Talk:Colonial Nigeria

Africa: Nigeria High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nigeria portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria (assessed as High-importance).

Nigeria High‑importance

	Nigeria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria 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.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Empire Mid‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Nigerian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled, centre) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

untitled

Colonial conquest of major towns in Nigeria

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moblit. Peer reviewers: Dirisio117, Eruss5, Cstam716.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous causation drawn between decline of slavery and the fall of Benin

Ymblanter suggests sockpuppetry by me. On the contrary, I have an interest in Nigerian history. It is erroneous to imply causation between the abolishment of slavery in Lagos with the decline in Benin. Britain invaded Lagos in 1851, see Reduction of Lagos. As a consequence, the Treaty Between Great Britain and Lagos, 1 January 1852 was signed effectively outlawing slavery in Lagos and related regions (including Benin). Benin was conquered by Britain in 1897, see Benin Expedition of 1897. Therefore drawing causation between an event that took place in 1851 and another event that took place in 1897 is false. Kunkuru (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it strange that a user with three edits makes an edit, and then you show up and restore the same edit. Also, the fact that you do not that the talk page discussions start at the bottom, and how to sign, does not help much. However, thanks for starting the discussion. The text in the article is not mine, but I think the original idea was that the abolishment of slavery in the British Empire (not in the Edo Empire - note that your edit has removed the link from the article) was the reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lagos became a part of the British empire in 1861 with Lagos' annexation. It is a huge stretch to say that the abolishing of slavery in the British Empire (in 1807) led to the fall of Benin in 1897 Kunkuru (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I see indeed that Benin Empire tells the story differently. Let us keep your version.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir/madam :-) Kunkuru (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism

There was never a thing such as "Nigerian Nationalism". Nationalism in Nigeria was entirely a contraption of the South.

Maybe there is a more accurate term, but that is the term the relevant literature uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.3.167 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

This Entire article is a polemic against the North. further more the author keeps on giving us he's/her's opinion without any sort of citations. I suggest the entire article be overhauled.

Plagiarism?

The section "Influence of the Christian Missions" (and possible more) is a direct copy from the site [1]. I'm not sure how it should be formatted, but at the moment, the formatting makes it look like original research (which it isn't).

This is part of Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Nigeria: A Country Study, Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991. While such country studies are available for use, as they are in the public domain as a government-prepared document, I would agree with you that it should be credited. Parkwells (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "(Note: All of this section to this point is from" bullshit should be fixed. First of all this belongs in the footnotes, plus missing parenthesis. Also, needs more sources. 2A00:1028:9197:48F6:443B:32DB:5C06:458A (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the title of this page be changed to British Nigeria?

There is no consensus to change the name at this point, though the majority of commenters think both names would be acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the title of this page remain "Colonial Nigeria" or should we moved it to "British Nigeria"? Stanleytux (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article title to me looks just fine, and it is the common name for the era. Do you have specific reasons why you think it should be moved to "British Nigeria"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original title (Colonial Nigeria) seemed very good to me and I have no idea of why it should be moved, perhaps Stanleytux had a better reason for the move. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many other articles/categories for colonies include the word "British" in the title, especially within Category:People of the former British colonies, but this is not consistent in Category:Former British colonies. Where a country's history included only one imperial ruler, "Colonial" seems sufficient. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think either one would reflect common usage—I think both are used frequently. As far as I can tell, there's not really any good reason to prefer one over the other. Theoretically, "British Nigeria" would convey a little bit more information to someone who is completely ignorant of the topic, but this is really a pretty marginal benefit. So I think it may as well remain "Colonial Nigeria". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good Ol'factory's comments are very sensible. Either is fine, though I would personally suggest that "Colonial Nigeria" would be veering towards a "general-history-of-Nigeria-in-the-period-of-colonial-rule" article, whereas "British Nigeria" would be narrowly focused on the polity itself. Either would seem fine to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless a good reason to change the name of the article is present, I don't see any reason to change, though, as others have said, it would be acceptable either way. If anyone is talking about the 13 colonies in the United States, they don't qualify it with the 13 "British" colonies. Likewise, the phrase "colonial times" is used, everyone knows what country the colonies were a part of. If for some reason, colony isn't clear enough (as in Nigeria had been the colony of more than one other country), then I can see a need, but that is not the case and I think it is fine as is. Not to mention "British Nigeria" already redirect here, so it's not like someone won't be able to find it. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.