Template talk:Colonial empires

message: I believe it would be beneficial to add the Courland colonization to this template but for that to happen, this flag needs to be uploaded, . My computer has issues uploading images.(I really don't understand why I can download stuff and everything). Falphin 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I added the US because they are included and discussed in the article. There is no reason not to include the US in the template. The argument "the US never had colonies or engaged in imperialism" is not valid nor true, see discussion pages of relevant article.--David Barba (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for using the discussion board. One, the United States was an imperial power during the classic "Age of Imperialism", late 19th century- check your history of the Philippines. Second, the US has at times acted imperialistic- check your history on US relations with Latin America. Thi--David Barba (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I agree with 76.235.161.47.  The template was without the USA for many months prior to you readding it.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The difference with the US is, 1. while expanding, it was not an "imperial power." It set the Philippines up for independence, if you recall, even though it had the chance to keep it. 2. It didn't act imperialistic, it protected its economic interests. It never annexed any parts of Central America. Is a bank that intervenes on a business that can't repay its loans imperialistic? 3. Every other nation on the colonial template had a monarchy during its imperialistic expansions, with few exceptions. And the French, unlike the US, moved in and tried to permanently annex areas. If you want the US in the Template, include China, Persia, the Ottomans, and others that are more deserving of the title "Imperialistic". 76.235.223.31 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What makes the United States an interesting case of colonialism is its paradoxical nature, born from a country founded on an anticolonial movement. This paradox is not a disqualification, but an interesting historical dynamic- stilling living with us in the United States. 
# The United States only fully captured the Philippines after a bloody and decade long war against the Philippine armed independence movement. They weren't exactly welcomed and nor were their promises of granting independence trusted. The Philippines were only granted independence after WWII and a Japanese occupation that reemboldening local armed organization and demands for independence from the United States. Additionally the Philippines is only one example, we haven't yet discussed the history of Puerto Rico, or Hawaii (Hawaii was annex after a coup against the independent Hawaiian Monarchy by US businessmen). All European colonial powers framed their colonial adventures on the premise of some noble good (ex. spreading civilization, ending slavery), the US premise of spreading civilization and democracy was no different. The "White Man's Burden" was written by Kipling for Americans, to convince them (despite some of their anticolonial history and national mythos) to embark on an colonial project in the Philippines. What is important here is not rhetoric (of the powerful over the powerless I'll add) but practice, and by all measures the United States was a classic western colonial power.
# Huh? Yes, invading and occupying a country to protect private American business interests forcibly against the interests of a local government and population is the very core of imperialism. Please review your history of the Roosevelt Corollary, United States occupation of Haiti, the United States occupation of Nicaragua, occupation of the Dominican Republic, and the Panama Canal. 
# Your argument here is contradictory. Nowhere in any dictionary or encyclopedia is the term colonialism dependent on the existence of a monarchy. You admit yourself that there are exceptions to your own rule. During the "Age of Imperialism" most imperial powers were representative democracies (constitutional Monarchies were the monarch only held nominal power). Yes, the French Republic tried to permanently annex territories and its inhabitants, and so did the United States (much more successfully), ex. Alaska, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam. Many within the United States, many powerful politicians wanted to permanently annex the Philippines as well. Its eventual (date unspecified)independence was not assured until the 1930s. The same debate ragged over Cuba after the Spanish-American war, and over Mexico immediately after the Mexican-American War. -This debate is not about the Ottoman Empire, China, or Persia. Make your arguments for or against them elsewhere and you may find me arguing on your side, depending the case.
# Most importantly, the United States is accepted as a historical imperialist power in textbooks , encyclopedias , and scholarly work . Other references: "Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism" by Greg Grandin, "Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire" by Niall Ferguson, "The Spanish-Cuban-American War and the Birth of American Imperialism, 1895-1902" by PS Foner, "Dollar Diplomacy: A Study in American Imperialism" by S Nearing, J Freeman, Short Essay: "Imperialism Superpower dominance, malignant and benign" By Christopher Hitchens .
I'll wait for your response before reverting the edit. Please use references, not just personal assertions, POVs. Thanks--David Barba (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Very well put. I do think however that the link should go under "American" since all the other links go under that form (eg: British, French, Italian, Swedish). ChrisDHDR 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I am in favor of "United States" because it is more "PC" (America is a continent not just a country) but if the majority are in favor of "American", that's fine. For me, its just a preference issue, not a factual issue. --David Barba (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Addition

message: This template seems to be incomplete. Their needs to be a section on Belgium, Japan, Russia, and the United States. 12.220.47.145 19:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete

message: I don't know how we would go about this but we could create a list of colonial nations page, and link it at the bottom of the template. The issue, is we would have to come up with enough countries and then write articles on them. But Courland, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, etc could be included. 12.220.94.199 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution

message: *
The current flag has only been in use since 1910. While the Portugal had colonies until 1999, I'm would prefer to use one of the older flags. I personally like the usage of the flag from 1485-1495  because it easy to see, and it was during Portugal's height. The disadvantage is that it was only used for 10 years. 12.220.94.199 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flag of Portugal]]

message: Any chance anyone could write an article on this? 12.220.94.199 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Russian colonial empire]]

message: The current flag  is not the state flag but the naval flag. I think the state flag should be used in this template. --Park-j 09:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid point, I suppose, but I think I can tolerate a small lapse in rock-solid accuracy, given that the War Ensign is the flag most commonly associated with Japanese imperial expansion. Albrecht 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it is the list of the powers, the flag should be of the state, I think. But it is a template for the end of pages. --Park-j 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flag of Japan]]

message: I have added the austrian empire to the template.
If any one has any questions please go ahead.
T.Hall
The Austrian Empire might be appropriate to add on.  Just because it didn't have any oversea areas, dosn't mean that Bosnia, Venice, and Poland wern't colonies. Casey14 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. Bosnia, Poland, Venice etc had very similar legal and economical status as the hereditary Habsburk countries (Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Slovenia). Please do not dilute the meaning of the word. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian empire

message: toward the eastern europe states same for nazi germany with vichy france and croatia as its colonies? Paris By Night 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ain't USSR a colonial empire?

message: The Ottoman Empire and the United states have no part in the "colonial empires" list. They don't fit there under any definition of the term, especially the Ottoman Empire which was an Islamic state where citizenship was determined by religion. I'm not sure if Russia and Japan do fit the definition but I think not. As you probably know colonialism has a very specific meaning and it's not as abstract as some editors tend to think. I think those inaccuracies should be corrected on the "colonial empires" template. Miskin 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  empires 

message: Basically, I just stated it.  Russia never had any overseas colonies.  The Ottomans and Austrians are supposedly not on this list because of that reason.Casey14 04:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not Alaska considered "overseas"? That-Vela-Fella 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Russia a colonial empire - Russia's Steppe Frontier: The Making Of A Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Indiana-Michigan Series in Russian and East European Studies)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.163.242 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is a Russia a colonial empire, while Austria-Hungary and Ottoman arn't?

message: O.k so iv'e added Austria again. I decided that Austria needed to be included and here are 9 reasons why:
-1.Austria's contribution to colonialism was no smaller then Sweden or Courland,who never posessed a great deal of colonies either.
-2.Austria was invited to the Berlin convention of 1885 to decide on the carving up of Africa surely a colonial meating?
-3.Austria was one of the great powers from 1815 until 1918 and was generally treated as such by other powers.
-4.Austria was ruled by an Emperor under the name of empire.
-5.Austria may have not planted thousands of it's people across the world or controlled oceans or trade routes but this does not disqualify it's claim to colonialism.
-6.Austria's miserable lack of colonies came from it being bullied and outperformed by powers better placed to exploit the sea and not from lack of interest.
-7.Austria's navey was still a force to be reconed with,as the so called "colonial power", Italy found out at the battle of Lissa (1866).
-8.Austria's weakness was merely geographic,it was just as politically, economically and socially advanced as the "western" colonial powers.And just as geared towards expansionism.
-9.If Courland, a small baltic duchy,that was little more then a dependancy of Poland, can be included as a colonial power for possesing a few carribean isles, then surely one of the great powers o Europe can be included for owning an indian archipeligo,some frozen islands and a cluster of chinese and indian trading post?
-T.Hall  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Hall (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All original research, I'm afraid.  I removed both Courland and Austria.  To call either's overseas antics an "empire" is absurd, but more importantly, these terms ("Courlandish Empire", "Austrian Colonial Empire") have been invented here at Wikipeda and therefore constitute original research.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austria {again} and heres why

message: Japan 
- The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945 By Ramon Hawley Myers, Mark R. Peattie 
- THE LEGACY OF JAPANESE COLONIALISM
- Becoming Japanese: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation (Paperback)
- Taiwan: A New History By Murray A. Rubinstein
Russia 
- Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: A Study in Colonial Rule By Richard A. Pierce
- Imperial Russia's African Colony
- Russian Colonialism
- Russian Colonialism, War Bounty, and Looting Colonized Peoples  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.16.98 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan and Russia

message: I renamed the Unites States link American but some one reverted it. Why? It makes sense.Asterix77 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it the way it currently is, since it's better defined rather than American (which looks more of a general continental description). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: American

message: I've read the discussion, David Barba, and I see that there's no consensus. Is there, actually? SamEV (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is about factual history, not POV. If you can dispute my argument, and the facts and sources I used, please do so. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. History doesn't just get erased because a few desire it.--David Barba (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute whether there is consensus for including the US. All you have to do is convince me there is and we're done. SamEV (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So are you guys going to let this stand? Patrick, do you agree with David Barba? Do you agree there's scholarly consensus for the view he's pushing? SamEV (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Can't see what the debate is really about, since the US did/does have colonial territories overseas. I haven't seen anything different as to what occurred as factual. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States as an imperialist/colonialist nation 

message: I have added USSR, because it can be concidered as an empire; and also there is an article in Wikipedia about USSR empire, so link to it shoulsd be added in template.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.234.2 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR Add 

message: Why?--David Barba (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia' Removal 

message: The Russian Empire right now more so concentrates on Europe, so I think it would be best to start and article called the Russian Colonial Empire. It could contain information about their attempts so colonize in Northern Asia, in Alaska and other parts of North America. Red4tribe (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article is fine. This proposal would ignore Russia's historic domination and settler projects in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, and eastern Europe. Colonialism does not have to be specifically Europeans on Non-europeans, take the case of Ireland.--David Barba (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Colonial Empire

message: Consistency. as long as you keep changing the Portuguese flag there is non.--SelfQ (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is an attempt to start discussion on the talk page.  The flags should be the latest flag for the country when it still had colonies.  There is no reason to use an obscure historical flag when it does not help the reader in any way.  Taking the Portuguese flag, it was adopted in 1911 and the Portuguese empire existed until 1975, 1999 if Macau is included.  Similarly, the latest incarnation of the Union flag was adopted in 1801 - there is no reason to use the 1707 version.  The British Empire was already in existence at this point.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The flag used should be the one the most emblematic of the empire, generally the one that was in use during the empire's greatest extent or the one in use the longest during the empire's existence. Also, most people find it more logical to use a former flag for former empires. If we used these two criterias for our flag choices, then we would definitely make the best choices. ChrisDHDR 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This template looks a lot better without the flags. As above there are also historical issues with these flags. The template purpose is to link related articles not decorate the end of the page Gnevin (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The flags are not there to decorate the template but to ease navigation: the flag was the most important symbol of colonialism. ChrisDHDR 20:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags used in the Template

message: Should it be here or not? I think not. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan  

message: Shouldn't these read "American", because all other nations in the template are listed by demonym. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at it, you are correct in that sense. But some may get the wrong impression of it, as had been mentioned before & even as far as within the article under the American Empire. So as to not have any confusion (& I hope others will also agree), I would put it as American(U.S.), thus giving it consistency with the others & clarity as to it's reference. It will also be place in the proper alpha order too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: I am working on Colonies of Poland. I am not sure if it should be added to the template, since it is either planned colonies or those owned by its vassal state (and already linked as the Courland colonization). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Alinor (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: There is a much earlier discussion above about whether to include things like the Scottish colonization of the Americas. Since Courland is a slippery slope, after all.
The Russian equivalent of this template includes Venice and the Mongols.
Varlaam (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots and Mongols 

message: Should we include Chinese and Austria-Hungary/Habsburg Monarchy (see their colonial possessions list)? What about Ottoman Empire possessions of the same time period in Northern African and the Arabian peninsula?
I think at least Austria-Hungary should be included as its case is not very different from Sweden, Denmark, Courland, etc. "small empires". Alinor (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  China, Austria-Hungary 

message: I think they should be removed. They weren't really colonizers, they just inherited land from Britain really and unlike Russia, China, Ottoman etc. They weren't really world powers that had really big empires that could be considered as colonies.kuceez (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they inherited the "rights" and replaced Britain in its administrative and institutional position in relation to the status of the colonies - that's why they are included. Many others of the included also weren't "big" or "really world powers", but still had some small or medium colonies. Japinderum (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand, Austrailia and South Africa 

message: What about ancient Greek and Roman colonists? See Colonies in antiquity. Timbouctou (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek/Roman