Talk:History of colonialism

message: The article ignores Russian colonialism.
Xx236 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: early comment

message: One shouldn't carelessly add globalize tags to articles without explaining oneself on the talk page.  I have removed it, because, as the article says, "the term colonialism is normally used with reference to European overseas empires rather than land-based empires, European or otherwise, which are better described by the term imperialism.".  Gsd2000 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize Tag 

message: 'Rather than deleting whole section under the strange pretext of "anachronism", maybe you could propose a rewrite of it, if you really  don't like it? Cheers! Lapaz 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it is anachronistic (your text, not the French Empire itself) is because this article is written in a timeline approach: now, thanks to you, suddenly, in between the interwar period and decolonialism sections, there is a section on "the French Colonial Empire" covering the mid-19th century to the mid-20th.  That is why it's anachronistic.  It's anachronistic in terms of its place in the article.  Furthermore, it's once again a trademark Lapaz piece of writing, which goes into far too much detail for a sweeping article like this, and totally breaks up the flow of the article for the reader.  Those two (ridiculously named) main articles ("First and Second COlonization Wave") were created by you - why don't you use them to go into detail, instead of adding back large chunks of your text to this article?  Frankly, I find your style of contribution quite lazy: instead of working information into articles (which is a lot more effort), you insert large paragraphs entirely written by you, not caring if they break up the flow, or are not appropriate.  Then your subsequent contributions are simply to add them back in a fit of pique if they get removed. Gsd2000 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As the article says, "the term colonialism is normally used with reference to European overseas empires rather than land-based empires, European or otherwise, which are better described by the term imperialism."  Gsd2000 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French empire 

message: I deleted several sentences. 
"Brutal" is NPOV expression. There were many Japanese comfort women, so it does not relate to colonialism. Nanjing was not a Japanese colony, so it does not relate to colonialism.--Mochi (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese colonies

message: Include British turnover of Hong Kong also in 1999  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.46.69 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain and Hong Kong 

message: I wonder whether this section really fits into this article, since imperialism is not equal to colonialism, and USSR had no colonies, but only constituent republics and satellite states. We can't start bringing every historical empire with dependent territories (like Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Empire etc.) into the article about colonialism. I propose to remove this section from here. If there are any arguments against? Greyhood (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User:Greyhood to remove.----Look2See1 t a l k → 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, more than a week have passed since the section removal was proposed, and at least one person agreed with it. So I've deleted the section as irrelevant. Greyhood (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet imperialism

message: Honestly, I have no idea what fruitfly wrote the opening of this article but it needs to be brought up to at least high school standards... Someone please rewrite the article's introduction so that it is not offensive to mammalian life that also work on Wikipedia. Thank you so much in advance if you do... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening needs to be rewritten

message: What exactly happened in 1870 to begin a new era of colonialism? Franco-Prusian war? Anglo-Dutch Treatry meaning highest British imperialism?. Lagoset. Lagoset (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exploring, I have found the mark in the explotation of the Suez Canal.  Lagoset (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1870 

message: It strikes me while reading this article that, while it goes into great detail, it is almost entirely unsourced. This is a long article, divided into six main sections and numerous subsections, yet it only has 12 citations, 10 of which occur in the same section(the relatively small India (1858 onwards) section). As a matter of fact, in the three largest sections of the article (Portuguese and Spanish exploration and colonization, Independence in the Americas (1770–1820), and New Imperialism (1870–1914)) there is not a single citation. Considering the importance and delicacy of the subject matter, I would think this article could benefit immensely from extensive and accurate sourcing. This is especially important considering the fact that the bulk of the article is written as fact and in Wikipedia's voice, rather than as sourced and attributed statements, and as such there is no way of determining to what extent the material is WP:OR and what can be attributed to WP:RS. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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/20160117212320/http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm to http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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/20070510193408/http://www.calcuttaweb.com/history.shtml to http://www.calcuttaweb.com/history.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is misleading on this important question. It says "Asking whether colonies paid, economic historian Grover Clark argues an emphatic "No!" He reports that in every case the support cost, especially the military system necessary to support and defend the colonies outran the total trade they produced. Apart from the British Empire, they were not favored destinations for the immigration of surplus populations.[24]"
The reference is a 82-year old review that casts doubt on Clark's "emphatic" conclusion. It suggests that colonies did pay; the example of India is stated. The present article does not mention this. Further, extensive work since 1936 says that colonies did pay. LS Stavrianos gives quantitative estimates in his book "Global Rift". 
The subject should be expanded, and competing narratives mentioned, since economics was a key force shaping the history of colonialism. The subject can't be dismissed with one dated quote. I can submit a draft revision. Sooku (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Colonies Pay? 

message: No need to cover only overseas colonies. I added brief coverage of China and Russia. Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Add China and Russia

message: There is a history of vandalism from IP address 64.255.120.74.
--Mortense (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The image "Empires of the world in 1910" shows Norway as a part of Sweden in 1910 and the Union flag. This is wrong. Norway became independent in 1905.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasberg (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Empires of the world in 1910" is wrong 

message: Reason of Europe colonisisng Africa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.242.43 (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonization 

message: After their independence some southamerican republics conquered territory that Spain didn't effectively control at the time of independence, an example would be the conquest of the desert by the argentine government. I suggest a section be added about this. 2800:560:20:1FD9:78D9:1C4A:3D7E:C17C (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonialism by southamerican republic