This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania
Do we really need a section on definition in an already bloated article? The refs for the first sentence in the lead have quotes now so it's a bit redundant. I'm going to be bold and remove it but feel free to revert and discuss. Also Nsae Comp, apologies, you were right "system" was unsourced, I was trying to paraphrase Kowal2701 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing this. As I wrote in my undo note, I dont see the use of getting rid of the chapter as such. Its much more important to make clearer the differences between definitions that float around and how they are discussed and applied to different cases in the literature. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd make sense if the definition was contested, but scholars appear to agree. Can we at least get rid of Collins since its a non-academic dictionary? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I find a good def chapter more important than many examples of particular colonialisms in the rest of the article, I am for keeping the chapter introduction citing popular/general definitions before elobrating by citing scientific defs. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is not so self explanatory so I agree with keeping a body section explaining it, however, I think we could look at making it more concise. (t · c) buidhe21:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s an improvement since it characterises colonialism as an ideology, when it’s specifically the maintenance of systems of domination. Think it was better before where it summarised the quotes in the refs Kowal2701 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about is a practice to extend and maintain control and dominance over areas and their peoples, by another people, typically claiming superiority? I was wrong that it characterised colonialism as an ideology, but the domination part is very much materially experienced rather than just part of a colonialist ideology, and the quotes do this Kowal2701 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nsae Comp, your edit's been reverted by Mikewem but I still think it's worth discussing. From what I've seen, Bell's definition appears to be the most widely used (or at least quoted), so I'd be inclined to give it a bit more weight. My main issue w the version is that it says colonisers claim dominance, which none of the sources say, the dominance isn't subjective, it's real, and arguably the defining feature of colonialism as all definitions include it. What differentiates colonialism from imperialism is that it was dominance in all areas of life, not just political, and while listing areas might be a bit redundant, I think it communicates that point well. Though I do think we can add "extension [and maintenance]" since colonialism as a concept includes colonisation, and "claiming superiority" per Osterhammel and A Dictionary of Human Geography (colonialist ideology is discussed in more depth in the second paragraph). While I'd prefer we specified the type of superiority (cultural/racial), the sources don't do this Kowal2701 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I forgot to answer your previous message here, so thanks for writting so nicely again. To follow up on it: "control and dominance" is kinda fine with me, even if I finde "claiming superiority and dominance" better because it emphasizes the ideology dimension of colonialism. But in combination with "practice", as in the Stanford understanding of colonialism it is fine with me, and also since dominance, as you rightfully stated, is an essential outcome of colonialism.
Regarding the use of "foreign power" I also stick with the Stanford definition and use of "another people", as it considers more the settler colonialism, as settlers often were not necessarily of one and the same nation/power, and calling them a power in their own right is too abstract for the lead imho.
Regarding the listing of social, economic etc. I see what you want to do, but I would say this should be left to the rest of the lead to open up and explain that it is multidimensional. Ahhhh wait this could be a good way to shorten it by adding something like: colonialism is intersectional. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am still a bit unsatisfied with even my version, because it is lacking the Osterhammel element of "in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis.", the Lorenzo Veracini "unequal relationship" and the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences "colonialism is different to annexation as it does not involve actual incorporation". This hasnt bothered me much before, because it is hinted to by "superiority" and that it is more about differentiating colonialism from imperialism, and because I wrote it into the following sentences instead. But since it is crucial to identifying it in the complex geography/history of imperialism, it still pains me that its not right there at the first sentence. But ok, first things first. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of those points so tried to address them in this edit, thoughts? I've also added the Osterhammel bit here (and trimmed here)
I think the length of the sentence is okay (especially compared to the monstrous second sentence lol), so not sure we need favour concision over precision regarding the multidimensional part? The "unequal relationship" bit I think is made clear by saying domination? Imo the distinction with annexation should be mentioned in the second sentence, but it does exclude internal colonialism. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your considerations and edits.
What still bugs me is that its still not clear that colonialism isnt just the rule, the actual realized dominance, but rather a "practice" (as in Stanford; or sometimes even ideology), a way to go about things and going places. Most colonialism has been a project of the metropole: being excited about having the world as theirs to claim, no matter how realistic or substantial that claim even can be. Its the audacity to go somewhere and just read a kings letter to encountered people, poke a flag into the ground and say, what ever is here is and has basically always been ours to make "better" (develop/cultivate/colonize).
So "practice" is a word which allows that scope. But I am open for any other wording that makes this clear from the start.
Maybe if the end of the sentence is more concise, something like: in pursuit in interestes and claims of superiority defined in a separate metropole.
I've added practice, but not sure about "pursuit of claims of superiority" since it has a different meaning and implication, ie. that colonialism was driven by colonisers seeking to validate their claims to superiority which I haven't seen sources say. Although I agree the final clause is not very graceful Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a reply above, but what you're looking for is UN declaration against colonialism in 1960
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.”
The word was defined by the Soviet bloc with an implicit focus on Europeans with overseas territories. Hence when you're trying to use it to refer to land empires you're hitting a conceptual barrier as it is a political term, framed by theorists and not an actual observable truth. Hickster999 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hickster999, thank you but see WP:TRUTH, we have an academic bias and just aim to aggregate what academic sources say. I think the emphasis on "an often distant metropole" addresses this though, and the article largely focuses on European colonial empires. The above discussion sort of violates WP:NOTFORUM, since there’s WP:NOR, our own opinions etc. can never lead to changing an article’s content, and article talk pages are for improving articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nsae Comp, sorry to bother you again, the definition section has been expanded a bit and is now even more bloated, do you still see value in the second paragraph? No worries if so Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I dont have the time at the moment to think it through. But the chapter still does not seem bloated to me, since I find definition and concept sections desperately needed, especially because this is such a contested and broadly applied concept. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is easily defined in a neutral phrase from the dictionary, not an ad-hoc post colonialist statement.
Then the definitions section needs to ring fence post colonial theory from the dictionary.
Then the activist belief
Then “Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts.”
(From the abstract of Bruce Gilley The Case for Colonialism, 2017)
Or Nigel Biggar (the best selling author on Colonialism) > “Well, I actually prefer not to talk about colonialism because ism implies a kind of single thing … colonialism, as I say, it implies the ism, implies a kind of a single project, a kind of single ideology, and I think colonialism connotes to people … an intention to go out and conquer the world and subjugate foreign peoples.
You can then make clear that the historiography is the POV of post colonial theory (that's why it exists, otherwise, why repeat a pot boiled history of the western world).
As a political theory it is then clear why colonisation (not "colonialism") of Europe by non Europeans is excluded from the frame of reference.
Bruce Gilley is a tenured professor of history who published the most important academic text on Colonialism in an important journal.
He would be fringe to post colonial studies & POV to critique that, but not to critique a suggested definition of Colonialism which only exists in post colonial studies.
History by the way is not a science, it's an Art. When it's next to the best published work by a historian on Colonialism in a decade it frames the "definition" section reasonably.
Currently it peters out in a list of textbook WPFRINGE post colonial theorists (if we are talking about definitions and history, not post colonialism).
We have then established what this article actually is. I'm not saying you should delete all the historiography of the post colonialist perspective (including it's side digressions into things like disease) even though there is a better Wikipedia page doing the same thing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism)
In the last sentence of 20th century the Ottoman Empire is missing:
Outside Europe, few areas had remained without coming under formal colonial tutorship – and even Siam, China, Japan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Persia, and Abyssinia had felt varying degrees of Western colonial-style influence
Islamification and their conquest if ither countries
Islam spreading and building in countries that are not Islamic. With their ideological perceptions of the world becoming islamic is clear and definitive use of colonizing in the pre-text of a religion based on murdering those who don’t convert. Like the church who forced themselves into countries and converted upon death the indigenous peoples. Islam is spreading Islamic Imperialism throughout the world for world domination. Farah fatwah (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 4 years since the tag was added and since then it seems the article has grown a lot and users have added many additional sources so I don't believe it's applicable anymore AscendedGoblin (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just an essay (ie. not policy), but WP:USI says you’re supposed to look for references for that information first (unless there are other reasons for removal like undue). I know the tag’s a bit of an eyesore, but at least it lets the reader know the article’s rather poor. If there are uncited bits you don’t think are relevant or whatever, feel free to remove Kowal2701 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
