Jump to content

Talk:Colonial empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animated map

[edit]

The animated map isn't animated. It just sits there on 1800. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

present colonial empires

[edit]

In the list of empires some are marked as "present", but I find no explanation how it is determined whose empires are considered present. I assume that those listed here (UK, France, USA, New Zealand) are considered "present", but in the article Russia is also listed as such - maybe because of its Lists of active separatist movements (that contain members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization and active insurgencies)? But as such are present in other cases too I find it strange to list Russia as "present" - maybe change it to 1991? Alinor (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre European Colonial Empires?

[edit]

Uhmm, colonial empires existed before the European Age of Exploration. What about the ancient Phoenicians?72.89.142.185 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and Carthago, and Greece, and Japan, and US, and Rome, and Persia, and Mongolia, and China... The definition of colony and colonialism makes virtually every nation that ever expanded its territory a colonial power. Therefore this article is very poor at the light of such definitions (see Wiki articles on colony and colonialism). 81.159.38.17 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC) But wait. The article fails to give any citations of reliable sources on defining colonial empire.81.159.38.17 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that: the closest the article seems to come to defining "colonial empire" is to imply that it has something to do with establishing overseas territories for the purpose of trade. But if that is what it means, then the Russian Empire shouldn't count. And if Rusia is included, then why not include all the non-European contiguous continental empires (Ottoman and Chinese most significantly). And what about Japanese expansion into East Asia in the first half of the 20thC? Iapetus (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russia had Alaska and other overseas territories. Do Ottoman territories in Europe and Africa count as overseas? You could get there by land, but it would be a long way around. Goustien (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W:@Iapetus: The lead says colonial empires began in the 15th century, but the list includes earlier periods (under Norwegian and Ottoman). I think we need to find a standard definition of "colonial empire." Goustien (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goustien: There's no need to change the definition, the only thing that needs to be done is removing Norway from the list, because there has never existed a Norwegian colonial empire (other than in the fantasies of a small number of modern-day Norwegian nationalists), and the Ottoman Empire came into existence during he 15th and 16th centuries, and thus fits the current definition... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed references to Norwegian and Ottoman expansion before the colonial era. Not sure if Norway after 1920 should remain. Goustien (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Japan

[edit]

I do not believe the term "colonial empire" only applies to Western powers. The Japanese empire also sprouted up around the time Europeans were establishing colonies around the world. It is even listed under "Modern empires" here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_empire#Modern_empires therewillbehotcake (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Japan had a big colonial empire in Asia. 24.59.92.67 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire as well

[edit]

The Turkish Ottoman Empire was considered a colonial empire at the time, in vein with its European counterparts. therewillbehotcake (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put them in the article, the Turks colonized much of the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East. 84.104.219.2 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is incorrect

[edit]

It seems to be included as part of Britain into the 20th century and doesn't leave until the second world war. That's an odd and arbitrary point to do this, considering Canada became an independent nation in 1867 and is generally thought to have effectively asserted independence during the first, not second, world war. Most Canadians would put the loss of British colonial possessions starting at 1867 and snowballing westward (with the exception of Newfoundland until after the second world war, of course). 23.233.58.250 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco

[edit]

I do not believe that Morocco should be included. Though Western Sahara is listed on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, that doesn't make Morocco a colonial empire, instead more like the Ethiopian Empire. I do believe that the Union of South Africa, along with Australia and New Zealand, should be included though, just under British Empire, as they were really just extensions of the British Empire, though self-governing. Other Notes:


establishing a "colony," expansionism: yes, but colonialism: maybe not

Georges Cuvier (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on Morocco not being a colonial empire seems arbitrary. The most valuable assets in the Western Sahara are the phosphate mines that were developed by the Spanish. This is the real reason why Morocco invaded. That Morocco can only control this area with a large military force and barriers disproves Morocco's national claim.

Suggestions for the maps

[edit]

1. The maps are misleading because of their use of the equirectangular projection, which greatly increase the apparent relative sizes of lands nearer the poles relative to those nearer the equator. Both maps would be improved by being based on the Gall-Peters projection to give a more realistic demonstration of the relative areas.

2. On the static map, the areas that were occupied by more than one empire over the period shown should be shown by cross-hatched colours. The Japanese empire should be included.

3. There are two extra dates I think should be included in the animated map: 1790 to reflect the Spanish Empire at its greatest extent just before its decline after the Napoleonic wars and the changes in British and French territories in North America because of the Seven Years and American Revolutionary wars, and 1860 to reflect the situation in Africa before the "Scramble for Africa" took off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.164.223 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Germanic/Romance/Slavic"

[edit]

I see no justification to group these colonial empires by the language families of their state's dominant language(s). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had exactly the same reaction when I noticed those the first time. Those irrelevant groupings should be eliminated--Lubiesque (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman is a European Empire

[edit]

I have to repeat myself, but the Ottoman Empire is primarily a European Empire. They consider themselves as European, and so did the rest of Europe. When the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople they declared themselves to be the Roman Emperor, and the successor to the Roman Empire. During the Tanzimat, the Ottoman Empire went through a period of Westernization, similar to the reign of Peter the Great. The Ottoman Empire was called the Sick Man of Europe. If the Russian Empire is considered European, so should the Ottomans. Mario98765 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't guided by personal opinion, we are guided by what sources say per WP:RS. As its clear you are the IP editor blocked yesterday for edit warring and are currently evading a block I have updated my 3RR report. I'll also draw your attention to WP:BRD, which is good advice to stop further blocks. WCMemail 07:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I do apologies for my previous actions, and I was unaware of the rules. However, my point is still correct. The Ottoman Empire was primarily a European Empire. The primary operated in Europe, their capital was in Europe, during the 19th century, they went through a period of westernization. The Ottoman Empire was called the "Sick Man of Europe" in WW1. All this suggest they should be classified as a European Empire. All I would like is for a reason for my edits to be rejected. Mario98765 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're giving examples that support your personal opinion, whereas we are guided by sources. If you look at this map] for example it is predominantly Asian/African. Your edits are rejected because they are your opinion guided by your original research and synthesise an edit. If you wish to change the article you need to provide sources and seek a consensus to change. I suggest you also read WP:BRD as a means to avoid a future block. If you continue down your previous path you will have a series of escalating blocks leading to a permanent one. WCMemail 06:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of colonies, the European territories such as Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. are all included. Anatolia is not included in the list of its Asian colonies. Does it still need to be argued that the European part of the Ottoman Empire was its colony and "Asia" Minor was its mainland?
The Ottoman Empire has a chapter in The Great Empires of Asia by Jim Masselos. The Asian Empires (World Historical Atlases) by Rebecca Stefoff Likewise. Ho Pak-chuen (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottoman Empire, after the Crimean War (1853-1856), signed Treaty of Paris, along with Austria, France, Prussia, United Kingdom, Sardinia and Russia, that admitted the Ottoman Empire to the Concert of Europe.
During WW1, the Ottoman Empire was referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe", which shows that at that time, the Ottoman Empire was considered to be a part of Europe.
The Capital of the Ottoman Empire was Constantinople, with the Ottoman Imperial Palace (Topkapı Palace) being on the European side. While Anatolia is considered to be the homeland of the Ottomans, it was also the homeland of the Byzantines.
The Ottoman Empire claimed to be one of the successor, along with other empires, like Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire etc. The Ottoman Empire adopted many of the culture and traditions of the Byzantine Empire. During the Tanzimat, the Ottoman Empire went through a period of Westernization, similar to the reign of Peter the Great.
Many Ottoman Turks self-identified as Romans (Rūmī), as inhabitants of former Byzantine territory. Many also identified the Ottomans as Romans. In the Islamic world, they referred to the Ottoman Turks as Romans.
Even outside the Islamic world, used "Romans" to identify the Ottoman Turks. The Chinese Ming dynasty referred to the Ottomans as Lumi (魯迷), a transliteration of Rūmī, while 16th-century Portuguese sources refer to the Ottomans they battled in the Indian Ocean as "Rumes". If the Byzantines were considered to be a European Empire, so should the Ottomans.
With all these facts, especially the fact that they were part of the Concert of Europe, it is more appropriate to be put as an European Empire. Mario98765 (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Ottoman Empire is called Rum does not mean that it is the successor of the Byzantine Empire, it is just a geographical concept. In the ancient Islamic worldview, the area of Anatolia is called Rum (for example, Sultanate of Rum), which does not mean that it was a European country. The Chinese also called the Hellenistic kingdom in the Ferghana valley as 大宛 (Dayuan, from Ionia), but it does not mean Dayuan was a European country.
The Ottoman Empire was able to enter the Concert of Europe because it had a large number of colonies in Europe at the time (such as the Balkan territories listed in this entry), but Asia Minor was not considered a colony because Asia Minor was the mainland of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey is also on the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, so it is a Latin American country?
The Ottoman claim to the Roman Empire was neither universally recognized nor itself used in later times.
In the history textbooks of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the history of the Ottomans and Turkey is included in the category of West Asian history and is a completely separate part from the history of Europe. Even in other textbooks on the history of European civilization, the Ottoman Empire has always been regarded only as an enemy of Europe, like the Persian Empire and the Caliphates. It is only mentioned when the Ottomans invaded Europe (such as the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna), and its culture is not mentioned at all (such as Rumi will not be introduced). Ho Pak-chuen (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) was considered European, that the Ottomans should also be considered to be European, especially considering that they a lot of the similar territories of the Eastern Roman Empire, and culturally, they were a synthesis of Turkic, Byzantine, and Persian Culture.
Constantinople, a European City, was the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Also, I go back to my previous point, if the Byzantine Empire, which had similar territories of the Ottomans, were considered to be European, so should the Ottomans.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean membership is not exclusive to Latin America, so comparing them to the Concert of Europe, which is exclusively made up of European Empires, is ridiculous. A more accurate modern day comparison, would be the Council of Europe, which Turkey is a member of.
The Byzantine Empire also wasn't also universally recognized as well. You had the Holy Roman Empire in the West that was recognized by the Pope. The point is that the Ottoman Empires considered themselves to be the successor of the Byzantine Empire, and their claim was fairly legitimate (because the inherited the territories of the Byzantine Empire).
The History of Ottoman Empire and Turkey is taught in European History Classes, like in AP European History. And it is not just the Fall of Constantinople, the Siege of Vienna, but also the Ottomans in WW1, the Crimean War, and the Creation of Modern Turkey. While it is not as extensive as British History or French History, Turkish History is taught in European History. Mario98765 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japan also carried out Westernization reforms. Emperor Meiji "was like Peter the Great", and Japanese educator Fukuzawa Yukichi also had the slogan of Datsu-A Ron 脱亜入欧, which means leaving Asia and joining Europe (Fukuzawa Yukichi is the educator who is printed on the largest face value of the Japanese yen). So is Japan now a European country?
You cannot compare Mahmud II with Peter the Great. The westernization of tanzimat is not as thorough as that of Peter the Great, and Russian civilization itself is part of European civilization (Russian belongs to the Indo-European language family, the Cyrillic alphabet comes from the Greek alphabet, and Russian Orthodox culture Originated from Byzantium), Peter the Great's reforms were to “western europeanized" Russia. On the contrary, Ottoman culture comes from Persia and Arabia (Arabic and Persian vocabulary accounting for up to 88% of the Ottoman vocabulary in some texts, as well as blue tiles and miniature paintings are all Persian things. Ottoman culture has long been regarded by Europeans as Exotic atmosphere from the Eastern world)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
Anatolia as a whole is not the mainland of the Byzantine Empire. The homeland of the Byzantine Empire is modern Greece (especially the north part) and the west coast of Anatolia. The second largest city of the Byzantine Empire was Thessaloniki. And Mystra was a late cultural center (Palaeologan Renaissance). And occupying and making Constantinople its capital does not mean that the Ottoman Empire belongs to Europe. Portugal once had its capital in Rio de Janeiro. Is Portugal a South American country? Ho Pak-chuen (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare Japans Westernization to the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire was a Turkic/Byzantine/Persian Cultural mix, with significant Balkan/Caucasian Influence, while Japan was Culturally Japanese with Western Influence. They're not the same. It is more comparable to Russia's Westenrization under Peter the Great.
Yes, the Tanzimat, under Mahmud II (and his successor till Abdul Hamid II) can be compared with Peter the Great. He is literally called the "Peter the Great of Turkey". Like I said before, the Ottoman Empire was a Turkic/Byzantine/Persian Cultural mix with significant Balkan/Caucasian Influence. The Byzantine/Balkan Influence was very significant.
Also, Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian their official language, which isn't an Indo-European language, so is the Kingdom of Hungary not European? The Safavid Persian Empire had Persian as their official language, and an Indo-European language, so was Persia European? The Kingdom of Georgia (and its successors) used Georgian as their official language (a non Indo-European language), and used the Georgian Script. So was the Kingdom of Georgia not European?
As for Russian Culture, it is a synthesis of Byzantine and East Slavic Cultures with Mongol-Tatar Influence, similar to Ottoman Culture being a synthesis of Byzantine and Turko-Persian Cultures with Balkan/Caucasian Influence. Both are pretty similar, so if the Russian Empire is European, then so are the Ottoman Empire. I am not denying any Persian or Arabian Influence, but you seem to be denying the significant Byzantine and Balkan Influence on Ottoman Culture. Also, Orientalism patronizing and pseudoscientific belief of Western Europeans, and isn't a concept that is taken seriously by modern historians. That doesn't change the fact that the Ottomans had significant Byzantine and Balkan Influence.
Both Modern Greece and Anatolia was the heartland of the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as the centre of it. Also Alexandria (Modern Day Egypt) and Antioch (Modern Day Turkey) were also important cultural cities in the Byzantines. As for Constantinople, comparing Portugal having Rio de Janeiro as the capital for 10 years, to the Ottoman Empire that had Constantinople as their capital for 469 years, is ridiculous. The Ottomans didn't just occupy Constantinople, but maintained and built upon and expanded the city. The Ottomans were an important part of Constantinople history. Mario98765 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources that say that the Ottoman Empire was a European empire? This all looks like WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, He are some sources.
In Article VII of the Treaty of Paris, it admitted the Ottoman Empire into the Concert of Europe (Sublime Porte was used to refer to the Ottoman Empire). Since they are a member of the Concert of Europe, they should be considered a European Empire.
https://content.ecf.org.il/files/M00934_TreatyOfParis1856English.pdf
Figes, Orlando (2010). Crimea: The Last Crusade. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9704-0. (pp. 432–433)
Emperor Nicholas I of Russia called the Ottoman Empire the "Sick Man of Europe" in the mid-19th century, so it shows the Ottomans were considered European.
https://qz.com/588958/all-the-people-places-and-things-called-the-sick-man-of-europe-over-the-past-160-years
I hope these sources prove my point. Mario98765 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:NOR. Mellk (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how is this original research? The Treaty of Paris says, "declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe." and the Ottomans being referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe" clearly shows that in the mid-19th century, European powers considered the Ottomans to be part of Europe. Mario98765 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are interpreting 19th-century primary sources and what was said at this time. What is needed instead is reliable secondary sources that state that the Ottoman Empire was strictly a European empire. Mellk (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the primary source explicitly says the Ottoman's are European. How is "declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe." and calling the Ottoman the "Sick Man of Europe" an interpretation? It is quite explicit. Mario98765 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we do not rely on primary sources except in limited cases, see WP:PRIMARY. Of course, people in the 19th-century generally had a very different view of things. It would be very problematic to write this article based on 19th-century sources, since colonialism was viewed very differently. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Europe is not a strict geographical concept like Africa, North America and South America. The concept of Europe comes from ancient Greece and was redefined and accepted by the Romans (including Romanized Gauls and Iberians, etc.) and later the Germanic peoples in Western Europe. Europe also moved eastward from the Don River to the Ural Mountains-Ural River. Whether it belongs to Europe highly depends on whether the Greek and Roman traditions are accepted. Although Hungarian does not belong to the Indo-European language family, as it believes in Christianity, there are a lot of Latin and Germanic words in the language (With the exception of Icelandic, European languages ​​make extensive use of Greek and Latin roots). This is incomparable to Ottoman language (more than 80% of which comes from Arabic and Persian) and modern Turkish.
Byzantium was not unrecognized by Western Europe as rome. Even after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, the Pope and Western Europe believed that it was now the Roman Empire and had two emperors again (just like after Theodosius I). For example, in the heraldry volumes such as Bergshammar Armorial edited by Brabant around 1440, it can be seen that the emperor of Constantinople was still mentioned at the beginning of all Christian monarchs, together with the (German) Roman emperor. https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/R0001216_00004#?c=&m=&s=&cv=3&xywh=-1558%2C87%2C4300%2C2289
The Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire cannot be generalized at all. In the historical narrative of the former, Byzantium is a laughed-at loser, while in the latter, the Mongol Muslim Khanates are barbaric losers. These losers had some impacts on the victors, but neither of them changed their traditions or cultural roots (the Ottomans belong to the Turkic-Persian tradition, and Russia to the Greek Orthodox tradition).
No matter how biased Orientalism is, it can be said that in the eyes of Europeans, the Ottoman Empire is a typical Oriental country. No matter how the Ottoman Empire governed Constantinople, no matter how much land it occupied in Europe, its roots were in the Turkic-Persian tradition. In Europe, general public won't pay much attention to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (Hope I didn't offend the Persians), but it was very popular in the Islamic world from the Ottoman Empire to the Mughal Empire, and it was also the most common theme of miniature paintings. The Homeric epics (which were classics that needed to be memorized to learn Greek even in Byzantium) and the Greek and Roman mythology traditions that were popular in Europe had little appeal to the Islamic world. Ho Pak-chuen (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottomans came from the Sultanate of Rûm, which has its political, religious and cultural heritage based on a fusion Greco-Roman and Turco-Persian Tradition. While linguistically Ottoman Turkish had strong Persian-Arabic influence (though during the Tanzimat, there was French influence in the language), in other cultural aspects, they were a fusion of Greco-Roman and Turco-Persian culture.
As for the Ottoman Claim as the successor of the Roman Empire, the point isn't that similar to other European Empires, the Ottoman Empire claimed to be the successors to Rome, and Rome had a place in Ottoman Culture.
As for the Ottoman view of the Byzantine, they did not view Byzantium as a laughed-at loser. The Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Traditions were very much respected in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire even adopted many of the Byzantine Bureaucracy and Architecture.
You point about the Byzantium having limited impact on the tradition and cultural roots is false. Even prior to the formation of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkic settlers in Anatolia, adopted many aspects of Byzantine culture and traditions. So, it is more accurate to say that the Ottoman Empire cultural roots is a fusion between Greco-Roman and Turco-Persian Traditions. Also, it is incorrect to say that Greek and Roman traditions, philosophy, and mythology had little appeal in the Islamic World. Many Islamic Scholars, Philosophers and Scientist during the Islamic Golden Age were influence by Ancient Greek works.
Back to my original point, I am not arguing that the Ottoman Empire wasn't an Asian Empire, just that they were also a European Empire, and it would be better to categorise them as one, as the Ottoman Empire had more in common with European Empires, like the Russian Empire, than they do with Asian Empires, like the Japanese Empire. Mario98765 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loose definition of 'colonial empire' and 'empire'

[edit]

'Colonial empire' is a colloquial term, and the definition of what actually is an 'empire' and what is not, is a disputed subject. Most colonial powers were monarchies, albeit not ruled by an emperor, for example the British Empire. Other colonial powers were not monarchies nor empires at all, and were instead democratic, usually a republic (For example the French colonial empire), while others were actual 'true' empires such as the German and Russian colonial empires. Add on the fact that colonies were neither fully independent, nor a part of the coloniser, and we have for a rather contentious topic. So if we go by the definition of a traditional empire, the only colonial empires to actually be, well, empires would be: Germany, Russia, Spain, France, and Austria. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:World 1920 empires colonies territory.png

[edit]

The illustration of the map "File:World 1920 Empires Colonies Territory.png" is not correct in some points. The Ottoman Empire was occupied in southwest and southeastern Anatolia in 1920 after World War I, but these areas were never ceded. The Treaty of Sevres did not mention the cession of territory from south-west and south-east Anatolia. In 1919, Greece occupied the city of Izmir. Three years later the greeks, british, italians and french had withdrawn from these areas after the successful turkish war of independence. Therefore the map should be corrected.

The creator of this map (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_1920_empires_colonies_territory.png) himself posted the following text in the link on 07/20/2018: "fix - by adding the Ottoman Empire before I considered some more of western Turkey under italian rule but I'm unsure so that I reverted; it remains unclear to me under whose rule north-western Turkey were in 1920". The creator was unsure himself. Nevertheless, the areas south-west and south-east anatolia were not separated from the Ottoman Empire in 1920, but still part of the Ottoman Empire. 2003:EC:724:9200:153E:716D:DE16:29E3 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Countries have independent from Colonialism"

[edit]

Lakshmi Banerjee, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with this section. The heading is ungrammatical. Is it supposed to be a list of countries that have gained independence from colonial empires? If so, why is the list so short? Also, why have you chosen to add it to (the top of) this article specifically? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Banerjee, you've now turned this into a short list of "Current Independent Countries" but this makes little sense either because there are many independent countries not listed, including former colonial powers. I'm going to revert your additions pending discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_empire&oldid=1247685087"