how it is used as a concept, then separate articles about actual instances of 'colonialism' by region/time. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Eurocentricism

As noted, this article is much too long. Removed material that focuses on specific instances more appropriate for region/chronology based pages. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

End of Empire

What is the purpose of Impact > End of empire? If anything, end of empires is an effect of decolonization? I propose to delete. Marxistpoodle (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@Nsae Comp I think the new lead makes it look like colonialism is just another word for racism. Isn't the main thing about colonialism the establishment of colonies? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there I see what you mean, but I tried to reorganize the sentence to focus on the practices, but I couldnt manage without sounding convaluted and geting lost on the more complex forms of colonialism which are later in the sentence. Ultimately it is not suprising that it is sounds like racism, because it needs racism to develop into what we know today as modern colonialism. So I would say institutional racism, particular modern state racism, is a product of this lurking element of colonialism. So I left it as it is and will add a sentence about racism when I have found a proper citation, to disspell this lurking familiarity between the two concepts. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried to shuffle the sentence parts again, but I again failed because the population othering is just such a central part of it. Afterall colonization and colony are particular concepts/technologies of settling. ... So ill stick with finding a good citation about racism and find a good way to put it into the frame of the lead. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Now reading it for a spot to put it in reference to racism, I must say that coloniality does include racism already. So I cant see eight now an smooth way to mention racism. Maybe by adding to coloniality:"intersectional coloniality" and add for example this cource, or others like Mohanty etc..

But in the end I am realy fine with the first sentence. It still can find a later mention in the lead though. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's hard to find a single good definition of colonialism. That's probably because it has changed so much from the historical European practice of laying claim to "uncivilized" land to the modern neocolonialism that is more based on economic inequality and leads to othering and all the things you mentioned. I am going to look at the phrasing more when I have time, thanks for discussing. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the addition of settler colonialism, among others, by User:TheDoodbly I found a way to focus the lead so that it swiftly characterizes colonialism without geting lost in who does it; realizing that the different whos of empire VS settlers (and the even more confusing difference between imperial colony VS settler colony constitution) are to be put afterwards to make the range of colonialism easily graspable. I hope you can share my enthusiasm for this approach. PS: Ill try to check the old taken along references for if being still placed right and any redundancy, or need for clarification of the lead towards them. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Covering all of the different definitions as the term's definition/connotation changed over time, and staying consistent with respect to that (and keeping it independent of other concepts, even if they're related) is probably the biggest challenge with this article. I think the rest of it needs some attention as well for a variety of other reasons beyond spelling and grammar and organization. TheDoodbly (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@HansVonStuttgart It's also missing a ton of commas, and over-emphasizes an intersectional framing for what is, at its core, a metropole's financial exploitation of remote lands and people by any means available.

Also, everything other than the intersectionality stuff is missing citations. Stewie3128 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Modern colonialism

Hi, should there be an article on discussion around modern examples of colonialism? Off the top of my head it could talk about Zionism as settler colonialism, Western Sahara (), overseas territories such as New Caledonia, neocolonialism in Africa, Sinicization as in the cases of Hong Kong and Xinjiang, and do so in a way that wasn't just superficial and represented the weighting. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are colonies on uninhabited or previously uninhabitable lands not mentioned? With possible Moon-, Mars-, or deep-sea-colonies popping up in media all the time the topic should be part of the article, shouldn't it?

Question 2A02:3037:205:98A0:DC0C:2EBF:ADDC:52D0 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Because they are not yet a reality. The Banner talk 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

They weren't a reality during the peopling of the world? If not how does colonizing barren wastes constitute more coloniality than lush terrestrial ecosystems? 2A02:C7C:D5F6:A300:B5A8:24B9:F5FF:A369 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands are mentioned. Wikipedia is a reflection of what is written in reliable sources; there has been very little discussion of the colonisation of uninhabited lands in sources because it only happened in a handful of small-scale cases. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Are/were there any significant colonies on uninhabited or previously uninhabitable lands? All I can think of are a few small islands and perhaps the antarctic claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think the Falklands and the Azores are the only two cases of any real scale. After that it's Pitcairn Island-level stuff.

And frankly one could reasonably ask if it makes any conceptual sense to include such cases within the definition of colonialism; the only thing that makes them distinct from all other migration of humans into new, uninhabited territories is that they took place much more recently (because of accidents of geography) and under the auspices of states which did colonialism elsewhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

neocolonialism

If in fact the world does get colonized (again) we can just pretend that we don't live on the planet Earth.

12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 103.245.194.28 (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

colonization of Palestine

colonization of Palestine by UK/Israel/USA is not mentioned enough (it is not mentioned at all in Migrations section) 194.63.133.126 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Since when do the United States maintain colonies in the region? Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What about the 'hypothesis' that colonialism never ended, but has only grown in ever more exponential growths since the '40s / '90s (the usual 'cutoff' dates) and that 'so-called' "decolonisation" and "nationalisms" were merely newer advancements of colonialism that have eclipsed all previous 'stages' (such as the 19th/16th cent.s) combined ?? And that it began close to 600 years ago with the planting of the first tomato/potato/cinchona in the old world?

And here defines 'Europe' (the 'coloniser continent') as including everything between what is currently known's - West/North Iran, Arabia/ME, Red sea/Gulf of Aden, Iceland and South Mediterranean/Gibraltar, and even parts of Ethiopia and Somalia¹!('per the definitions of "known world", "Abrahamic" and "Caucasoid") while considering to be part of the 'New World' the entirety of modern/historical Russian territory (except for the the extreme northwest) as well as 50% of Ukraine (particularly east, central, south) 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

¹And, for the sake of 'convenience', United States + the other developed countries of the 'Americas' 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A 'bizarre' unorthodox theory I read somewhereQuestion 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a bad hypothesis and should not be included. The neocolonialism article is already linked. 2001:B07:AC9:3627:29F0:2248:7E60:D69B (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Nations Created by Settler Colonialism

There is a list of "nations created or expanded in their contemporary form by settler colonization" which, misleadingly in my opinion, does not include any of Latin Europe or the Arab World. Would, for example, France or Morocco be allowed to be included? Forgression.dylvnes (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I added more examples to that list including France, Italy, and Japan. The Arabian conquests of the 7th century onward are not settler colonialism. AscendedGoblin (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Japanese imperialism

From the same lenses that contribute to world understanding of imperialism/colonialism, we cannot forget about Japanese aggression either. 2600:387:15:39:0:0:0:2 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We do talk about that in the article, try searching for japan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Added more on Japan AscendedGoblin (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Mis-captioned, irrelevant image

Hello @Des Vallee:, I'm seeing a number of issues with the image you inserted {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonialism&diff=prev&oldid=1300196218 here]. The file name is Bedouin transfers. The arrows and tents on the image show Bedouin transfers. In 1946 it was British land. In 1947 it was still British land, and those were proposed but never enacted borders for future states. From 1949-1967 it was Egyptian or Jordanian land. This is the source for the image. The article doesn't mention anything about Bedouin transfers. Mikewem (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: The 1946 land shows Jewish settlements, with the other image showing Palestinian majority lands, while it also shows Bedouin displacements that is directly related to imperialism, and shows the continuous encroachment of Israeli land into Palestine. Des Vallee (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the new image and caption are better Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: They are fine and get the same general information across although it's overworded, people still refer to the entire region as "Palestine" so "formerly identified as Palestine" isn't needed, referring to the region as "Palestine" is the correct decision. Des Vallee (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Cdjp1: on this, due to involvement in setting the new image. Des Vallee (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Change in the borders of Israel and Palestine over time, showing the increasing Israeli control of formerly Palestinian territory. Would be the best change. Des Vallee (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You’re still at 2 reverts within about 2 hours. Please self-revert your recent consecutive edits to avoid a WP:1RR violation Mikewem (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, you’re at 3 reverts within about 14 hours. I highly recommend self-reverting @Des Vallee: Mikewem (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: No there wasn't, there was a single revert that returned the article to it's original description by Cdjp1. Your making things up. Des Vallee (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I am returning the article to it's stable version, by Cdjp1 not my preferred version. Your edit warring by inserting your own personal version into the article. Des Vallee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

See you at the incidents noticeboard Mikewem (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: See you at the boomerang. Des Vallee (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: It looks like all it would take to avoid a report is changing the word “increasing” to “extent of”. Thoughts? Mikewem (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: Jesus, what kind of a statement is that, the only editor engaged in a dispute removing a change by a uninvolved editor needing a change to get involved in ANI. I would oppose that and would wait for others, to be involved in the discussion. Des Vallee (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok Mikewem (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My take: this is a bad image to display here. Illustrations in an article should not be based on qualified examples of the topic that are referred to only tangentially in the text. The article would be better off without this image. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Half of the section is about the image however. Not "tangentially" related. The image as an example of Manifest Destiny has no text in relation to the article, it isn't mentioned at all but the image is still present. Should that also be removed? It seems to be much more unrelated to the section. Des Vallee (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Same thing could be stated on the "Dutch family in Java, 1927," which has a single word in relation to a massive section, or for that matter the vast majority of images on Wikipedia. Des Vallee (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2025

Remove "Beginning in the 7th century, Arabs colonized a substantial portion of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia and Europe." from the Medieval subsection. Lands that were conquered in the Arab expansions do not fit the definition of colonies as they were politically integrated into the state and not made into sufficiently self-governed dependent territories. Mr balling (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, uncited and can't find anything to support, especially in WP:WIKIVOICE. In future please don't suggest changes based on your own original research, changes to the article need to be based on reliable sources, particularly scholarly sources for a topic like this. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:REMOVAL for our guidelines on content removal Kowal2701 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"Colonialism is the exploitation..." does not reflect a neutral point of view

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:NOTFORUM Kowal2701 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

---

“Colonialism is the exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group” is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, as required by Wikipedia NPOV.

Instead, it is an application of revisionist history to advance a political view that has become deeply embedded in Wikipedia editors to the point where they operate within a bubble of self-confirming bias.

To say colonialism is exploitation is to take sides - the colonists are bad, the indigenous people are victims. While this may be correct, it is not neutral. Neutrality means to observe but not judge - to understand what is happening, not to apply value judgements.

From a neutral point of view colonialism is about

• the movement of a peoples who posess superior technology (ships, navigation, firearms) that enables them to move to a new land and become local inhabitants
• population growth in which the existing homeland becomes too small to support a commonwealth or land control creates an inequitable hierarch
• money-making by finding resources that are abundent somewhere else but scarce at home
• adventurism
• disposal of petty criminals, dysfunctional family members, other socially undesirables by putting them on seagoing ships.

It is based on the evolutionary fact that while humans look different based on adapatation to a local environment (people closer to the equator have darker skins to protect from a stronger sun, for example), they all are homo sapiens - a species that kills its own species, and is hard-wired to establish and enforce hierarchies of power by the control of other people's lives, liberty and property.

This current Wikipedia definition of colonialism is nothing more than an attempt to use a neutral medium to shift the hierarchy of power that occured after one region on the planet (Europe) experienced a technology explosion that gave it tools to voyage that took its people all over the world, tools of power in the form of superior weaponry, tools of husbandry in the form of farming, and complex law that enabled a small leadership group to organise large numbers of subservient peoples by developing the concept of employment, where one works for someone else voluntarily for pay, provided one does what one is told. Contrast this to less sophisticated societies where the economies were tribal (an extended family that cooperates for survival), slave based (which was practiced in many indigenous societies now portrayed as exploited, when by these terms, they were exploiters), or strong-man societies where a principle rises to the top by conquest, using fear and force to get others to do their bidding.

Human history is a history of movement. Home Sapiens displaces Neanderthals. Basques colonise Wales. Anglo Saxons invaded England and killed the Celts. Vikings came to France and the King let them stay because he would lose, whereupon they become Normans (Norsemen). Normans sailed over to England and won the Battle of Hastings claiming England as their own. British East India Company and the British Navy become tools of global expansion and control 1/6th of the planet. And that's just the British Isles. Colonisation - the movement of a people from one homeland to establish another has happened all over the planet for as long as their have been humans. If there was someone already there, there would be winners and losers.

I will not bother replacing the language in the article, because the believers in what has been written dominate Wikipedia, and it will just result in bickering. However, it is disappointing because I am writing an important research document now, and find it useful to quote Wikipedia not as the source of truth, but the Wisdom of Crowds. However, in this case, it fail.

I invite the editors of this page to try again. Akonga (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to provide ample amounts of sources to prove that humans are hard wired to establish heirarchies. 2001:B07:AC9:3627:29F0:2248:7E60:D69B (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Uh…. Dominance? 2600:4040:AEBA:C200:D4F0:806C:440:4787 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Every one of your bullets describes some facet of exploitation of the resource (the colony) by the colonizers... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, but this site is governed by an ideology which conflicts with the truth of the matter. Characterizing colonialism as an extension of human nature, rather than an evil unique to a certain group, is contrary to certain narratives. You will not get NPOV here. 174.103.222.226 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. This page presents post colonial theory as an absolute truth. I've put the definition from the 1936 OED with link below

Colonialism (kõlõunializm). [f. prec. +-ISM.]1. The practice or manner of things colonial. 1864 ELIZ. MURRAY E. Norman I. 48, I daresay she willbe a nice motherly person, and untainted by colonialism. 1883 American VI. 46 The narrow trammels of colonialism.b. A practice or idiom peculiar to or charac-teristic of a colony. (Cf. provincialism.)1887 MRS. D. DALY Digging & Squatting 239 To use a colonialism, the place was going ahead'.2. The colonial system or principle.1886 DICEY Eng. Case agst. Home Rule (ed. 2) 273 English Colonialism works well enough. 1889 Standard 20 May 3/1 There are three competing influences at work in South Africa..Colonialism, Africa.. Colonialism, Republicanism, and Imperialism.Colonialist. rare-¹. [f. as prec. +-IST.] An adherent of a colonial system.1813 Examiner 18 Jan. 34/2 Not continuing to conduct themselves like submissive colonialists.Colonialize (kõlõuniǎləiz), v. nonce-wd. [f. COLONIAL+-IZE.] trans. To make colonial.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271839/page/n637/mode/1up

The redefinition occurs with UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) in 1960

• “The colonial system—and colonial administration in all its forms—must be completely abolished”* .Colonialism is framed in moral and legal terms: *“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights”* .The resolution refers to “colonial countries and peoples in territories under colonial domination” and calls for an unconditional transfer of power to dependent peoples

This was led by left wing governments, the Soviets, post colonial theorists like Franz Fanon. They turn a morally neutral word - colony - just being a group of people and colonisation it's people, into a term that necessarily is of subjection. It is defined to promote a political purpose of any European settlement as evil, but exclude analysis of non European settlement.

That becomes explicit with writers like Edward Said who then retcon it to exclude continguous land territory as morally neutral, for the sake of Arab, Ottomans, etc.

This article is written as if the post colonial theorists are describing an uncontested moral truth. That is not the case.

The genesis of the term is hidden in the article Hickster999 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2025 (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.

bias needs explanation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SOAPBOX, misunderstanding of WP:NPOV Kowal2701 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

---

To remain NPOV you need to explain the basis of the term you use. I have listed the actual academic sources to show that which you delete to hide.

Currently you write; "While different forms of colonialism have existed around the world, the concept has been developed as a description of European colonial empires of the modern era. "

That is a POV statement without source which is inadequate.

"Colonialism is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also claim superiority. While frequently an imperialist project, colonialism functions through differentiating between the targeted land and people, and that of the colonizers"

That's an absurd statement by fact. There were no people in the Azores or Falklands for example. Yet the definition renders it non existent. Without basis.

The etymology section Has no source and is useless as it doesn't lay out where you are getting the term. That is POV.

The whole piece reads as extremist Post Colonial theory - without the ability to recognise itself. It includes rants on all manner of irrelevancies related to that philosophy. Cultural colonialism? Not as a 1978 concept by Kenneth Coutts Smith drawing on Latin concept of cultural imperialism is written as an apriori truth & then assigned to American boarding schools with a conspiratorial purpose as a truth.

While I accept that this page is written by extremists who delete reasonable, articulable objections to bias - it is extremely inappropriate to delete even comment criticism instead of having a simple, sourced explanation of the development of the term

I give example below

"In 190, the United Nations formally redefined colonialism through Resolution 1514 (XV) by expanding it beyond mere territorial control to encompass all forms of alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation. This broader definition recognized that colonialism was not only about direct political rule but also included economic dependency, cultural domination, and systemic denial of peoples’ rights to self-determination. The resolution declared that any such subjugation violated fundamental human rights and impeded global peace, calling for the immediate and unconditional transfer of power to colonized peoples “in all its forms and manifestations.” This shift reflected the influence of newly independent Asian and African states and aligned with emerging postcolonial critiques emphasizing that true freedom required ending both political and economic domination."

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271839/page/n637/mode/1up Hickster999 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

These were the sources for the redefinition of the word used by the page.

Amílcar Cabral – Return to the Source: Selected Speeches

Year: 1973

ISBN: 9780850311052

Focus: Colonialism redefined as a process of economic extraction supported by cultural domination.

---

International Law and UN Framing

4. Mark Mazower – No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations

Year: 2009

ISBN: 9780691141848

Focus: Shows how UN language moved from trusteeship to condemning colonialism “in all its forms.”

5. Antony Anghie – Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law

Year: 2004

ISBN: 9780521702720

Focus: Tracks the shift in legal thinking at the UN from empire to decolonization as a norm.

6. Adom Getachew – Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination

Year: 2019

ISBN: 9780691179155

Focus: Examines how African and Asian leaders redefined colonialism to include economic structures during UN debates.

7. Sundhya Pahuja – Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality

Year: 2011

ISBN: 9780521153782

Focus: Explains why development and sovereignty became part of the anti-colonial legal framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hickster999 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to make one thing clear briefly. No one is required to jump through your hoops or complete all your homework assignments. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we're not entitled to indulge an interlocutor out to the ends of the earth because they feel that to be the only way to their desired truth. We have more formal [[WP:|dispute resolution procedures]] here, but I'm going to treat this only as far as is reasonable. (Why did you take up my entire screen posting the sources already cited in the article? Those are the only data I already for sure know about here.)

Here's the bottom line—it's easy for anyone, even experienced but cranky editors to decry POV. The step forward is always the same: cite your own sources to back up what heretofor has actually been you opining quite extemporaneously—or there's not going to be much to talk about. The UN source clearly doesn't even disagree with the definition written in the article. It purports itself to be an even broader superset of what was previously a kernel of meaning!

And naturally, I'm happy to dismiss the 1933 OED out of hand. Have you heard of the etymological fallacy? You should also know that, quite explicitly, on Wikipedia, age of sources is often a vital point of consideration, which I hope mostly makes sense.) I'm not sure you could ask many of the people, who would've been the rightful perusers of that OED entry nearly a century ago, but now are living in a world where new knowledge has been synthesized and revealed to different strata of society, and the idea that most anyone of that demographic (or any, I'd reckon) offers "adventurism" as a core component of colonialism like you have, instead of something sounding more like our radical extremists—if you're not willing to consider this as among the reasons for our paradigmatic discrepancy, then we're already done here.

NPOV doesn't mean "no point of view"—if you're going to ignore all the current sources others take more seriously, then NPOV requires we ignore your concerns. That's just how it is. Remsense 🌈 论 11:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ll add a sentence on first uses of the term if I have time/can find sources/can be arsed, there’s plenty of other sites they can whinge about "postcolonial extremists" on, closing this Kowal2701 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2025 (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.

Bias

This articles starts with a warning that claims need verification. In the first paragraph the claimed definition of the word does not link to a source saying that but to a general list of books.

I would encourage any of the activists to please use the dispute resolution system for the reasoned points on how this article presents postcolonial theory as fact. Personal insults do not make up for reasoned, sourced points on why the etymology and description should be improved.

Above and beyond that, there is a consistent pattern with the edits to present a more extreme postcolonial conspiracy theory so that acts of colonialism by non europeans are removed (Spain). on that basis - because an a priori claim that no books say so, but apriori claims on things like residential schools remain. I give link below to the point i just made.

Half of the page is basically a rant about the "colonial era" with pot boiler accusations.

So - it's fine for you to have this page, but you need to declare your bias. You need to declare that your definition is not holistic, remaining standard by oed 2 and optional in 3.

The pocket definition is; Colonialism n. the policy or practice of acquiring political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

that's what the first paragraph should be, then an explanation that it's a concept in post colonial theory later on! 

I said nothing to warrant personal accusations that i demanded anyone "jump through a hoop", i am introducing the basic notes demanded by wikipedia to explain the usage of the language of the article. i don't understand that editors are ridiculing my suggestion to include the UN Resolution 1514.

The etymology section should show how post colonial theory creates its concept or the milder version you have in the minor dictionary

Please bring me to the arbiter, I have not even edited the page. I have opened my editing of it to prior discussion, in response you have locked down the conversation and ridiculed me. this feels inappropriate and an egregious mendacious response. I hope this helps. Take care xx

. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain Darío Fernández‑Morera (2016) Frames Islamic Spain as a system of imperial power, religious hierarchy, economic extraction, and foreign domination over native culture Reddit+1Wikipedia.

ISBN‑13: 9781610170956 (also ISBN‑10: 1610170954) AbeBooks UKBolWikipedia

2. The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797 Roger Collins (1989/1995) Presents Moorish takeover as a structured colonial project: invasion, elite settlement, administrative overhaul, and long-term rule over indigenous Visigothic populations AbeBooks UK+4Wikipedia+4AbeBooks UK+4.

ISBN‑13: 9780631194057 (also ISBN‑10: 0631194053) AbeBooks UKAbeBooks UK.

3. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al‑Andalus Hugh Kennedy (1996) Chronicles the evolution of Islamic governance in Iberia from conquest to dissolution, emphasizing hegemonic rule, legal‑cultural imposition (Arabic, Sharia), and elite dominance over local populations Wikipedia+15taylorfrancis.com+15AbeBooks UK+15.

ISBN‑13: 9780582495159 (ISBN‑10: 0582495156) Hickster999 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hickster999, this isn't a reasoned discussion, you've called other editors "activists" and "postcolonial extremists", which are blatant personal attacks. I looked at most of the sources you provided, they don't improve the article, see WP:SYNTH. I have expanded the first paragraph of the definition section to give a little background, anymore isn't due imo. People can click on the link to the Bandung Conference if they're interested in the history. Ultimately the disdain you showed for recent scholarship to me indicated there wasn't a productive discussion to be had here that would be inline with wikipedia policies. Honestly Remsense and I have been rather kind since soapboxy comments by editors with no experience of wikipedia usually tend to get ignored or removed. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

im sorry, but u deleted out of hand in order to preserve a defintion of colonialism which does not exist in mainline thought or dictionaries, you wrote "I want to make one thing clear briefly. No one is required to jump through your hoops or complete all your homework assignment" which had no reasoning.

As a matter of fact the definition is wrong unless it is explicitly listed as post colonial theory. There is no "disdain" for your ideological group - you just need to list it as what it is. A point of view to create a holistic theory.

Including actual dictionary definition and the development of the term within a restricted field of study, hence the whole pot boiler history framing the world in those terms.

It is certainly not "productive" to delete multiple people time and again in order to preserve a philosophy. I can equally say that you act with "disdain" to the multiple sources which say Spain and the Balkans suffered under colonialism, but you delete it all as it does not fit within the world view of post colonial studies.

This page isn't about "colonialism" it's a very long winded exposition of postcolonial theory without disclosure of that. I don't care if you ignore me, tbf. This is just an example of what is killing wikipedia. Be better. Take care. Hickster999 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Definition section

Do we really need a section on definition in an already bloated article? The refs for the first sentence in the lead have quotes now so it's a bit redundant. I'm going to be bold and remove it but feel free to revert and discuss. Also Nsae Comp, apologies, you were right "system" was unsourced, I was trying to paraphrase Kowal2701 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this. As I wrote in my undo note, I dont see the use of getting rid of the chapter as such. Its much more important to make clearer the differences between definitions that float around and how they are discussed and applied to different cases in the literature. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it'd make sense if the definition was contested, but scholars appear to agree. Can we at least get rid of Collins since its a non-academic dictionary? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

(and Webster) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Since I find a good def chapter more important than many examples of particular colonialisms in the rest of the article, I am for keeping the chapter introduction citing popular/general definitions before elobrating by citing scientific defs. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Idk, it’s the equivalent of citing web pages in an academic topic, and they’re very far form the WP:BESTSOURCES Kowal2701 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The concept is not so self explanatory so I agree with keeping a body section explaining it, however, I think we could look at making it more concise. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, I'm not sure the second sentence makes sense, at the very least it doesn't read well Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Tried to clarify that, colonization isnt 100% the same as colonialism afterall. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

As noted in my edits, I tried to summarize the def chapter in the first lead sentence, hopefully not (as claimed) amoumting to WP:OR. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s an improvement since it characterises colonialism as an ideology, when it’s specifically the maintenance of systems of domination. Think it was better before where it summarised the quotes in the refs Kowal2701 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

How about is a practice to extend and maintain control and dominance over areas and their peoples, by another people, typically claiming superiority? I was wrong that it characterised colonialism as an ideology, but the domination part is very much materially experienced rather than just part of a colonialist ideology, and the quotes do this Kowal2701 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, your edit's been reverted by Mikewem but I still think it's worth discussing. From what I've seen, Bell's definition appears to be the most widely used (or at least quoted), so I'd be inclined to give it a bit more weight. My main issue w the version is that it says colonisers claim dominance, which none of the sources say, the dominance isn't subjective, it's real, and arguably the defining feature of colonialism as all definitions include it. What differentiates colonialism from imperialism is that it was dominance in all areas of life, not just political, and while listing areas might be a bit redundant, I think it communicates that point well. Though I do think we can add "extension [and maintenance]" since colonialism as a concept includes colonisation, and "claiming superiority" per Osterhammel and A Dictionary of Human Geography (colonialist ideology is discussed in more depth in the second paragraph). While I'd prefer we specified the type of superiority (cultural/racial), the sources don't do this Kowal2701 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot to answer your previous message here, so thanks for writting so nicely again. To follow up on it: "control and dominance" is kinda fine with me, even if I finde "claiming superiority and dominance" better because it emphasizes the ideology dimension of colonialism. But in combination with "practice", as in the Stanford understanding of colonialism it is fine with me, and also since dominance, as you rightfully stated, is an essential outcome of colonialism.

Regarding the use of "foreign power" I also stick with the Stanford definition and use of "another people", as it considers more the settler colonialism, as settlers often were not necessarily of one and the same nation/power, and calling them a power in their own right is too abstract for the lead imho.

Regarding the listing of social, economic etc. I see what you want to do, but I would say this should be left to the rest of the lead to open up and explain that it is multidimensional. Ahhhh wait this could be a good way to shorten it by adding something like: colonialism is intersectional. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry, intersectional is already in there. Good, well then. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: I am still a bit unsatisfied with even my version, because it is lacking the Osterhammel element of "in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis.", the Lorenzo Veracini "unequal relationship" and the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences "colonialism is different to annexation as it does not involve actual incorporation". This hasnt bothered me much before, because it is hinted to by "superiority" and that it is more about differentiating colonialism from imperialism, and because I wrote it into the following sentences instead. But since it is crucial to identifying it in the complex geography/history of imperialism, it still pains me that its not right there at the first sentence. But ok, first things first. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with some of those points so tried to address them in this edit, thoughts? I've also added the Osterhammel bit here (and trimmed here)

I think the length of the sentence is okay (especially compared to the monstrous second sentence lol), so not sure we need favour concision over precision regarding the multidimensional part? The "unequal relationship" bit I think is made clear by saying domination? Imo the distinction with annexation should be mentioned in the second sentence, but it does exclude internal colonialism. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your considerations and edits.

What still bugs me is that its still not clear that colonialism isnt just the rule, the actual realized dominance, but rather a "practice" (as in Stanford; or sometimes even ideology), a way to go about things and going places. Most colonialism has been a project of the metropole: being excited about having the world as theirs to claim, no matter how realistic or substantial that claim even can be. Its the audacity to go somewhere and just read a kings letter to encountered people, poke a flag into the ground and say, what ever is here is and has basically always been ours to make "better" (develop/cultivate/colonize).

So "practice" is a word which allows that scope. But I am open for any other wording that makes this clear from the start.

Maybe if the end of the sentence is more concise, something like: in pursuit in interestes and claims of superiority defined in a separate metropole.

PS: you are right about the annexation and internal colonialism. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added practice, but not sure about "pursuit of claims of superiority" since it has a different meaning and implication, ie. that colonialism was driven by colonisers seeking to validate their claims to superiority which I haven't seen sources say. Although I agree the final clause is not very graceful Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I've made a reply above, but what you're looking for is UN declaration against colonialism in 1960

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Colonial_Countries_and_Peoples

The word was defined by the Soviet bloc with an implicit focus on Europeans with overseas territories. Hence when you're trying to use it to refer to land empires you're hitting a conceptual barrier as it is a political term, framed by theorists and not an actual observable truth. Hickster999 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hickster999, thank you but see WP:TRUTH, we have an academic bias and just aim to aggregate what academic sources say. I think the emphasis on "an often distant metropole" addresses this though, and the article largely focuses on European colonial empires. The above discussion sort of violates WP:NOTFORUM, since there’s WP:NOR, our own opinions etc. can never lead to changing an article’s content, and article talk pages are for improving articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, sorry to bother you again, the definition section has been expanded a bit and is now even more bloated, do you still see value in the second paragraph? No worries if so Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I dont have the time at the moment to think it through. But the chapter still does not seem bloated to me, since I find definition and concept sections desperately needed, especially because this is such a contested and broadly applied concept. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The concept is easily defined in a neutral phrase from the dictionary, not an ad-hoc post colonialist statement.

Then the definitions section needs to ring fence post colonial theory from the dictionary.

Then the activist belief

Then “Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts.”

(From the abstract of Bruce Gilley The Case for Colonialism, 2017)

Or Nigel Biggar (the best selling author on Colonialism) > “Well, I actually prefer not to talk about colonialism because ism implies a kind of single thing … colonialism, as I say, it implies the ism, implies a kind of a single project, a kind of single ideology, and I think colonialism connotes to people … an intention to go out and conquer the world and subjugate foreign peoples.

You can then make clear that the historiography is the POV of post colonial theory (that's why it exists, otherwise, why repeat a pot boiled history of the western world).

As a political theory it is then clear why colonisation (not "colonialism") of Europe by non Europeans is excluded from the frame of reference.

In this way the article (tagged as post colonial theory) makes sense. Hickster999 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Bruce Gilley is textbook WP:FRINGE. Please remember that WP:NPOV refers to neutrally conveying mainstream science's view, not making that view value-neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Bruce Gilley is a tenured professor of history who published the most important academic text on Colonialism in an important journal.

He would be fringe to post colonial studies & POV to critique that, but not to critique a suggested definition of Colonialism which only exists in post colonial studies.

History by the way is not a science, it's an Art. When it's next to the best published work by a historian on Colonialism in a decade it frames the "definition" section reasonably.

Currently it peters out in a list of textbook WPFRINGE post colonial theorists (if we are talking about definitions and history, not post colonialism).

We have then established what this article actually is. I'm not saying you should delete all the historiography of the post colonialist perspective (including it's side digressions into things like disease) even though there is a better Wikipedia page doing the same thing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism)

As many, many people have tried over the years to say - the article is not currently NPOV and is not fit for purpose. Hickster999 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Palestine-Israel Historic Borders Over Time.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Islamification and their conquest if ither countries

Islam spreading and building in countries that are not Islamic. With their ideological perceptions of the world becoming islamic is clear and definitive use of colonizing in the pre-text of a religion based on murdering those who don’t convert. Like the church who forced themselves into countries and converted upon death the indigenous peoples. Islam is spreading Islamic Imperialism throughout the world for world domination. Farah fatwah (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that equate the spread of Islam to colonialism? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Can we remove the maintenance tag at the top of the article?

It's been 4 years since the tag was added and since then it seems the article has grown a lot and users have added many additional sources so I don't believe it's applicable anymore AscendedGoblin (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, there's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sentences. The article is very WP:COATRACKy, it really needs a rewrite but I'm not seeing broad-view best sources we can base the structure on Kowal2701 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Why not just remove the unsourced content so we can at least remove the maintenance tag. I agree a lot of it needs a rewrite though AscendedGoblin (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

It’s just an essay (ie. not policy), but WP:USI says you’re supposed to look for references for that information first (unless there are other reasons for removal like undue). I know the tag’s a bit of an eyesore, but at least it lets the reader know the article’s rather poor. If there are uncited bits you don’t think are relevant or whatever, feel free to remove Kowal2701 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)