Talk:Colonialism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mistake

Moreover, American revolution was the first anti-colonial rebellion, inspiring others- This statement is false, Ireland had been engaged in an anti-colonial rebellion centuries prior to the American War of Independance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.32.254.6 (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not commenting on British and Irish history but the idea that the American revolution was the first anti-colonial rebellion clearly doesn't stand up. Maybe it was the first successful, large scale rebellion against colonialism, if you define colonialism narrowly. But even that I'd want to see a good source for.

More importantly, the statement has nothing to do with the section, which is about liberalism.

I have removed the offending text.

You do know that you can edit Wikipedia yourself, right? If you think your edit may be controversial, it can make sense to discuss it on the talk page first. However, we like to say be bold!

Yaris678 (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced historical perspective

The article as written gives a passing nod to the reality that (a) colonialism existed prior to European involvement in Africa, Oceania and the Americas; and that (b) other colonial powers, in addition to the European ones, were actively involved in building colonies during this time, and following. I note that the history section devotes one paragraph to colonialism prior to the fifteenth century (and really says nothing at all about its origins); and seven paragraphs about European colonialism subsequent to that. The Roman Empire, one of the most important and extensive colonial powers in history, gets a cursory mention and there is no comparison and contrast of their colonial project with that of later empires. All we learn about the most significant indigenous empire - the Aztec - in two sentences, was that they had one, and used conquered territories as a source of sacrificial victims. Were those territories colonies? Why or why not? We never are told. Even the lede, after defining colonialism in the first paragraph, spends a long second paragraph discussing European colonialism post-1500; and absolutely nothing at all about colonialism prior to that period - as if it had just suddenly popped on the scene, devised by people living in a single cultural context. I checked the archives and could only find a brief discussion, dating to 2006, essentially musing about whether this article was essentially about European colonial expansion post-1500; and whether a second article was needed. There seemed to be no resolution. So I'm raising it again here. fishhead64 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The issues with the topic/scope of this article probably has to do with the concept of "imperialism/colonialism" becoming coined and used as a term to describe the recent developments in the 16th to 20th centuries. This is probably why the editor in the previous section thought it would be a good idea to merge the two concepts. If the scope of this article addresses "Western" culture, some of your examples should be included as well. But the main issue is that the topic of this article is too specific. I think we should expand this article to include non-"Western" culture/peoples, so that this doesn't present a biased/incomplete viewpoints or examples. There is already an article on colonization, but that one also fails to address viewpoints/examples outside of the recent developments from the 16th to 21st centuries. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, M0rphzone. I would love to hear other opinions on this. I am by no means an expert in this field, or even an amateur one, but as the primary go-to article for researchers and students, I think we can do better. And perhaps I can begin by posting notes on project groups related to the empires/historical periods lacking here to ask for help. fishhead64 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that it should not be merged as to merge both pages would imply tat the terms were synonyms, which they are not!

Also, this concept of "colonialism" had already existed, for example, with colonies such as the Magna Graecia, and Phoenician colonies such as Ancient Carthage. I am also not an expert; should I put up a notice for WikiProject experts in this topic/field to clean up this article? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have time, that would be lovely! Much thanks! I'll cast about for others. fishhead64 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Invalid link

The " How did Easter Island's ancient statues lead to the destruction of an entire ecosystem?, " link in the note sections is invalid.

I do not know how to sign my posts, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.80.253 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Settler demographics in Palestine

@Shrike. Since it is not clear that you have even been reading the sources you criticize and delete from articles before you criticize and delete them, I'm not sure you will read this, but I'll post here for future reference for everyone. settler demographics That statistical report is published by Foundation for Middle East Peace.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Does this source mention Colonialism?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, and I can't find any references to it. Even still, this isn't "European" colonialism as the settlers are not all Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc. Hell, some of them aren't even Israeli at all.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? They are Jews from the USA and Europe emigrating as settlers, right? You need to know their sect?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this, but then I realized that the IBAN will implemented soon. Either way, you know what my point is. You're just playing ostrich, at this point.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This source mentions Colonialism. PerDaniel (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I've just presented a couple of other sources that have already been presented to Tritomex more than once.

What do we need to do next to demonstrate consensus to restore Matts77's edit? Hold a vote?--Ubikwit (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, that's a Guardian link, not an RS in this context. Second, you guys are still missing the point. This is a hotly contested issue in which there is no broad consensus. We can't include it as it would be picking sides in a real world dispute.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis of your blanket dismissal of the Guardian as a reliable source?

You also seem to still not understand that NPOV demands that the points of view represented in RS be presented on Wikipedia in a proportional manner. The POV we are discussing here is the majority POV of he international community. Where are the sources supporting your minority POV?--Ubikwit (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it.

There is no, I repeat, no consensus that classifies Israel as a European colonial state. There are RS that do, that is correct. But there are more RS that disagree. Listing Israel under colonial migrations would be tantamount to favoring one side of the debate, which is not neutral. As badly as you want this to happen, it's just not in the cards. The sources are at the settler colonialism article, under the Middle East section. Furthermore, you have not shown me anything that says that the majority of the international community considers Israel a European colonial state. Stop the guesswork.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please link to the wikipedia policy that requires consensus among all sources to include something in an article? If not, I would urge you to stop inventing your own wikipedia policies. According to WP:DUE fringe theories can be excluded, but neither the fact that Israel has a significant population of european descent nor the theory that Israel is a colonial state is a fringe theory. Here is a quote from WP:DUE:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

User:Ubikwit has provided a source for the first, and I have provided a source for the second. It appears that my one source did not convince you, so here are some more sources: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Histories-Palestine-Eastern-Mediterranean/dp/074532830X/ref=sr_1_65?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-65 http://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Prophets-Peace-Tikva-Honig-Parnass/dp/1608461300/ref=sr_1_67?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-67 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intifada-Palestine-Crossroads-Jamal-Nassar/dp/027593411X/ref=sr_1_69?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-69 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionist-colonization-occupied-Arab-territories/dp/B0006YCUM6/ref=sr_1_70?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-70 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Politics-Palestinian-Authority-Al-Aqsa/dp/0415944406/ref=sr_1_73?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-73 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unsettling-Settler-Societies-Articulations-Ethnicity/dp/0803986947/ref=sr_1_75?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230940&sr=8-75 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pioneers-West-Colonization-English-speaking-Countries/dp/083712624X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230471&sr=8-5 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Colonization-Territories-Subcommittee-Immigration-Naturalization/dp/1153461684/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230471&sr=8-12 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rothschild-Colonization-Palestine-Geographical-Perspectives/dp/0742509141/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230553&sr=8-17 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Colonies-Law-Colonialism-Palestine/dp/0521631831/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230553&sr=8-25 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Palestine-Pieces-Graphic-Perspectives-Occupation/dp/0745329292/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230553&sr=8-30 http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Semitism-Islamophobia-Hatreds-Old-Europe/dp/0976147580/ref=la_B001HPIDUQ_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357232510&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Colonization-Territories-Israel-Classic-Reprint/dp/B0092GYLE4/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230643&sr=8-36 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indispensable-Traitors-Conflicts-Contributions-Comparative/dp/0313317747/ref=sr_1_48?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230643&sr=8-48 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Palestine-Israel-Jamil-Effarah/dp/1420892347/ref=sr_1_50?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230725&sr=8-50 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionism-Militarism-Decline-US-Power/dp/0932863604/ref=sr_1_52?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230725&sr=8-52 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Israel-Colonial-settler-State-Maxime-Rodinson/dp/0913460230/ref=sr_1_57?ie=UTF8&qid=1357230725&sr=8-57. I am not claiming that all of these books are reliable sources, nor that they all support the theory that Israel is a colonial state. I am including them all to show that the theory is not a fringe theory as it is discussed or mentioned in a large number of books. I could probably have found more, but I got tired of searching through the books that had searchable content on amazon. PerDaniel (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not getting my point. It isn't a fringe theory, but neither is the argument that Israel is not a colonial state. And in light of this fact, we cannot include Israel under the colonial migrations section, as this would be picking sides in a highly controversial debate, thus violating WP:NPOV. However, we are in the process of discussing the possible creation of a separate section of the article for this dispute.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a decent number of these books are from self-publishing companies, thus rendering them non-RS.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be you are not getting PerDaniel's point. You have produced a few sources that make some fairly outlandish ("fringe"?) statements, such as the following

Avi Bareli...argues that the "Colonialist School offered this alternative interpretation to replace the account of the return of the Jewish people to its land"

The author reverses the order, and posits a "Colonist school" instead of crediting the assignment of such characterization to the League of Nations (i.e., the precursor to the UN). It seems like dissimulation, and fringe to me. That is to say, it was the UN that characterized the British facilitated Zionist movement as colonial, whereas Bareli tries to reverse that and put forth "an account of the return of the Jewish people to its land". That also contradicts the fact that the only land that belonged to Jewish people in Palestine was land that they'd purchased, as the UN recognizes none of the illegally occupied territory as Israeli. Therefore, that sentence contains two statements that don't represent a minority view as much as they attempt to refute the long-standing majority view. Furthermore, are there a significant number of sources that maintain this viewpoint?--Ubikwit (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is POV. You are incapable of coming up with a rational argument, which makes this exchange between us a waste of time, and now at an end.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Evildoer: That is why I wrote: "I am not claiming that all of these books are reliable sources, nor that they all support the theory that Israel is a colonial state". It would be nice if you would bother to read what other people wrote, before replying to it. If you don't think that it is a fringe theory then why do you demand that it is removed? Please give a reason based on existing wikipedia policies. WP:NPOV does not state that we should remove everything related to controversial debates, if it did wikipedia would be virtually empty. PerDaniel (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Because including it would be a controversial edit, tantamount to picking sides in the debate. We can't do that. That is why we are contemplating the creation of a separate section for this issue (see below).

@Evildoer: I forgot to ask what you mean by a "decent number". Is it 2? If you think that the books are not reliable sources, you will have to find support for that on a one by one basis at WP:RSN, you can't dismiss 17 books because you think that they may be self-published. PerDaniel (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to continually repeat yourself. That is not an effective means of attempting to persuade the editors that disagree with you on this Talk page.

With respect to the plight of the Palestinians, would you think that Wikipedia recognizes official publications of the UN as representative of the majority international POV?

Here are a couple of passages from an official UN publication THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE, United Nations, 1981 that has already been presented to you on a related article Talk page.

While, under the new international order introduced by the League of Nations, sovereignty over Palestine rested with the Palestinian people, these sovereign rights were clearly violated by the Balfour Declaration, which possessed several remarkable features. First, it presumed to dispose of Palestine in cooperation with a political organization whose publicly declared intention was to colonize Palestine with foreign immigrants.

By 1952 the General Assembly had enunciated the right of self-determination for peoples of former Mandates which had become Non-Self-Governing or Trust Territories under the UN system. The only exception was Palestine, which had become the "Palestine problem". In 1960, the General Assembly adopted resolution 1514 (XV) entitled "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples' clearly endorsed the right of self-determination for peoples subject "to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation"

--Ubikwit (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is if you keep ignoring my points.

I already discussed the flaws of that article with you on the same talk page. A UN article from more than 30 years ago does not change the fact that there is no widespread consensus and/or recognition of Israel as a European colonial state. It is still a hotly contested issue, and we do not have the right to pick sides. You don't seem to get that, but it is unlikely that you'll ever willingly accept it, no matter what I say.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You dont seem to get that there does not have to be consensus that classifies Israel as a European colonial state. You cannot, I repeat cannot, suppress material cited to reliable sources. We dont take sides, but suppressing the sources that do say Israel is a colonial enterprise is taking a side. What you do is include both that Israel is considered a colonial state by X and not by Y. And your dismissal of The Guardian as not an RS in this context is absurd. nableezy - 15:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are to include Israel under a demographics list of European colonial migrations, then there most certainly does need to be a consensus that Israel is a European colonial state. Doing otherwise would be tantamount to picking sides in a real world dispute, treating it as an incontestable fact, and we have no right to do that. However, I would not be opposed to creating a section somewhere on here that includes both sides of the debate, similar to what we have now on the settler colonialism article. That should be a fair compromise.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no no no no, no no. Read what I wrote again. I did not say to treat it as an incontestable fact, I said include who says it is and who says it isnt. Would be something like, in the list: Israel (considered a colonial state by XYZ, disputed by ABC). You cannot suppress reliably sourced material, and if you continue doing so you will be banned from editing in this topic. The end. nableezy - 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to suppress anything. I am saying there is no way we can put "these RS agree, these RS disagree" in a section titled "colonial migrations". Adding Israel to that list would be taking sides. Period. By all means, go ahead and create a new section that explains the debate surrounding Israel and colonialism, and include all of the RS. I have no objections to that.

However, I would also like to remind you that you are not my superior. If you continue to address me in the rude and condescending tone you are now, I will not hesitate to file a complaint against you.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

File away. nableezy - 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is of utmost importance, and needs to be mentioned here. It can be found at WP:DEMOCRACY

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede rather than foster discussion so should be used with caution."

Evildoer187 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also the consideration of the precedence of application of the characterization of "colonial" to the emigration of European Jews to Palestine (and later Israel). That characterization occurs while the UN was still the League of Nations, whereas all of the sources you've cited occur much more recently in reaction to that characterization, as defensive statements, basically.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that entire paragraph is original research.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What is original research in a statement of factual precedence?

The date of "1952" for example, in the above-cited UN document represent a fact that the characterization you have been trying to refute has had currency from a period starting more than twenty years before the earliest dated source you have presented.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing that because A came before B, that B is irrelevant. That is original research. You would do well to read the entire thing this time. WP:No original researchEvildoer187 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a misrepresentation of what I've said. You seem to think this is some sort of zero sum game, but it's not. What I'm trying to do is represent historical facts as presented by reliable sources. You are trying to deny those facts by presenting sources that criticize the conceptual framework in which those facts are presented,i.e., "colonial migration" to deny that approximately half of the population (or more) of Israel is composed of emigrants from Europe. Matts77 has already provided solid arguments refuting such a strategy. Maybe we'll have to create a whole new section for Palestine/Israel in the main body of the article to eliminate the perceived controversy bearing in mind NPOV and DUE. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored Israel with a note saying it is disputed and providing sources for each position. NPOV demands that all significant views be included, and it is simply not an option to remove material because there is not unanimity among sources. The answer is to provide all views, not suppress any. nableezy - 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer, what is the policy basis for your revert. You cannot remove material because you dont like how it makes a certain state look. NPOV is a core pillar of Wikipedia, and if you continue to violate it I will ask that you be restricted from editing this website, much less this topic. nableezy - 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This one. Moreover, we're discussing the possibility of removing that section altogether. See below.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus you say? Have you read that page? nableezy - 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We have not agreed that the section needs to be removed, but that it may need to be if it is OR in accordance with the concern voiced by FromerIP.

I personally think that it is simply a collection of statistical data on population numbers. FormerIP raised the issue that maybe it makes European Jews seem to have been a geographic power, but it would seem, in light of the sources listed by PerDaniel, etc., that the characterization of Israel as a colonial settler state is the majority POV.

I think that until we decide what to do Israel should be restored to the list.

It would be possible to describe the controversy--to the extent that it is not fringe--in a new section in the main body of the text that also includes Palestine (i.e., settlers in occupied territories).--Ubikwit (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all of the books he posted were non-reliable sources, so using that to argue it's the majority POV is ludicrous. I could dig up about 1000 books, websites, etc (reliable or not) that disagree. Please stop claiming that it is the majority POV. That is your opinion, and nothing more.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your unfounded accusations of non-reliability seems to grow each time: First it was "a decent number", now it is "nearly all". What will it be next? 120%? You have not given one shred of evidence why these books are not reliable sources. The fact that most of them disagree with your POV is not a basis for declaring them non-RS. PerDaniel (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole section needs bulldozing

I'd like to throw this out on a tangent, if I may.

Firstly, it seems like it is reliably sourced and perfectly appropriate to add material to the article about views regarding Israel and colonialism, provided attention is paid to NPOV and DUE. So maybe a compromise would be to do that, just not in the "colonial migrations" section where it doesn't seem appropriate - because the classification would be controversial, and because it would seem to incorrectly imply that European Jews were a geographical power at some point.

Secondly and more importantly, the "colonial migrations" section seems to me to be unencylopaedic original research. What does it tell us about the United States, in relation to colonialism, that 75% of its inhabitants are of European descent? Are we counting Rod Stewart as a colonial import? WWII refugees? I think it's just too distantly related to the topic of the article. If a list like this is even useful, maybe it should feature statistics about migration to countries during their colonial periods. Formerip (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting take, but the section is largely just an assemblage of statistical data, apparently not controversial.

Where would you propose that the information on Palestine/Israel be integrated into the main body of the article?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than concentrating on the bulldozing--that can wait--I'd be interested in focusing on the new section--as there doesn't seem to be a good fit in the present schema.

There are currently two sets of data, one presented by Matts77 consisting of statistics published by the Israeli government, and another I posted at the head of the preceding section on demographics of the settler population, which is from 1998. It seems to me that there was at least one other source of statistical data, but I can't recall it now. At any rate, those two sets of data represent one for Israel proper and another for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which are occupied Palestinian territories, and Golan, which is occupied Syrian territory.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia = former European colonial powers. Israel = Middle Eastern country. BTW, the official Indonesian policy of transmigration, Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara, or a program of settlement of Han Chinese in East Turkestan and Tibet have massively dwarfed Israeli settlement of captured lands. Tobby72 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont see how any of that comment is relevant. nableezy - 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I support FormerIPs proposition.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a separate section for Israeli's colonization in neighbouring nations would be appropriate. Sepsis II (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support this, as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in the main body, and what shall we call the section? Also, it would seem that Palestine should be included, perhaps with a discussion of the time from the Mandate period through the present, particularly with regard to the settlement related emigrant population in the occupied territories.

In the meantime, what do you think about the listing of statistical data for Israel under "Colonial migrations"? The former listing includes just the name "Israel" and the parenthetical percentage of (%40) or thereabouts, which was sources from Israeli government data. Nableezy even added a statement pointing to controversy.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've said my piece, and I'm getting the hell out of this discussion before I lose even more of my sanity. Cheers.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the logical place for the new section would be between "Numbers of European settlers in the colonies (1500-1914)" and "Neocolonialism".

Maybe a section called "Palestine", with subsections of "British Mandate", "Israel", and "Occupied Territories", or more accurate categories along those lines.

This would seem to be a somewhat unusual, and transitional example of colonialism that includes elements of neocolonialism. It's absence would seem to be a oversight.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Not all immigrants to Israel were Ashkenazi, even under the first aliyah. A good portion of them came from Yemen. Israel belongs somewhere under 5, and whatever we include must not contain even a hint of partisanship.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any WP:RS which define Israelis as "european colonialists" This is non sense and WP:SYNTH.--Tritomex (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Undid non-consensus edit by User:Evildoer187

I just undid an edit by User:Evildoer187, because he didn't bother to discuss it here before editing. Before he removed the line here with the edit summary: "(→‎Colonial migrations: Removed until I can think of a better statement)" it said:

"Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry:"

When he included it again here it said:

"The following are statistics for people of European descent in areas colonized by European powers."

This does not seem like an improvement of the article to me. The phrasing seems worse to me, he has also removed the CIA factbook source, but the worst, in my opinion, is that he appears to have rephrased it specifically to exclude Israel from the list. This appears to have been done to circumvent the discussion he has been involved in on this talk page. PerDaniel (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt even exclude Israel, see for example this article discussing the surrogate colonization of Palestine. nableezy - 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it implied that every person of European descent living outside of Europe is a colonist, or descended from colonists. I shouldn't even need to explain why that is problematic. In addition, the source itself had virtually nothing at all to do with colonialism or colonial migrations. Rather, it was a statistics/demographics assessment sheet in which every country in the world was listed.

Besides, Israel does not belong on that list even with the original phrasing. Israel's inclusion on there was a POV edit, and it was rightly removed.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a POV violation to remove it, and it will be restored. You have yet to provide an actual policy based argument for removing it. You cannot claim there is no consensus because you disagree. You are required to give reasons based in policy, and "no consensus" is not one. nableezy - 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It was removed rightly. I see numerous WP:OR and WP:SYNTH without any WP:RS to include Israel in "european colonial migrations"--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Other viewpoints on colonialism?

There seems to be a lack of other viewpoints on colonialism (namely, that it had positive effects) except in the section on diseases. The imperialism page may have some useful references. Allens (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not contending that colonialism always had positive effects - the case of the Belgian Congo is a rather thorough counterexample of that. Allens (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is little scholarly work on the positive aspects of colonialism, likely because the benefits of economic exploitation of the periphery are inherent in any description of such a relationship. The economic benefits to the colonizing countries is stated in the article. This is akin to requesting other viewpoints on slavery, in that it is a practice of the past that is no longer morally sanctioned, and so descriptions of it tend to sound biased when it is actually our interpretation of these descriptions that passes judgement. (The word "exploitation" for example, is a term in political economy theory describing an economic relationship, and not necessarily a moral judgement.) In both cases, the benefits of the practice are inherent in any explanation of the process. The sentence containing "the countries followed mercantilist policies designed to strengthen the home economy at the expense of rivals" is such an explanation. Perhaps it could be repeated or elaborated upon by consulting mercantilist economic theory, but the process of taking colonial resources in exchange for manufactured goods is covered. The expansion of territory and influence is also described, and I'm not sure how much more there is to say about that. I don't see that this article is biased, because I don't believe that there is a significant faction of reliable authors arguing for the perspective you are requesting. That said, the wording in various places could certainly be changed to give a more balanced perspective. DoItAgain (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Historian's Views

In the Countering Disease section, two sentences that make rather strong (and opposing) claims are vague and uncited:

"Many scholars have argued that evidence that supports this practice as having been executed on a larger scale across North America is weak. Yet, growing evidence is showing that other indigenous communities were purposefully infected, citing oral history from the descendants of said peoples."

I added a citation needed and by who? template to these sentences. Suggest removal if they remain unsourced. 199.68.196.142 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

guise...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.215.54 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 

Proposed merger with Imperialism

Colonialism is virtually synonymous with imperialism; that is, even though a "colony" originally implied settlers moving to lands already occupied by a different people (or, more rarely, unoccupied) during the 19th century it became far broader in meaning and included many "colonies in which there were no permanent settlers (or very few). And I suspect that imperialism (a word that was coined relatively recently) emerged because it was less ambiguous than colonialism. Consequently, I think this article represents an example of content forking. This is also suggested (e.g.) by the the fact that the first link to Imperialism is well "buried", several paragraphs down. Grant | Talk 09:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The terms "colonialism" and "imperialism" are definitely not synonymous. While they may be similar in topic, the two terms have different connotations/denotations. The recent connotation of "colonialism" is that it is not carried out in the policy of broadening an empire to compete with rival empires, and may also mean a form of commercial/business practice, while the connotation of imperialism is that it is completely sponsored/carried out by states with the aim/goal to increase the size/power of their empire and compete with rival empires. Additionally, the articles are already too large to merge into one article. It makes more sense to keep them separate/distinct. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This opposition is justified. A salient example would be modern criticisms of the US as "imperialist", whereas, a foray into Liberia notwithstanding, no one would suggest that the US is a colonial power. DoItAgain (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same above-stated reasons. --Adam9389 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per M0rphzone, basically. Also, the claim regarding the etymological status of the term "imperialism" as recent seems questionable, as empires have existed since ancient times. Colonialism and neo-colonialism refer to more decentralized undertakings not necessarily directly orchestrated by a state. At the very least, the proposer should read this Imperialism#Colonialism_vs._Imperialism.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Colonialism is a specific type of imperialim. As such, all colonialism involves imperialism, but not all imperialism involves colonialism. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Oppose - The two words are not synonyms. Imperialism is often used in modern context, such as the American Imperialism, in contrast to colonialism. 192.231.234.1 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I came here from WP:AN. I am closing this discussion as maintain status quo. The proposed merger is rejected. For what it's worth, I agree with the opposers. Chutznik (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitions section

The Definitions section is tedious and redundant. Any objections about trimming and moving the remainder to References? Bhny (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Universalism

I made a change in this section. The paragraph on the Greeks referred specifically to the Athenians. Of course there were Athenian colonies in various parts of the Mediterranean, and there were many Greek colonies as early as the 7th C. BC, but the greatest Greek expansion was under Alexander, and the comments in this paragraph apply to all Greeks, not just the Athenians. Wallace McDonald (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian colonial country?

In Russia there was never colonies. It included all new territory in the state and actively assimilated their. That is why Russia did not collapse, as the colonial country. 91.122.15.208 (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• • OK. If Russia have colonies, USA is one big colony, which is captured indians territory... Editors - you are mad. 176.115.149.234 (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain, not United Kingdom

The legend of the map that purports to show worldwide colonial possessions in 1800 wrongly identifies the Kingdom of Great Britain as the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland).

The United Kingdom did not come in being until 1 January 1801. The Kingdom of Ireland was still a separate country prior to that date. The native Irish had very few rights in their own country before and after 1801, since it was the Anglo-Irish who ran the place; but it was still a separate country from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1800.

73.162.218.153 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary style

Currently, the section on the impact of colonialism is rather long; most of it should be moved into the article on that topic, with only a (balanced!) summary left. Allens (talk | contribs) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allens,

I think quite a lot of this article could benefit from WP:Summary style, not just the "Impact of colonialism and colonization" section. Most obviously the massive lists of colonies in the history section. These could go into a list article or else be removed completely.

I feel some big edits coming on!

Yaris678 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I would love to roll up my sleeves and help get those long lists moved into their own list articles-- both the Colonies in 1914 lists, and the Colonial Migrations list (which is exclusively European. I agree with the comments that the Euro-centrism in this article is pervasive, and moving that into its own list will be, I think, a constructive step). I'm new to wikipedia, particularly such active talk pages. Thought it would be good to throw out the interest in moving the lists here first. --Mostory (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Colonial migrations" section

I am aware that most colonial powers of the last few hundred years have been European, but why does this section explicitly include only European descendants? Why not, for example, ethnically Turkish or Japanese populations in their respective colonies? Tezero (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

I want to contribute some information on the sub category of "Colonialism and Imperialism" the source is from (Political Geography by Joe Painter and Alex Jeffrey) It is an academic source. Please consider this. Thank You Matt.Faf (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (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.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Malpractice Colonial Times

Is there any info on intentional injury to babies by white midwives in colonial times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

List of colonial powers that presented excuses / asked for pardon and try to repair malpractices and outright criminal acts during their colonial period ?

I assume there must be a list here somewhere, but I haven't found it. Those pages should interlink. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: You have just suggested a wonderful addition to this article. Please, expand it. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Which English?

I am noticing a good number of contributions purely done to change an English spelling. This represents time and energy wasted on these immaterial issues, rather than investing it in expanding and improving the article in regards to content. So, should we decide which English will be used here? The two most common forms of English in the English Wikipedia are the British and the U.S. (American). Please, weight in with your opinion. Per my convenience, I would choose the U.S. English, but I suppose that the British English would be the most used here. So, this should be decided by participation. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it correct to say colonialism spread unequal social relations if they were already present?

In the article it writes, "The impacts of colonization are immense and pervasive.[38] Various effects, both immediate and protracted, include the spread of virulent diseases, unequal social relations, exploitation, enslavement, medical advances, the creation of new institutions, abolitionism,[39] improved infrastructure,[40] and technological progress.[41] Colonial practices also spur the spread of colonist languages, literature and cultural institutions, while endangering or obliterating those of native peoples. The native cultures of the colonized peoples can also have a powerful influence on the imperial country"

However I know of no instances where colonialism actually increased unequal social relations. For example in India there already was a caste system. In Algeria and Vietnam, France used existing social structures which had been used for the aristocracy.

If we restrict exclusively to non-tribal colonies, I cannot think of a single example where European colonialism increased unequal social relations. The British in particular were notorious for their pragmatic use of existing social relations. I invite you to find one yourself.

I would suggest that the author of that article is projecting his own racist preconceptions on history. For example, the sentence which mentions unequal social relations is clearly non-neutral, having put all negative impacts first. The entire article seems to be written with only a token appreciation of Wikipedia neutrality. Strong Emu Hair Artisan (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Roman and Greek Universalist section

I made some changes to the section on Greek and Roman universalism, which was uncited and grossly inaccurate. For example, it made the claim that Alexander was some sort of Greek cultural supremacist. The reality is that his men nearly mutinied because of how many aspects of Persian culture he adopted himself. I've left ample citations and hope that this will not be an issue.

Let me know if you want the relevant sentences from the sources I cited and I can add those in.

Strong Emu Hair Artisan (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Colonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508643/Smallpox_Through_History.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612021507/http://www.canr.msu.edu/overseas/nzenvironsci/infopart2.htm to http://www.canr.msu.edu/overseas/nzenvironsci/infopart2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020165015/http://www.fsm.ac.fj/aboutfsm.html to http://www.fsm.ac.fj/aboutfsm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622085958/http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/ontheroad/japan.sapporo.ainu.html to http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/ontheroad/japan.sapporo.ainu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626010236/http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf to http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305164937/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This article almost exclusively focuses on Western colonialism, when there are pre-modern examples ranging from the Arabs to the Chinese

This is a problem, perhaps one of a pan-cultural/civilizational bias by editors here of purely Western origins. This article has only a small blurb about the ancient world, which I find astonishing given the colonization of ancient Indo-European peoples around the globe, especially the Celts and Greeks, if not the Phoenicians who built Carthage and Latin tribes of the Romans who populated Italy and beyond. Not much is said about the Persians. Even more distressing is the complete absence of discussion about medieval Islam and the Arabs settling in territories ranging from (present-day) Spain to Uzbekistan during the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates. Nothing is said about the Turkic peoples or the Mongols who settled in various parts of Asia, to say nothing about the Turko-Mongol dynasty of the Mughals who invaded India. To my amazement there is nothing in this article about the Han Chinese expansion from the Yellow River Valley into southern China, northern Vietnam, northern Korean peninsula, Inner and Outer Mongolia, and the Tarim Basin of what is now Xinjiang on the eastern fringes of Central Asia, to say nothing of the diaspora communities in Southeast Asia from Singapore to Malaysia, or even Taiwan for that matter (which was captured from the Dutch by the Chinese Ming loyalist Koxinga during the 17th century). A great deal of (digital) ink could probably be spilled about modern Imperial Japan of the 20th century, if not the legitimate efforts of the Japanese to colonize Korea during the Imjin War of the 16th century (for instance, see Japanese castles in Korea). In sum, this article is going to need a lot of work to remove what I perceive to be a lopsided Western bias. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has been rated as C-Class and still has many unreferenced sources. If you can provide sources for improvements, that is a good thing. As for colonies in the ancient world, the main article is Colonies in antiquity. It covers Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, and Roman colonies.Dimadick (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link, but that article is also equally problematic, since it has an even more exclusive Western focus than this article! There were other ancient powers in Asia who were colonizing territories in that continent. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Some sources that discuss these colonialisms (preferably in relation to the more described Western colonialism) would be good if something concrete is to be done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:Maunus (and User:Dimadick): that should be an easy enough task. This isn't some fringe or controversial topic in academia. It has been established since time immemorial, especially the Arab colonization of West Asia, North Africa, and parts of southern Europe (since this deeply impacted the course of Western history). That doesn't even touch upon the Persian, Arab, Turkic, and Mongolic colonization of Central Asia, something that hasn't been imprinted into the cultural and historical memory of the Western world and hence largely ignored until relatively recent "Silk Road" studies became in vogue in the scholarly community. For the Chinese example of colonialism alone (even more distant in the Western mind than Central Asia), why don't you start with these sources?

• Chang, Chun-shu. (2007). The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Volume II; Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C. – A.D. 157. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472115340.
  • Table of Contents:
    • The Han Frontier System: Origins, Theories, and Structural-Functional Patterns
    • The Han Colonists in Chü-yen: The Organization, Composition, and Character of the Han Frontiersmen
    • The Han Settlements in Chü-yen: Structure, Pattern, and Function
    • Population on the Han Frontier: Numbers, Distribution, and Characteristics
    • The Making of a Han Frontier Region: Control and Communication in Chü-yen
    • Conclusion: Frontier, Colonization, and Empire
• Hyung Il Pai. "Culture Contact and Culture Change: The Korean Peninsula and Its Relations with the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang." World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3, Archaeology of Empires (Feb., 1992), pp. 306-319.
• Deng, Gang (1999), The Premodern Chinese Economy: Structural Equilibrium and Capitalist Sterility, New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-16239-5.
• Hucker, Charles O. (1975), China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-0887-6.
• Wang, Zhongshu (1982), Han Civilization, Translated by K.C. Chang and Collaborators, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-02723-5.
• Di Cosmo, Nicola. (2002). Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521770645.
• Loewe, Michael. (2000). A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han, and Xin Periods (221 BC - AD 24). Leiden, Boston, Koln: Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 9004103643.
• de Crespigny, Rafe. (2007). A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004156054.

The last two sources are biographical dictionaries, but they contain a wealth of information about Han-era colonies and the very deliberate government policies of colonization, encouraging frontier settlements even by remitting the sentences of convicted criminals if they agreed to move north or south and serve in those regions as conscripted laborers, soldiers, farmers, etc. Refugees from wars were often settled in new frontier provinces (or more aptly, commanderies), such as the policy enacted by Prime Minister Cao Cao in the early 3rd century AD. Military colonies were also used to spearhead new conquests and secure newly captured territory. In the north this extended from North Korea, through Inner Mongolia, all the way to the Taklamakan Desert in the Tarim Basin of easternmost Central Asia by way of the Hexi Corridor (which was also colonized and fortified with the ancient Great Wall of China, many parts of which are now in ruin and disconnected from the more well-known Great Wall later restored and refurbished by the Ming Dynasty in the 15-16th century). In the south, regions that were gradually colonized by the Han Empire encompassed parts of present-day China proper that hadn't yet been settled by Han Chinese and stretched well into modern-day Vietnam, the northern half of which had been conquered by the Han Empire during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han (141 - 87 BC). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet colonization didn't just include ethnic Han Chinese and fully Sinified peoples...it also included whole entire tribes and populations considered tributary vassals to the Han emperors, to serve as a protective buffer for frontier zones. This was done with the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, the Qiang, and other peoples. When the Vietnamese rebelled under the Trung Sisters and were defeated by Han general Ma Yuan in 43 AD, he had many of their people from the Red River Delta dispersed and sent to different Chinese provinces. This is somewhat comparable to how the ancient Romans handled defeated Germanic tribes and those who offered their submission in the Foederati system (allowed to live along the Roman frontiers, offering military service in exchange for protection and other benefits). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, that's what I was able to scrounge up merely for the Han Dynasty. This hunt for sources could be repeated for just about every other dynastic period of Chinese history thereafter, all the way up to the Qing Dynasty in early modern and modern times. I mean, look what they did with the Dzungars of Central Asia and the resettlement program that followed: Dzungar genocide. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is Australia indicated as no longer a colony of England after WWII?

Lindaseaborn (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Australia still has the English monarch as the Head of State and has not become a Republic. Doesn't that mean it is still a colony of England?

No. Australia is a commonwealth. The British government do not make our laws or determine our policies, we have our own federal parliament, and our own representatives, we appoint our own judges, make our own laws, and sign international treaties or not according to our own agendas. Before 1856 Australia was six colonies, and the British parliament and British Foreign office made the laws and policies, and appointed each colony a Governor, to be the political man on the ground, just like the eleven colonies that became the USA, before the revolution. Just like in the USA it lead to all kinds of inconvenience, and was also very expensive for Britain to maintain, so Queen Victoria granted the Australian colonies home rule as they asked for it from 1856 to 1890 (although Britain still controlled Australian foreign affairs, and appointed the governors of the states, and signed the trade treaties and declared wars and so on).

In 1900, Australia decided to federate and be a commonwealth. Queen Victoria signed off on that. We followed the Canadian model, becoming a dominion of the crown, with our own autonomous federal government that handled international as well as national affairs, and with the Queen appointing a governor general to do things like open and close parliament, rubber-stamp bills into law, swear in ministers. In the UK, the Queen does these things herself, as the Queen of Great Britain. Having G-G's for the former colonies means she can avoid conflicts of interest when Britain and Canada and Australia and India and Ireland and South Africa and Fiji and Uganda and Pakistan and about 50 other places where she was or is still the head of state are negotiating with each other.

After World War I, Australia decided to be more independent of Britain (recruits from the former colonies had been used as cannon fodder by some especially inept British commanders in WWI, and Britain had put pressure on the government to legislate for conscription, which had been contentious, unpopular, and defeated in a referendum.) So we did what Canada did, signing the 1919 Treaty of Versailles in our own right, and joining the League of Nations as an independent nation, not as a British dominion. But we still kept the Queen as our head of state, and remained in the British Commonwealth of Nations (which includes former colonies that became republics/no longer have the Queen as their head of state, as long as they have free and fair elected governments, or something like that).

The devolution of the British colonial interest has been more gradual than it would have been if the federated states of Australia had seized power in a coup d'etat and declared a republic, the way the continental congress did. Even in the sixties, the British foreign office was sending us the minor aristocrat they least wanted in London, to serve as G-g of Australia. The constitutional loophole that had supposedly been closed by the King Byng Thing opened up again in 1975, when the Australian G-g sacked the prime minister, and Buckingham Palace claimed the Queen had nothing to say about it because it was two in the morning and they didn't want to wake her up. When she received the official written notice of it, she took a week to politely refuse to have anything to do with it. Until the late 1980's, British citizens could take positions in the Australian Public Service without being Australian citizens. Until the late 90's politicians could be duel Australian/British citizens. There are still sneaky backdoor ways the British government can get itself undue political influence in Australia, thanks to our constitution, but they say they never use them, and whenever the Republican debate is raised (2/3rds of Australians would rather we were a republic) the pro-monarchist point out that these are hardly ever used, not likely to be important, the system works well enough, and the Queen is a popularly supported head of state (at least half of the republicans think the Queen is doing a fine job as head of state, or at least, would object to replacing her as head of state with a political appointee. The other half think presidential elections are expensive and noisome and...well, we see what happens in other countries. And Canada is still doing alright, after all.)

Anyway, I know it isn't absolutely clear cut, but Australia has considered itself its own country since 1901, and has been considered its own country by the League of Nations since 1919, and by Britain, mostly, sort of, since 1931.

The thing that bothers me about this article is that the map of colonies in 1800 doesn't show the colony of New South Wales down the East coast of Australia, or Norfolk Island.

I accept that the colony on Van Dieman's Land doesn't make the cut (British colony established 1803, French colony proposed, claimed, explored, but not actually colonised 1783-1803; claimed as part of the Dutch East Indies but never colonised 1642) and can also see why Torre's Spanish claim on New Guinea isn't recognised (fought, took twenty captives, and never came back), but NSW and Norfolk Island were well established and thriving British colonies by 1800.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.189.207 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510163413/http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/goodling.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/goodling.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715022142/http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3727 to http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3727

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110922011211/http://www.setav.org/ups/dosya/24514.pdf to http://www.setav.org/ups/dosya/24514.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041223112019/http://www.doh.gov.ph/sphh/balmis.htm to http://www.doh.gov.ph/sphh/balmis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416015559/http://www.smallpoxhistory.ucl.ac.uk/Other%20Asia/ongoingwork.htm to http://www.smallpoxhistory.ucl.ac.uk/Other%20Asia/ongoingwork.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207015726/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=696 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=696

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel

I have removed Israel from the list of European colonial states, for there is a lack of consensus that characterizes them as such. Inclusion of Israel is controversial, polarizing, and largely based on political POV. Moreover, numerous counter arguments have been made by scholars and historians against these claims eg. that Zionism is a liberation movement for a long displaced diaspora group returning to its land.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Many reliable sources describe Israel as a colonial state, and many as a state currently engaged in settler colonialism, as you are well aware of from your editing on the

Settler colonialism article. Your entire statement above is POV. It doesn't matter if the inclusion of Israel on the list is something that you find "controversial, polarizing" it is not "largely based on political POV" but on what the reliable sources say. --Ubikwit (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

A few reliable sources doSeadowns (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC) not a consensus make when there are other reliable sources who disagree. This is a hotly contested issue (which is why Wikipedia monitors articles pertaining to the I/P conflict as tightly as it does) and we on Wikipedia are compelled not to take sides in this debate. Including Israel on here would be doing just that. You do know that this isn't the same as the dispute we had at settler colonialism, right?Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that both Matts and I feel that they belong on the list would seem to represents a consensus. Particularly in light of the reliable sources cited and under discussion at the Settler colonialism article

---There seems to be two issues at hand here: a) whether a significant portion of the Israeli population are European migrants or near decedents of; and, b) whether the discourse on "colonialism" is applicable to Israel.

a) Please note per the Colonialism entry, the Colonial Migrations subsection lists "Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry." The basis for Israel's inclusion in this list is derived from the Israeli government's Central Bureau of Statistics (CBI), which maintains records of inter alia the "Country of Origin" of "'Jews and others' population incl. Jews, non-Arab Christians and those not classified by religion." Per official Israeli records, the "Country of Origin" is identified by the CBI for both "Jews and Others" both "Born Abroad" and "Israel Born." That the origin of a significant portion of the Israeli population is, or are near decedents of, European migrants is a non-controversial, non-political, non-ideological fact. Israel can thus be classified among "Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry." That a majority the Israeli populace are immigrants or near decedents of immigrants is also a non-controversial, non-political, non-ideological fact.

b) Please note that colonialism is a term used in the social sciences to denote specific relationship structures that arise between an dominant or increasingly dominant foreign group (i.e., colonizer) and a larger indigenous population (i.e., colonized) within a geographic space. This understanding assumes that the dominant group has at least a conception of 'self' and 'others', according to which power structures evolve through two common forms: 1) through the exploitation of the indigenous 'others' (i.e., metropole colonialism) or, 2) the marginalization of indigenous 'others' (i.e., settler colonialism). The aspirations or intentions of the dominant group are immaterial to the idea that foreign 'colonizer group' ultimately assumes social, economic, and political hegemony in relation to an indigenous 'colonized population' within a geographic space. Social science can observe these structures apolitically.

The issue is not whether Israel is a 'European colonial state'. The formation of the State of Israel, however, can not be properly explained without understanding the development of the early Yishuv - particularly the successful migration, integration, land and labor programs of the Histadrut,the WZO, and JNF. The growth, cohesion and ultimate hegemony of the mostly migrant Jewish population in pre-Israel Palestine and the foundation of Israel as a Jewish State is in no small part due to the multifaceted work of these organizationally advanced institutions. Not only did they serve in bolstering Jewish migration from abroad, they also served as platforms for the largely exclusive economic and social betterment of the Jewish community in pre-Israel Palestine, as well as the organizational and political bases for the establishment of the State. The importance of these institutions and their leaders is well documented and universally recognized, but to illustrate: 75 percent of Jewish workers in mandatory Palestine were members of Histadrut; Mapai and later Avoda (i.e., Labor) - the dominant political parties of the early State were set up by the Histadrut; PM Ben Gurion served as Histadrut's General Secretary; PM Ben Gurion also served President of the WZO; PM Ben Gurion was also the head of Mapai; the WZO and Histadrut set up Bank Hapoalim, Israel's largest bank, etc...etc.

The indigenous non-Jewish Arab population were, for a number of reasons (subject to arguments which are immaterial to my point), largely not integrated into the social or economic fabric of the Yishuv (in contrast to, for example, Jewish migrants from abroad) and were, in large part, not the intended beneficiaries of the Yishuv's political vision for the State of Israel (evidenced by, inter alia the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state).

Are these observations "controversial, polarizing, or largely based on political POV"?

--Matts77 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The opening statement of that section should be modified to something that limits the scope to European colonies and their descendents. I don't know who put it there, or why, but they should have been more specific. The meaning as it is now would seem to insinuate that ANY person of European descent living outside of Europe is a colonizer or is there as a direct result of colonialism. That may not be your intention, but that's what it would imply to people browsing this article. And yes, the issue is about whether or not Israel is a European colonial state. Including Israel on this list would be directly lending support to that idea, which currently is hotly contested and does not have a broad scholarly or historical consensus, thus violating WP:NPOV guidelines. Moreover, Israel does not meet the definition of a colonial state, and lacks many of its most crucial and defining characteristics; the lack of a metropole or 'mother country' is just one example.

I would also object to your characterization of Palestinians as "the indigenous people", for several reasons. One, the various Jewish diaspora (note that word) groups have been shown to have collective roots in the region, thus making them indigenous also, at least in the literal sense. And two, neither group has recognition as an indigenous population by the UN.

I also believe that limiting the scope of this article to Europe is a mistake. Several Asian countries, such as Japan, have a history of colonialism yet for some reason they are not included here.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why is Siberia on there? That country was never colonized.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted the same edit three times now, and this would actually fall under 1RR.

Why don't you revert your edit, and file a request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests to try and make your case on the basis of the sources.

It also seems that you may be canvassing Moxy in a manner such as to influence the outcome of the debate here WP:Canvassing.

As it stands you are on the verge of being blocked again. If you revert your edit and file for a content dispute, nobody is going to come after you for violating 3RR, let alone 1RR.

You are going to have to learn to use the procedural mechanisms available here when you disagree with other editors over content.

--Ubikwit (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Are you guys kidding? You're really edit warring with each other again? Next person to revert this article gets a block from me, and it won't be a short one. Do not edit war. Do discuss. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, deskana, and I don't care to see him sanctioned for this 3RR violation, but I would appreciate it if he could learn to use the dispute resolution process as you've advised me.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Old habits die hard, but I'm trying. It is unlikely that I will be able to reach a consensus of any sort with just myself and Ubikwit in this thread, which is why I have appealed for comment by other parties.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not canvassing. I am trying to get more experienced editors involved in this discussion. I also posted a message at nableezy's page, with whom I have disagreed many times in the past. As for the guy who initially reverted, his only issue seemed to be that I didn't explain why I deleted it.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matts77&oldid=530423930 You accused me of canvassing, and then you go and do this?Evildoer187 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To tell the truth I don't understand why we need "Colonial migrations" section and why does it only talks about europeans. Moreover it seems that sources that are given are just statistics and don't tie it with colonialism--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not be against it personally, but this probably belongs in a section of its own.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely that you will get a unanimous consensus on any issue related to Israel, does that mean we should include the information at it can be supported by reliable sources. Perhaps we could include a footnote that covers some of the sources that both support and oppose the classification. Dlv999 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what we did on the settler colonialism article, but I don't think it would work here.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There is, however, a source on the British people page which tells us that there are roughly 44,000 ethnic Brits living in Israel, according to statistics taken in 2006. As Great Britain did colonize the region, I would not be against including Israel while limiting the scope to that British minority. Including all people of Ashkenazi or European Sephardi descent would be controversial, and thus non-neutral.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Matts and I have both provided reliable sources that present statistical data. Your POV as to what should and shouldn't be included isn't borne out by the facts presented in the sources. The statistic from the source you mentioned could be included if the source is reliable, of course, but that does not in any way limit the scope of the data presented in reliable sources.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

If you're going to respond to me, at least know what you're responding to first. The validity of the statistical sheets is not what we're discussing, because frankly it does not matter. Including Israel on a list of European colonial states is POV and does not have adequate consensus in any field. However, as Britain did colonize the region e.g. British Mandate of Palestine, restricting it to them seems appropriate. I would also recommend doing the same for Lebanon and Syria, who the French colonized.

I am going to try once more to get some more experienced editors in here. Frankly, I do not trust you, as it is obvious that you are here to push an agenda. The WP:AGF rule extends only so far as there is no evidence to assume otherwise. You have provided that evidence in droves.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have removed a soured statement of a source that is used consistently throughout the article--26 times to be precise--all in order to push your agenda of having Israel removed from the list, which is clearly against the consensus here.

Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry:

You have thereby undermined the integrity of the article to a certain degree, and contributed absolutely nothing in teh way of productive editing. Your opinion is a POV that is irrelevant unless it reflects a substantial viewpoint represented in reliable sources.Ubikwit (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

You must mean this source. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

It contains a list of all the countries in the world, not just colonial states, so your point there is moot. And this is what it says next to Israel..."Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)". Moreover, it was only used once, not 26 times. I did a search for the link after I deleted it, and I got nothing. If it was really used as many times as you claim, the citation would still be listed under the Notes section.

Also, is there a broad consensus that Israel is a European colonial state? No? Then to include it under a list of colonial migrations in a way that implicates Zionists as colonizers is POV. There are scholars who support this view and scholars who oppose it, so we cannot pick sides in a controversial, hotly contested real world debate. Further, there are two for inclusion, two against, and one neutral. That is not consensus.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Try a search of "Factbook", there are 28 hits.

As far as I'm concerned the sources support the Inclusion of Israel on the list, and there is consensus with Matts77 on that point. It is not POV pushing, which is what you are doing. --Ubikwit (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of Israel from this list as Israel is not " European colonial state" and this label is against WP:RS and represents WP:OR.--Tritomex (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are already aware of the fact that numerous reliable sources describe Israel as a settler colonialist state, so how is putting Israel on this list "against WP:RS and represent WP:OR"?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And there are numerous reliable sources who disagree with the description of Israel as a settler colonial state. Including them here is a controversial edit and it would be tantamount to picking sides in a real world dispute. By the way, the Factbook sources all link to different pages than the one I deleted. Same overall site, but not the same page, and none of them have anything to do with colonialism or colonial migrations.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which WP:RS, describe Israel as "European settler colonial state"?--Tritomex (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there are no WP:RS that do?

Have you take the time to read the post above by Matts77, which includes this

a) Please note per the Colonialism entry, the Colonial Migrations subsection lists "Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry." The basis for Israel's inclusion in this list is derived from the Israeli government's Central Bureau of Statistics (CBI), which maintains records of inter alia the "Country of Origin" of "'Jews and others' population incl. Jews, non-Arab Christians and those not classified by religion."[1] Per official Israeli records, the "Country of Origin" is identified by the CBI for both "Jews and Others" both "Born Abroad" and "Israel Born." That the origin of a significant portion of the Israeli population is, or are near decedents of, European migrants is a non-controversial, non-political, non-ideological fact. Israel can thus be classified among "Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry." That a majority the Israeli populace are immigrants or near decedents of immigrants is also a non-controversial, non-political, non-ideological fact.

b) Please note that colonialism is a term used in the social sciences to denote specific relationship structures that arise between an dominant or increasingly dominant foreign group (i.e., colonizer) and a larger indigenous population (i.e., colonized) within a geographic space. This understanding assumes that the dominant group has at least a conception of 'self' and 'others', according to which power structures evolve through two common forms: 1) through the exploitation of the indigenous 'others' (i.e., metropole colonialism) or, 2) the marginalization of indigenous 'others' (i.e., settler colonialism). The aspirations or intentions of the dominant group are immaterial to the idea that foreign 'colonizer group' ultimately assumes social, economic, and political hegemony in relation to an indigenous 'colonized population' within a geographic space. Social science can observe these structures apolitically.

:The issue is not whether Israel is a 'European colonial state'.

Of course, after Matts77 posted that comment, Evildoer187 deleted the text that Matts77 referred to in his first sentence: '"the Colonial Migrations subsection lists "Nations and regions outside of Europe with significant populations of European ancestry."--Ubikwit (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)'

"The basis for Israel's inclusion in this list is derived from the Israeli government's Central Bureau of Statistics (CBI)" This is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Beside this it sounds like an insult against an entire nation. Israelis are not "increasingly dominant foreign group (i.e., colonizer)" in Israel, which is internationally recognized nation within its borders--Tritomex (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, I think you misunderstand one point, which I should have addressed first in my last reply. Israel was not listed as "a European colonial state" proper, but under the section on "Colonial migrations".

Check this diff

Matts77 was using statistical data from the Israsli government, and there are other sources that address different segments of the population.

Since Israel is not listed as a "colonial state", I think your concerns are misplaced.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And what do you think listing them under "colonial migrations" implies? That Israel is a European colonial state, an idea which does not have broad consensus. Tritomex is absolutely right.

"Since Israel is not listed as a "colonial state", I think your concerns are misplaced." No, because I removed it before creating this thread.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You created this section on 28 December, after initially reverting Matts77's edit on 17 December, so what are you talking about? See the above-cited diff for the edit of Matts77's you reverted, because it was for the listing of Israel under the Colonial migrations category.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted his edit because it should not have been there in the first place. Israel does not belong under the colonial migrations category, because it is a controversial and POV based edit not supported by consensus. It is a real world dispute which we have no right to take sides in.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Israel would be listed under "colonial migrations" is totally WP:OR. I do not see any WP:RS backing such claim and this is clear POV pushing.--Tritomex (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an unsubstantiable assertion with which I have to disagree. I believe that the statements of Matts77 indicate that he would also disagree, so we will have to organize some sources to definitively refute your assertion.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you just state your intent to canvass? Either way, I agree with Tritomex.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tritomex

Do you not recall the following sources?

Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law 4 (2): 491–539 DieWeisseRose

Here is a reliable source published by an academic press that has already been presented for your consideration in references to descriptions of Zionist colonization. Search results for “colonial”

Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8. One sentence states, "Palestinians in Israel had lived in Palestine thousands of years before the Zionist colonization of their homeland", and another, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants". (See pp. 47-49, in particular.)

And have you seen the source that PerDaniel posted earlier today under the following section?

What sources and what arguments do you have to refute the facts presented in those RS? And remember, genetics is inapplicable here.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are scholarly sources, and I can point you to more scholarly sources who disagree. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism#Settler_colonialism_in_Asia

Like I said, this is a hotly contested issue and we have no right to pick sides. To do so would be violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR guidelines.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Those sources in no way discount the statistical data reporting the number of European (and North American) emigrants to Palestine/Israel. The only point those sources challenge is the majority POV characterization of Israel as a colonial-settler state, which is not even mentioned under the "Colonial migrations" section.

Neither Matts77, PerDaniel nor myself has insisted on the "state" designation, but the number of references in RS to "colonial" would seem to make the inclusion of Israel under the "Colonial migration" section unchallengeable in terms of being representative of the majority POV. --Ubikwit (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, it seems that you are trying to assert that since there are sources supporting a minority POV that calls into question the majority POV, the majority POV is negated by sum total of the minority POV sources, but that is not the case. The majority POV is still the majority POV.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not the majority POV that Israel is a European colonial state. Insisting that it is constitutes conjecture and original research. And I really, really hate repeating myself, but your unrelenting fanaticism has made it necessary. Including Israel, even a fraction of its population, under the colonial migrations list implies that it is a colonial state. This is a hotly contested issue and there is no broad consensus that characterizes them as such, so therefore it would be an exercise in partisanship and POV pushing to include them.

Here are some sources that object, in case you need to be reminded. There are many more that I could use as well.

"However, a number of scholars and historians have objected to the idea that Zionism, and the State of Israel, are tantamount to settler colonialism. Avi Bareli, in his essay 'Forgetting Europe: Perspectives on the Debate about Zionism and Colonialism', argues that the "Colonialist School offered this alternative interpretation to replace the account of the return of the Jewish people to its land". Moreover, he asserts that it "ignores the economic, social, and cultural processes that spurred the Jews in Eastern Europe to emigrate to Palestine over decades in the twentieth century". Arnon Golan contends that "Zionism was not imperialist or colonialist in nature, but a national liberation movement that developed in eastern and central Europe, in conjunction with other national liberation movements in these regions" and that "Zionism was a diaspora national movement that aspired to promote its interests in the destined homeland through becoming a collaborator of imperial powers."

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was, in essence, the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population in their historic homeland and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong." Others such as Ran Aaronsohn, Michael J. Cohen, and Bernard Avishai have similarly attacked post-colonial criticism of Israel.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)"Evildoer187 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see planty of construction, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in this discussion, not a single WP:RS pointing that Israel fails to "European colonialist migration.--Tritomex (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweden and Finland

The article is in my opinion incorrect, as Finland (defined either as pre-1809 Grand Duchy without Bothnia, which was a separate area of the realm; as post-1809 Grand Duchy which became independent in 1917 as the Republic of Finland; or as the whole area of the Swedish Realm where Finnish people lived, the areas being the Grand Duchy of Finland, Ingemanland and Bothnia) wasn't a Swedish colony. Citizens in the area of Finland had equal rights to the citizens in the area of modern-day Sweden, they could participate in the Mora Thing (royal election) in the medieval Swedish Realm and also in the Riksdag (diet) - unlike the people living in the Swedish colonies. Sweden also didn't attempt to suppress the Finnish language or culture, the monarchy indeed ordered Finnish to be established as a written language and to teach it to the Finnish-speaking people, and also to translate the Bible to Finnish. XoravaX (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Impact on health" has an anti-colonialist bias and is misleading

Most of the issues can be more directly attributed to migration, they are not intrinsic to the emigration motivated by colonialism. In fact, I suspect that it's not hard to make the case that colonialism has had in the long-term a beneficial impacts on socioeconomic indicators, including improvements on health, when compared with similar regions that had not been colonized, or perhaps even colonies that became independent earlier, or that were seen as less interesting than other colonies for the colonizing countries. This is not unexpected from increasing technology and infrastructure, and fueling the industry and the economy, specially in the long term, after ceasing a potential "monopoly" over these resources from the colonizing populations. --Extremophile (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that colonialism has "health benefits" is a sure fire way to erase the violence of colonialism. technology "advancements" brought by the colonizers do not justify or take into consideration the act of violence inflicted by the colonial state by conquering either through direct control of land, forcing of culture, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitlinweed (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Modernization

To claim that colonialism resulted in modernization without pointing at all to the Eurocentricity and refutation of the concept is misleading and, I believe, inaccurate. If we keep modernize in there whilst acknowledging the contentiousness of the concept, I’d say that’s keeping things neutral. It’s a bold statement to claim colonizers modernized natives’ religions. This implies that Christianity is somehow more sophisticated than indigenous spirituality, which is a weak assertion.

Perhaps we can edit accordingly? And my apologies for editing without posting here (twice!) I appreciate Tom reaching out. I am getting used to this process. But...my additions seemed neutral given the bias of the modernization bit. Tracychabala (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also - complaints over a "liberal" or "anti-colonial" bias, one that denounces colonialism, should be held up to scrutiny. If the majority of writings on, say, murder, torture, thievery, and slavery are negative, perhaps it's because of an inherent amoralism in these activities. The same can be said of colonization wherein the customs of the West were imposed on the conquered colonies and their natural resources stolen (thievery). To argue that this imposition didn't exist is to whitewash and discount history, not unlike holocaust deniers. Doing so reveals a heavy bias in favor of colonialism, something that isn't super shocking considering the majority of Britains favor it, but the rest of the world, especially the indigenous folks colonized, do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracychabala (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at that sentence. I'm taking issue with the word "refute". I think it's actually more forceful to state it in a less biased way. As to your second point, see below...DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

History v Sociology

I think some editors want this page to be about the history of colonialism, and some editors want it to be about the sociological notion which is a result (or cause) of that history, but the two projects seem too at odds to me. This page currently reads like a failed polemic. Is there a way to tease the two ideas apart (history and sociology)? I'd propose to have at least a section, if not a whole other page, about the sociological term as it's used by people concerned with making a critique of the history and the culture. I'm fully aware that many editors will feel that there is no possibly neutral way to tell the history, but I think that is the primary project of this encyclopedia and I am optimistic that a reasonably neutral description of the history of colonies can be achieved along with a robust section about the colonial mindset, Eurocentrism, etc. Yes, I'm aware that "colony" and "colonization" are also pages. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This article, like any WP article, should reflect how the body of RSs on the subject of colonialism treat the subject. That's what neutrality means per WP:NPOV. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with the literature to assess how well the article currently complies with NPOV, but a discussion of this question should be based on RSs and not our editorial preferences. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that there isn't a single literature on the subject of colonialism. There are at least two literatures on the topics covered in this article (probably more). Further disambiguation is needed. DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which literatures you mean. There are sources that concentrate more on chronology and those that concentrate more on analysis, but as far as I know, they don't treat the subject as two different types of colonialism, one historical and another sociological. These are different aspects of colonialism, and we have different main articles for the different sections of this article.

There are two difficult points in the literature that we aren't reflecting appropriately here.

1) The distinction between colonialism as a concept referring to modern Western expansionism (distinguished from colonization and imperialism in general) on one hand, and colonialism as a concept that also applies to other historical contexts on the other hand. Most academic sources adopt the former definition, while common usage as reflected in dictionary definitions favors the latter view. As a result, we have a lead that argues for the colloquial, transhistorial notion of colonialism, but the article doesn't follow that vision, and it probably couldn't without WP:SYNTH, since RSs that use the term "colonialism" generally don't discuss pre-modern and non-Western colonization, and vice versa.

2) The distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is a recently developed academic field that also encompasses settler colonization throughout history. This in fact can be described as a separate literature, and its name can be described as rather unhelpful. Lorenzo Veracini, who popularized this term, conceived it as a notion distinct from colonialism, going against linguistic intuitions which would read settler colonialism as a type of colonialism (see, for instance, this introduction).

Eperoton (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the history section should be rewritten using prose and the lists spun out in a separate list article. I've added a banner. Eperoton (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)::::@User:Eperoton

Yes, I agree with your take on it. I think the page on Capitalism does a pretty good job of navigating a similar set of issues. So I'm changing my position. I think this page can work the way that page works. It's a matter of making all these distinctions clear. Sorry I don't have the time to work on this too deeply. I'm out of my depth on this one, so I'm going to try to be helpful on the margins. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Huge problems with article

This article has huge problems made worse with recent edits. Belgium was for some inexplocable reason removed from the lede. The editornsais they didn't have an empire. Patently false. Belgian Congo was 98 times larger than Belgium. China's colonies are ignored. And the Ottoman Empire has been taken out. Also, the title of the article is colonialism but some of the text targets only Western Colonialism. If the subject matter is to be narrowed then the article should be retitled. It seems these are POV problems with some sort of weird agenda pushing. We should seek to be historically accurate and factual. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Belgium only became independent in 1830, which means it is younger than the US. In the 19th century, most upstanding Western-European countries had several colonies and Belgium followed suit to be like them. Due to its age as a nation, Belgium did not have a history of colonialism like other countries. Additionally, what is now DRC is indeed so much larger (at least 80 times) in square kilometers that logistics and management had to be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc2564 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's because a switcheroo has been performed. The first paragraph of the lede uses the more general definition of colonialism which encompasses contiguous empires and dynasties and caliphates and whatnot. These go back into prehistory, since what we know of human written history is basically the history of empire-building, from the Akkadian empire onward (the Babylonians, Assyrians, Medians, Persians, Mongols, etc. Just look up empire). Anyplace where one population does nasty things to another that would rather the first stay home, is an "empire" or "dynasty." And is doing colonialism (broadly).

But then, the rest of the lede goes right into the much more leftist Stanford Encyclopedia definition and defines "colonialism" (like "imperialism") as a bad, bad thing done only by Europeans (the source of all evil, due to being Caucasian). Thus, it comes closer to discussing "neocolonialism" (an explicitly Marxist critical construct) under the title of "colonialism."

The dividing line between these two definitions is basically the early "contiguous colonialism" (like the Mongols, Islamic peoples and the Han Chinese practiced), and what the article calls "thalassocolonialism" (sea-colonialism) which is made possible by an imperial power that has ships. The European powers had big ships (in more recent times) and the other did not, but otherwise was not much different in what they did to less powerful peoples. However, there is much pretending that ships made everything more horrible. So we can ignore what the Mayans and Aztecs did to their neighbors, and the Mongols to theirs and the various caliphates to everybody, and focus on the mis-deeds of people with ships. Those white bastards, you see. And that's how the article got to its present state. Like Marxist historians it is so focused on the rise of Europe, that it essentially forgets everything that went on before. It's "Western Civ" with an axe to grind. SBHarris 06:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Colonialism v Imperialism and Ottoman Empire

@ParthikS8: Can we get a consensus on whether or not "contiguity" is an important distinction in whether or not a system is colonial? And from that will follow a consensus on whether or not the Ottoman Empire was colonialist. This article on Imperialism deals with it. Imperialism Except for political motives (wanting to censure one culture and not another) I can't see a difference that makes a difference. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Very well, I will lay out my arguments below.

Difference between Colonialism and Imperialism

All assertions made need to be reliably backed up by sources. The following sources are reliable, and back the claim that their is a distinction between Colonialism and Imperialism:

• "Colonialism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). 2017. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Here we read in particular,

"Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon. World history is full of examples of one society gradually expanding by incorporating adjacent territory and settling its people on newly conquered territory. The ancient Greeks set up colonies as did the Romans, the Moors, and the Ottomans, to name just a few of the most famous examples. Colonialism, then, is not restricted to a specific time or place. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth century, colonialism changed decisively because of technological developments in navigation that began to connect more remote parts of the world. Fast sailing ships made it possible to reach distant ports and to sustain close ties between the center and colonies. Thus, the modern European colonial project emerged when it became possible to move large numbers of people across the ocean and to maintain political sovereignty in spite of geographical dispersion. This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia."

So if I were to agree with you that contiguity is not a factor, then as the source says, we must consider and list all the other cultures that set up colonies, such as the Greeks, the Romans etc. Otherwise, in your own words, we would be pushing a "political motive" and we'd be wanting to censure one culture and not another. We wouldn't want that, would we?

• Loomba, A. (2007). Colonialism/postcolonialism. Routledge. pp. 8-9

Again the author puts forward the argument that all empires might initially be equated with colonialism:

"So colonialism can be defined as the conquest and control of other people’s land and goods. But colonialism in this sense is not merely the expansion of various European powers into Asia, Africa or the Americas from the sixteenth century onwards; it has been a recurrent and widespread feature of human history. At its height in the second century AD, the Roman Empire stretched from Armenia to the Atlantic. Under Genghis Khan in the thirteenth century, the Mongols conquered the Middle East as well as China. The Aztec Empire was established when, from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, one of the various ethnic groups who settled in the valley of Mexico subjugated the others. Aztecs extracted tributes in services and goods from conquered regions, as did the Inca Empire which was the largest pre-industrial state in the Americas. In the fifteenth century too, various kingdoms in southern India came under the control of the Vijaynagar Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, which began as a minor Islamic principality in what is now western Turkey, extended itself over most of Asia Minor and the Balkans. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, it still extended from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, and the Chinese Empire was larger than anything Europe had seen."

However, being dogmatic about it, the author states,

"And yet, these newer European travels ushered in new and different kinds of colonial practices which altered the whole globe in a way that these other colonialisms did not."

The author elaborates on how we might go forward in defining European colonialism in distinction to other forms,

"How do we think about these differences? Was it that Europeans established empires far away from their own shores? Were they more violent or more ruthless? Were they better organised? Or a superior race? All of these explanations have in fact been offered to account for the global power and drastic effects of European colonialisms. Marxist thinking on the subject locates a crucial distinction between the two: whereas earlier colonialisms were pre-capitalist, modern colonialism was established alongside capitalism in Western Europe (see Bottomore 1983: 81–85). Modern colonialism did more than extract tribute, goods and wealth from the countries that it conquered—it restructured the economies of the latter, drawing them into a complex relationship with their own, so that there was a flow of human and natural resources between colonised and colonial countries. This flow worked in both directions—slaves and indentured labour as well as raw materials were transported to manufacture goods in the metropolis, or in other locations for metropolitan consumption, but the colonies also provided captive markets for European goods. Thus slaves were moved from Africa to the Americas, and in the West Indian plantations they produced sugar for consumption in Europe, and raw cotton was moved from India to be manufactured into cloth in England and then sold back to India whose own cloth production suffered as a result. In whichever direction human beings and materials travelled, the profits always flowed back into the so-called ‘mother country’. "

Again, looking at the article as it stands, it does not make mention of Roman, Persian or Chinese colonialism. If we were going with your insistance for the inclusion of the Ottoman empire, we would only fairly include these empires too - but the article doesn't include them. Why? Because our discussion on colonialism is shaped by the most vicious kind of colonialism - european colonialism - which is markedly different from other types. The authors of this article must have realised this - why else wouldn't they mention the Mongols?

• Prabhat S. "Difference Between Colonialism and Imperialism." DifferenceBetween.net. July 28, 2011.

My final source that I have included is from a famous website that elaborates differences in word meanings. The reason I have included it is that it is reliable in that it carries out its own fact checking and doesn't just let anyone write for it (it isn't a blog).

Here is what the author concludes,

"#Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over other regions. Imperialism means creating an empire, expanding into the neighbouring regions and expanding its dominance far.

1. In Colonialism, one can see great movement of people to the new territory and living as permanent settlers. Imperialism is just exercising power over the conquered regions either through sovereignty or indirect mechanisms of control."

Whilst any academic can contest these defintions, and argue for more nuance in discussion, the key idea is maintained that European colonialism is distinct from other types of colonialism.

By reading the rest of the article and considering the other sources I have stated, as well as reading numerous other sources that doubtless make the same claim, one can easily arrive at the conclusion that:

Either

• The Ottoman empire is colonialist. This would mean so are the Romans, Chinese, Persians etc. So they must also be included in the article to avoid pushing a political motive.

or

• The Ottoman empire's imperial nature is in line with other "empires" of antiquity, through the similarity of contiguity and other features, and so should not be equated with more modern european colonisation.

I await your response. I hope it isn't one that brings any political motives. ParthikS8 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@ParthikS8: I agree that if the Ottoman Empire qualifies so do a whole bunch of other empires. No argument there. Also, if you want to assert that European colonialism is especially vicious I'm good with that too as long as you have WP:RS. And I'm fine with making Marxist interpretations of history as long as the article makes that clear as well. All these things can be done with a NPOV. This article, though, isn't specifically about European Colonialism. And my reading of the sources you provide is that, in fact, contiguity is not the thing that makes the difference. So I think rather than cut Ottoman Empire, as you propose, we should add all the other empires you mention.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The quoted entry from the Stanford encyclopedia follows the pattern I've seen in other sources. It starts with a theoretical discussion noting similarities of European colonialism to other historical trends, but then it limits its actual scope to European colonialism ("This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia.") In order to reflect this and similar sources, our article also should include some general discussion of similarities of this kind, but attempting to introduce narrative historical material that might fit some definition of colonialism but which is not generally presented in the body of RS on the subject of colonialism would violate WP:NOR. Eperoton (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

So, to keep the narrative material on the Ottoman colonies in this article, we need to ensure that they are described as "colonialism" in the body of RSs. Otherwise, it may belong in Colonization and Colony, but not here. At a glance, the sources seem to justify noting that some authors regard pre-modern and non-Western colonization as forms of colonialism, but they don't seem to justify including the history of these colonies in this article. Eperoton (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina:

So I think rather than cut Ottoman Empire, as you propose, we should add all the other empires you mention.

I agree with this, and I think we should follow Eperoton's suggestion of removing the history of the Ottoman colonies from the article. ParthikS8 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

IP Edits

@2003:ec:721:2a01:3800:1134:10ff:df97 and 2003:ec:721:2a01:84:f3a5:db66:89:

As you can see from the above discussion, the other editors and I agreed that the history of the Ottoman colonies (the list of them) can be removed. Is there any particular reason you keep readding them?

I will wait a day for a response and then I will revert the article. If you persist in edit warring, without giving a response, then I will have to file a complaint. Let's not let it get to that - please tell me why you think we should include the colonies as is in the article. Thanks, ParthikS8 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@2003:ec:721:2a01:3800:1134:10ff:df97 and 2003:ec:721:2a01:84:f3a5:db66:89:

I have received no reply from you so I can only assume you are unwilling to discuss this or that you are ok now with me reverting. I will now undo your edit. If you further disagree then please don't revert - come on the talk page and we can have a discussion. Thanks, ParthikS8 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@ParthikS8:@Eperoton: I don't think we ever reached a consensus. You are removing parts of the article that have been there for a while and have WP:RS. I think we should wait for an explicit consensus. I wasn't able to understand what you are proposing on the last section. You came up with a proposal that is some sort of blend of my proposal and Eperoton's, but I didn't track it. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Also, "I'm going to cut x unless you add y" is not constructive editing. If you think y should be added, you please add y rather than cut x. And for the record I don't know who that IP editor is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina:

Sorry, I did just assume that as you weren't replying or further discussing the edits that you were in agreement. My points from before still stand, in that it seems - as in your own words - to be a simply politically motivated move to keep those details of the colonies in the article when not mentioning in similar detail Roman colonies, Abbasid colonies, Ming colonies, Mongol colonies etc. As this is not being done, for now I suggest we remove the history of the Ottoman colonies. Anyway, I think we should open this discussion up. Perhaps WP:RFC? ParthikS8 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@ParthikS8:@Eperoton: Having re-read Eperoton's comment above and the Stanford Encyclopedia excerpt you provided -- Stanford do use "colonialism" to refer to the Ottoman Empire. I didn't realize you were going to completely cut them out. Couldn't our article follow the shape of that Stanford excerpt? IE: "1. Colonialism in the broadest sense is something that has been going on for a long time. 2. There are those who think modern European/Capitalist Colonialism is extra bad." This seems clear to me. As to the Ottoman Empire in particular, I honestly don't see how they don't qualify. I haven't studied the OE much, but I don't see how the idea of capitalism and cruelty both don't also apply to them. If the only difference is that the OE was contiguous, again that seems like an odd distinction to make. So I vote for grabbing the other horn of the dilemma and including the empires you mentioned, Mongol, etc. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina:

You are restating what you've said and what I have already agreed to... What is your point? My point is this, we have two options (2 article states):

1. Keep the Ottoman colonies but add in all the other empires e.g. the Mongols etc. This must be done. You cannot simply keep the Ottoman colonies without adding those other colonies.
2. Do not keep the Ottoman colonies nor mention the colonies of other empires (being consistent in that you are not mentioning the others such as the Romans, Mongols, Abbasids etc.)

I support either option. As it stands the article is following option 2. You can either have option 1 or option 2 - you cannot have anything in between. We are in agreement in this - you state that we should follow option 1. You've read the sources and note how they talk about other empires throughout history. So to transition from option 2 to option 1 we must re-add the Ottoman colonies and the Roman, Mongol, Ming colonies etc.

Here's what you said above:

Also, "I'm going to cut x unless you add y" is not constructive editing. If you think y should be added, you please add y rather than cut x.

But I say to you:

If the inclusion of X is contingent on the inclusion of Y then either we add both X and Y or keep neither X nor Y. It is that simple. The article is in the state of having neither. We all agree it should have both - so you must add both in.

What you are saying is that before I came along the article was not in either of the two states mentioned above. It was in state 3:

3. Ottoman colonies are included but Mughal, Mongol, Ming etc. aren't.

I have argued against state 3. State 3 is wrong and is inconsistent with the sources. I have brought sources to prove this. State 3 is unverified. So state 3 is unacceptable. So I changed the current state of the article out of state 3 in the simplest way I could - by removing the Ottoman colonies. This takes the page out of an unacceptable state (inconsistent with the sources) into a consistent state.

My sources above were proof for the unnacceptability of state 3. I apologise if I didn't make this clear.

So state 3 is no longer the default - it is unproven and contradicts the sources.

Now if you want to reinclude the Ottoman colonies then you must (and again you have agreed to this) include the colonies of all other empires. Perhaps we can get started on this by making a list of the major empires we should include, we can then list and discuss their colonies in a talk discussion (new section). If however, for some reason, you want to go back to state 3 (and I think that is what you are implying) then you must bring evidence for this - you must argue why all the above sources are mistaken. As I take it you are not prepared to do this so I think you should drop the pretense. Lets work to take the article into state 1 above (including the Ottoman and other empires together).

And finally your latter point about "If you think y should be added, you please add y rather than cut x." is no longer valid. I have removed x and I have done it with the agreement that x should only be included alongside y. Again you yourself agree to this. So now what you are arguing for is the inclusion of x. I say that is fine. But include y too. The burden of adding y no longer rests with me if it is you who wants both y and x. Nevertheless, I will help you in this endeavour.

I will create a new section detailing which empires I think we should include for the time being, and I think we should all look for sources (if not to cite then to at least ensure attributability).

By the way, if you still want to contest this then I would strongly suggest WP:RFC. Thank you, ParthikS8 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@ParthikS8 and DolyaIskrina: This is a difficult topic for discussion of scope, because the concept itself is complex and controversial. It is all the more important that we comply with the WP:NOR policy. I'm seeing two types of arguments in the discussion above that violate it:

1. Attempting to formulate editorial rules for inclusion of the type "we can only cover subtopic X if we cover subtopic Y". We can determine whether to cover a subtopic based only on how RSs on the topic of colonialism (using that term) cover them.
2. Attempting to determine whether some historical phenomena are in scope or out of scope for this article by comparing them with a definition of colonialism. This is a form of WP:SYNTH. Following the policy is particularly difficult in this case because we have been discussing two different types of coverage. One is discussion of the concept of colonialism, as in the Stanford entry: Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon. [...] The ancient Greeks set up colonies as did the Romans, the Moors, and the Ottomans, to name just a few of the most famous examples. Colonialism, then, is not restricted to a specific time or place. We can use this to source a similar type of discussion of the concept itself. However, per WP:SYNTH, we cannot use it as a license to add sections listing Roman, Moorish and Ottoman colonies or discussing their history, unless we find sources that do that under the rubric of "colonialism". That's not the case for the Stanford entry, and it announces at the start: This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world.

At a glance, none of the mentions of Ottoman colonies in our article appear to be based on sources that use the term "colonialism" to describe them, which would mean that they are currently liable to be removed as violations of NOR. If they are challenged and removed, they should not be reinstated without proper sourcing. Here is an example of discussion that we can use for the Ottoman case: 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. In order to have any kind of coverage of other colonies in this article, we need to find RSs that explicitly discuss them under the rubric of "colonialism", and not other terms like "colony" or "imperialism". Eperoton (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-European Pre-modern Colonialism

Following the discussion above, I suggest we add the following to the section listing empires and their colonies. I have made a start by listing two, but I will soon list more like the Mongols etc.

The Roman Republic and Roman Empire

(Discussion point: Should we keep these seperate or acknowledge them as one)

Colonies: The Roman Provinces:

• Aegyptus
• Achaia
• Hispania
• Lusitania
• Illyricum
• Aquitania
• Gallia
• Gallatia
• Raetia
• Moesia
• Judea

(We should include the above in the least - those that I have listed are the provinces under Augustus, according to another WP article.)

Sources:

• Mommsen, Theodor (1909). The Provinces of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. London: Ares Publishers.
• Loewenstein, Karl (1973). The Governance of Rome. Springer.
• See also: [1]

Ming China

(Discussion point: Include other Chinese dynasties?)

Colonies: The Ming Provinces:

• Fujian
• Guangdong
• Guangxi
• Guizhou
• Henan
• Huguang
• Jiangxi
• Shaanxi (M: Xi'an)
• Shandong
• Shanxi (M: Taiyuan)
• Sichuan
• Yunnan
• Zhejiang
• Jiaozhi
• Nanzhili
• Nurgan
• Liaodong
• U-Tsang
• Dokham
• Elis

Sources:

• [2]
• Twitchett, D. (1979), Cambridge History of China, Sui and T'ang China 589-906, Part I, vol.3, Cambridge University Press

ParthikS8 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as violation of WP:SYN, unless someone can supply a RS that classifies these colonies as examples of "colonialism". See my last comment to the previous section for more detail. Eperoton (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased reversion?

Edit 16 May 2019‎ by User:Thomas.W is described as reverting a major rewrite that has not been discussed. However, this reversion itself in my opinion is biased in that the edited material was never (as I see it) subjected to this standard even though much of it involved major, clearly biased and uncited rewrites such as the following on 3 November 2018, changing "developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and of helping the colonies" to "opening trade opportunities. The colonizing country seeks to benefit whilst the colonized country or land mass, as many of the colonized countries were not countries at all."

I have begun reviewing and restoring the reverted text as time allows. At the same time, I invite further discussion on this entire section. -- Imagine&Engage (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not well-trained in the policies (and micro-rituals) of Wikipedia, but there must be some way wherein top editors are held accountable for distinguishing between well-cited (RS) expert submissions and biased, uncited opinions. Imagine&Engage (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The standard process is described in WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Murreyamber made a WP:BOLD edit (which is encouraged). Thomas.W challenged and reverted it. If Murreyamber or another editor supports the edit and not the revert, they should start a discussion and seek consensus, which is what you're doing here. As far as process goes, so far so good.

On the substance, while the sentence that starts "Some argue this was a positive move" appears to be unsourced, the edit cited a number of books without page numbers, which is contrary to standard practice (WP:CITEHOW) and makes one wonder if the edit was actually based on the cited sources. Based on prior exposure to the subject, I would expect that RSs would support something similar to this edit, but we need be ensure that we cite sources which actually make these specific generalizations. Eperoton (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why was a well-sourced, expert WP:BOLD submission (how does one cite specific page numbers when the submission summarizes the corpus of works, as expert submissions do) subjected to this minutiae of "consensus" while the original unsourced opinion statements were subjected to no such scrutiny, and thus reinstated? This is the source of my bias claim. Please note that WP:CITEHOW rightly says "chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate." Unless the editors (perhaps Eperoton) can demonstrate that the cited texts do not say what the expert submission states that they say, then "makes one wonder" is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine&Engage (talk • contribs)

See WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" (which, since it's supposed to be a summary of material further down in the article, means that there's no need for references in the lead if the material in question is sourced further down in the same article...). Feel free to expand the article by adding the material, with sources and all, to either existing sections or a new section in the body of the article, and once that is made propose whatever changes to the lead you feel should be made on the talk page, to get feedback from other editors before the changes to the lead are made. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for this useful information, though it does not justify most of the reverting action and especially does not justify consequent restoral of previous unsourced, unvetted opinions. Much of the original material by Murreyamber is already found and sourced in the article, but it was reverted anyway rather than sources removed (if sources in the lead violate convention). Imagine&Engage (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The proposed addition and the disputed sentence currently in the article are two different issues.

For the latter, there are good grounds to challenge and remove it, and I will do just that. It doesn't seem to be sourced anywhere in the article, it raises serious WP:FALSEBALANCE concerns, and it addresses a rather theoretical point that does not seem to be sufficiently prominent in RSs or the article to merit inclusion in the opening paragraph in any form.

As for the former, "expert submission" is not a recognized category of edits on WP. All edits are liable to scrutiny with respect to their verifiability, which is not assumed unless proven otherwise. In particular, WP articles should only include generalizations that are actually made in RSs. A generalization that is made by an editor based on content found in a source, rather than by the source itself, is a form of editorial synthesis, which is a violation of WP:NOR. Anyone who wishes to include this material is welcome to consult the sources, verify that they make these generalizations, and cite the pages where they are made. I would not be surprised if they are there somewhere. Eperoton (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an excellent description of WP policies, but as every editor knows the "devil in the details" is always in the enforcement. When longtime WP editors indicate preference for biased, unsourced material by reverting to it at the expense of well-sourced WP:BOLD entries because of "policy" (SYN, NOR, CITEHOW, etc.), they are selectively employing WP bureaucracy and hurting the quality of articles, especially since this important article is rightly tagged as needing citations. Imagine&Engage (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Colonial Migrations Section Sorting Table Proposal

I think it would be easier for the readers of this article if e rearranged all this data into a sortable table instead of a simple list.It would only have the columns of the white population percentage and nation.I thought it might be a good idea and wanted to see if you guys think it would be good for more organization and a better data accumulation.--JoshRamirez29 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC) I have finished the research of the White population in South America and formed it into a table.Should we apply this data to all nations it would look something like this.

Nation	White population	Percentage of Population
Argentina	43,053,080	97.2%
Bolivia	548,000	5%
Brazil	91,051,646	47.73%
Chile	9,261,499	52.7%
Colombia	47,500,000	86%
Ecuador	1,000,000	6%
Guyana	1,200	0.3%
Paraguay	6,600,000	95%
Peru	20,000,000	66.10%
Suriname	5,800	1%
Uruguay	2,050,000	88%
Venezuela	13,169,949	43.6%
Total	234,241,174	49.05%

I hope that this design will be accepted so that people can find white populations in other nations easier and that we can make tables for the other continents and soon find more exact and accurate population numbers--JoshRamirez29 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sweden was never a colonial power

All the territories that Sweden incorporated became part of the Swedish kingdom. The inhabitants became Swedish citizens and Swedish law applied. It's a grave error to say that Sweden established colonies. Matswin (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A red herring argument. The inhabitants of the Australian colonies were British citizens and British law applied. No-one denies they were colonies. Perhaps you might like to rewrite Swedish colony of Saint Barthélemy to support your view? John beta (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Heh-heh! Saint Barthélemy! What a vast "colonial empire"!) "The Golden Age" is what they still call the Swedish era in Pomerania, north Germany. Sweden incorporated other peoples under common law and improved their living conditions. Sweden's first university is Greifswald university, Germany, founded 1452. Sweden founded also Tartu university, Estonia, and Åbo university, Finland. It's a vast difference between the Swedish empire and Belgian Congo. One cannot put Sweden in the same basket as the big colonial powers. Also on Saint Barthélemy they appreciate their Swedish heritage. Swedish flags are waving. One cannot use only intellectual categories when discussing history, and think only in terms of territory. Morality and decency play a role, too. One has to give a truthful picture and differentiate between austere colonialism and civilized empire-building. Sweden did not colonize these countries. It was not a colonial power. Matswin (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Definition

The intro line currently reads Colonialism is the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of economic dominance. The same dictionary cited defines a nation as “1. a body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. 2. the territory or country itself. 3. a member tribe of an Indian confederation. 4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.”

Using nation makes it a poor definition.

1. This is a vague word, with different senses meaning a people, a political state, or a geographic country.
2. It is more likely to mean one to some people than others. Particularly, I believe Americans tend to think of a nation as a place or polity, while others consider it primarily means a people native to a place.
3. Most colonial empires were not established or ruled by a people at all, as they lacked democracy, became multinational polities (or anti-national, as in the case of the Soviet Union), and were often ruled by authoritarian or totalitarian individuals, oligarchies, or foreign dynasties (e.g., as the Scandinavian Riurikid princes in Kyivan Rus and its successors, or German royal families in Russia 1762–1917 and the United Kingdom since 1901).

A better approach might be to avoid defining who colonizes, and simply leave out “a nation seeking . . . its.” This is what current Oxford dictionaries do. —Michael Z. 2019-07-29 18:38 z

According to the source Empire: A Very Short Introduction the definition of colonialism is:

Colonialism is a systems of rule by one group over another, where the first claims the right (a 'right' again usually established by conquest) to exercise exlusive sovereignty over the second and to shape its destiny. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this definition is even worse than the first one cause it is even more vague than the previous one, and it don't even gives any idea of scale, and basically, it may include any form of coercion, sovereignty is not clearly defined, and this one, with the concept of destiny, seems more to refer to philosophical concept than concrete one. I have talked about this issue in the part "the definition is too vague" and i here i seggested a definition that seems much more relevant for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.141.40 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman colonies

I don't think a middle eastern state with a medieval origin and a distinct culture, administration, sociology and history can be fitted into the definition of 16th-19th Western colonialism. Reliable sources are needed to define Ottoman provinces as colonies. Currently all Ottoman provinces except the ones from Anatolia are listed in the article as colonies. Incorrectly assuming that Ottoman heartlands were dependent on Anatolia and the Turkish population. Ottoman empire was a Muslim empire without distinction between the Muslim populations. The provinces listed as colonies were majority Arabic speaking but Arab nationalism was still in its infancy and Thrace was half Turkish. While Anatolia which is not defined as a colony in the article was very mixed with Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks and others. In fact before 1912 the Ottoman core provinces were western Anatolia and the eastern Balkans having a mixed population of Christian and Muslim.

There was clear Apartheid in the Ottoman colonies like the Balkan states. It was a devide et empire tactic uses which has led to many wars after the decouinzation of the Balkan

--Orange2000 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

in 1914 no administrative distinctions existed between Ottoman provinces. The Ottoman Empire in 1914 was a monarchy, based on the notion of Ottomanism and before 1839 based on the Muslim population and never on Turkish ethnicity or nationalism. Even though historically Turkish was the common language of the ruling Muslim administration. In 1914 no administrative distinction were made between "natives/colonials", Turkish and Non-Turkish Muslims. In 1914 There were no seperate colonial parliaments, all provinces had deputies in the Ottoman parliament of the capital. There was no distinction between citizens, all Ottoman inhabitants were in theory equal cizitens, categories of "natives" or white/non-white didn't exist. Turkish speakers had not been used by state programs to colonise Arabian inhabited areas. Even though the Young Turks in power since 1909 were beginning an ideology of Turkification which was prevented to develop by the start of WWI. Earlier there was some migration of Turks to the Balkans in the 14th century but this was way before any nationalist ideology.

In the last decade Turkish nationalism did became became a factor but before it could be implemented thoroughly WWI began and the empire disintegrated. But this is not enough to define colonies. By 1914 Non Muslims were a minority in almost all provinces. Edirne Vilayet is listed as a colony while it was a core province of the empire since the 14th century with at least half of the inhabitants being native Muslims. Very loose vassal territories in Arabia are also listed as colonies.

I am adding some tags to that section and it should be removed from the article. Bakayna (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, whoever included the Ottoman Empire as a colonial empire has to read a bit of history and stop trying to write history. The territories that were formerly in the ottoman empire might have come to be colonies after the western powers(united kingdom, france, italy) had mandate over them. Referance to the ottoman empire should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.149.140 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree , the complain contradicts itself and seeks to define colonialism strictly in his words "can be fitted into the definition of 16th-19th Western colonialism". in other words, by that definition other than Western colonialism from 16th-19th could possibly be considered as colonial. that is like saying algebra isn't math because it doesn't adhere to the greek conventions or slavery didn't excist before the american colonies. It ignores large tracts of colonial history, including the Viking, Hun and ottoman expansions. The colonialism article should not be exclusively eurocentric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.1.11.45 (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The definition is too large/vague

as i mentionned in the talk page of colonization

the article states that the definition of colonization is: "Colonization (or colonisation) is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components." but this definition looks more like the definition of expansionism and in fact, with this definition, there is no way to distinguish conquest with colonisation for me, a much better definition of colonization is "process (through conquest, treaty or settlement in an unoccupied areas) that leads to the creation of a colony", and for colony "territory with its own government/administration/system of laws (due to its physical or cultural remoteness) but still dependent on a metropolis" another apporach is to counsider that as an historical event and only counsider the colonization by europeans to america and then to africa/asia regardless other "similars events" throughout the history(which seems to be the "common" definition of colonization) but that seems the point of the article "colonialism" so I think the previous definition would be more relevent

i think that the definition of colonization is too broad (it include conquest in general and all form of political interference) and need to being better framed (as this article seems to focus on the events refered as "the [mainly] european colonisation of america and then of africa and asia", it should be framed as that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.12.101 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I've previously tried to argue the same thing.

Can you provide explicit sources of your position? ParthikS8 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I must admit that i have no particular sources (this was just what seems for me to be the best definition of the concept) and i don't know where to find source of autority for wikipedia especially because it is a definition of a base concept and those are rarely explicitly stated in documents dealing with the subject.

Especially, in this article, it seems that the subject is framed to only consider the colonisation as a particular historical fact (as suggested by this[3] part of the colonization WP ), and so the second definition seems to fit perfectly with the framing of the article

I think de definition should be changed to the definition according to following sources: Empire: A Very Short Introduction and Oxford dictionary of English. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-editing and falisfication b the article by Turkish nationalists

It seems clear to me some Turkish nationalist have find a way to rwrite history. Is ee the same arguments as in the case of the AArmenina genocide, rliable sources ate etc as only comment to rwerite what is shamefullin Turkish society.

The ottoman empire was indeed an colonioal empire with apartheid and slavery. The people on the Balkans are calles Slavic people because of this. In todyas Bosnia the Christians had to pay Jizya and the Muslims (Bosniaks) were in control.

I will add the part of the Ottoman colonies again.

By the way if i look at the discussion the netherlands weren't a colony or Imperial country, so The netherlands should be removed othewise the article is completely biased.

Greetings

Maybe you should not target a group of people by racist words, but it is up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.32.73 (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

--Orange2000 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Danish Norway?

A minor input from Denmark. We never had anything called Danish Norway, and Norway was not a Danish Colony. There was a personal union or commonwealth between the two countries. The Personal Union among others also included Holstein and Schleswig. I would suggest to remove "Danish Norway" from the list. Ingmar~dawiki (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)