Jump to content

Talk:French colonial empire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

CITATION NEEDED

Please provide citation and dates for French colonial rule in both Tanganyika and Zanzibar (Tanzania). Jkp1187 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I have corrected the map: I have added Acadia, East Louisiana, India, and Zanzibar, which had been forgotten. On the other hand, I have deleted Egypt and Fezzan, which were never French colonies or protectorates, but merely briefly occupied by French troops. Hardouin 18:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to add Napoleon's conquests to the map? I say this because the anachronistic map for the British Empire

File:British Empire anachronous complete.PNG

includes German and Italian occupied territories post-WWII, which are even less significant. And especially because, however brief French dominance was, it's my understanding that it was still very influential as far as things like propogating civil law and the metric system go. So as a map of places where French imperial influence has been felt in the world, I think it would be useful. (I'm not well informed enough to know exactly what modifications to make, however.) --Marlow4 11:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the French colonial empires, it is not about Napoleon conquests, which have nothing to do with the colonial empires. The map of the British Empire that you are showing is totally absurd, and I already expressed my concerns in the discussion page at British Empire. Territories only temporarily occupied by British troops should not appear on the map, neither should Iran. That discredits a lot the British Empire article. Here at French colonial empires we are most strict, we only include colonies and protectorates, not military occupied territories. About Napoleon, maybe a map showing the extent of French control over Europe could appear in the article Napoleon I, or in the article Napoleonic Wars, or in any article related to Europe and its history. I'll be happy to make that map. Hardouin 00:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
A map showing the extent of Napoleon's conquests would definitely be very interesting, and should probably be best located in a Napoleon-related article. This article, with a reference to the map could be linked from the "French colonial empires" article. olivier 10:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, on the British Empire discussion page there was a reply to some of the issues you raised which you haven't responded to as yet.

Templates

Apparently, two different templates compete in the series of articles. Perhaps just one will suffice? //Big Adamsky 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


French colonial empires I- Former French colonies, protectorates and other possessions:
in Africa & Indian Ocean: Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) | Arguin Island (off Morocco) | French West Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Dahomey, French Sudan=Mali, Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Upper Volta) & French Togoland & James Island (The Gambia) | French Equatorial Africa (Chad, Gabon, Middle Congo, Oubangui-Chari) | Djibouti | Comoros (Anjouan) | Madagascar | Mascarene Islands : Ile de France (Mauritus) & Seychelles
in the Americas (French colonization of the Americas): New France (Acadia, Louisiana, Québec, Terre Neuve) | Inini | Berbice | Haiti & Saint-Domingue | Tobago | Virgin Islands (part) |

in Asia: Alaouites | Alexandretta-Hatay | Ceylon | French India (Chandernagore, Coromandel Coast | Madras | Malabar, Mahe, Pondichery, Karaikal, Yanaon) | Kwangchowan (lease in China) | French Indochina (Annam, Cochinchina, Cambodia-Kampuchea, Laos, Tonkin) | in Antarctic & Oceania: New Caledonia | New Hebrides (now Vanuatu) | France Antarctique |

II- Present overseas territories and possessions
French Guiana | French Polynesia | Guadeloupe | Martinique | Mayotte | New Caledonia | La Réunion (Mascarene- formerly Île Bourbon)
See also: French colonisation of the Americas | Chartered company
I just substed it since I'm fixing the problem with deletion gren グレン 05:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't France Antarctique be in the Americas section? Semi-Lobster

I think that the map should contains southern part of Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.41.199 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution

It's an aberration to say the French Revolution started in 1793 and finished in the early 19th century. Of course, it started in 1789!  I can't believe nobody has corrected it before me, for such an event which its influence had been so important for France one the one hand, but also for the rest of the world.

Pedropunky 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I'd like to create a category covering just the AOF, and one covering just the AEF, as these topics seem scattered around at the moment.

I'm thinking of creating the following sub categories in [Category:Former_colonies_of_France]

1) French Colonialism in Sub-Saharan Africa a) French Colonialism in West Africa b) French Colonialism in Central Africa

2) French Colonialism in Asia a) French Colonialism in Southeast Asia b) French Colonialism in South Asia

3) French Colonialism in North Africa and the Near East 4) French Colonialism in The Pacific 5) French Colonialism in America

Others could be fleshed out, but the selection of articles on Frech Colonialism in West Africa is very spread out at the moment. I keep finding great things, though, that belong here in France, specific African nations, Islam, Colonialism, etc.

Thoughts/adviceT L Miles 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I wimped out and just created subcats for French West Africa, French Indochina, etc. It would make more sense if Category:Former_colonies_of_France were called something like Category:Former_France_Empire or Category:French_colonialism. This might serve the same purpose as Category:British_Empire. Any help is much needed... T L Miles 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit of unsuccesful colonisation

User:Godefroy made the following edits: history.

I removed them as they are rather inaccurate and misleading.

  • This is already covered by the point on the Africa rivalry and the Fachoda incident. "British campaign" misleads the reader into believing it was actually a war. Also, "imperial pretensions in the area were checked by the successful" could be considered a slightly biased way of expressing things.
  • Tangiers — Was an international protectorate, but the administration of the Tangier International Zone was attached to French Morocco.

I don't see what's misleading and inaccurate about them. France had insterest in the oil fields of northern Iraq and Palestine, but didn't manage to get them at the end of WWI due to British opposition. In Tangiers the international protectorate was a way for the British to avoid having the French control one side of the strategic Strait of Gibraltar. Godefroy 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone has said, calling the First Moroccan Crisis and the Agadir Crisis failed colonisation attempt is a complete reversal of what historians usually consider it to be. See Agadir Crisis:

The German move was aimed at reinforcing claims for compensation for acceptance of effective French control of the North African kingdom, where France's pre-eminence had been upheld by the 1906 Algeciras Conference following the Tangier Crisis (or First Moroccan Crisis) 5 years ealier.

Franco-German negotiations initiated on July 9 in 1911 at Treaty of Fez, led to the conclusion (November 4) of a convention under which Germany accepted France's position in Morocco in return for territory in the French Equatorial African colony of Middle Congo (now the Republic of the Congo). This 275 000 km² territory, known as Neukamerun, became part of the German colony of Kamerun and part of German West Africa, which only lasted briefly until they were captured by the allies in World War I. The area is partly marsh land where Sleeping sickness was widespread, although it did give Germany an outlet on the Congo River. Also as part of the treaty, Germany ceded France a small area of territory to the south-east of Fort Lamy, now part of Chad, as shown on this map.

France subsequently established a full protectorate over Morocco (March 30, 1912), ending what remained of the country's formal independence.

This is pretty clear... except if you consider that the fact that Germany accepted France's position and that a French protectorate is a "failed colonisation attempt"... Tazmaniacs 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Medieval French Empire

I removed this whole paragraph. This is original research at its finest. I'm not denying the facts of the Crusades or the truth of the statements, the issue is the appearance in this article as though this has something to do with French colonialism. It hasn't. A Google search sans Wikipedia results on the term "Medieval French empire" [1] reveals nineteen hits. Count them - nineteen! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

the Fashoda incident

People are regularly deleting this from "Unsuccesful colonisations" and I have to revert that as regularly. I think I can hardly be accused of anti-French sentiments... So I wonder why people think it shouldn't be here.--victor falk 12:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The "unsuccessful colonisations" section is ridiculous. What is the definition of "unsuccessful"? Was New France a successful or unsuccessful colonisation? Louisiana? Why was French India an unsuccessful colonisation when French India outlasted British India? Was French Indochina or Algeria successful given that the French got booted out? What about St Lucia or Malta? The article should concentrate on what was the French colonial empire, not what wasn't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear, then you don't want to look at how it looked back in the summer... It was called "Territories where French colonisation was checked". With words like "thwarted", "trounced", "French imperial pretensions", and Napoleon "only managed to lose all opportunity for the plans' success at the naval Battle of the Nile" liberally employed. I think you're quite right about what you're saying, they should be merged into the appropriate sections.--victor falk 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Zanzibar

France never ruled Zanzibar like it shows on the map. Signsolid (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many mistakes in this map. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Map is quite wrong

The second map in the article (Image:French Empires.png) is quite wrong, since it includes Spain and Portugal (and probably others) as part of the French Empire. Portugal and Spain were never part of any French Empire! They were countries briefly and non-completely occupied by Napoleonic forces in the begining of the 19th century. Being partially occupied is not the some as being part of an Empire. Both Spain and Portugal never stoped being independent and were never considered, even by France as a part of France or a colony! I'm removing this map. The Ogre (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be a school of thought at these empire articles that military occupation equals colonial empire. For a while, the British Empire map had the British occupation zones of Germany and Austria coloured in. Ridiculous! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

French emigres

"Unlike elsewhere in Europe, France experienced relatively low levels of emigration to the Americas, with the exception of the Huguenots. However, significant emigration of mainly Roman Catholic French populations led to the settlement of the provinces of Acadia, Canada and Louisiana..."

These two sentences are somewhat contradictory. While the percentage of the total French population that emigrated to North and South America may very well be lower than Germany or the British Isles, it doesn't make sense to downplay the fact that France still has major overseas territories in the Americas and that people of French descent make up 33% of Canada's population and a sizable 4% of America's population.

--Ljosi (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Empire

I have doubts as to the extension of the French empire in North America. Could somebody please provide the appropriate references? Also, on the island of Hispaniola the French established a colony only on the western part (present day Haiti) not the entire island. The part that is today the Dominican Republic was Spanish until its independence in the 19th century.

I think you need to read the history of the Dominican Republic !--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Francis Parkman has written extensively on the french in North America. Someone asks for citations on well known treaties...!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.29.123 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Two maps in the lead

For some reason, User:Ursutraide wishes to have two maps in the lead, one of which adds absolutely no extra information to the other. File:Empirecolonialfrançais.png is just File:France_colonial_Empire10.png in one shading. So what purpose does it serve? Why have it at all? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

this wont tell me any information and now im gonna get in trouble at school!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.147.50 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

French colonial empire was the third largest in the world, not the second

The article reads "second largest in the world behind the British Empire. The French colonial empire extended over 12,347,000 km² (4,767,000 sq. miles) of land at its height in the 1920s and 1930s". The Russian colonial empire was larger. Siberia, even today, is 13.1 million square kilometres, and at its peak, the Russian empire included Central Asia and Alaska. The whole of the Russian Empire was over 20 million square miles. At the least, the word 'overseas' should be added in, as the Russian Siberian colonies were technically contiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenfox (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Map and Gd21091993

Gd21091993, please post your opinions here why the map needs changing, before doing any more reverting. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this user for 3RR violations. [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to block Gd21091993 in the Hebrew wikipedia but i can't seem to understand what the edit war is about. Tomer A. 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Gd21091993 is an editor with a specfic POV and OR agenda on the issue of the French colonial empire maps. You may be interested in some maps by this recent user who acts quite like EuroHistoryTeacher. He, or users associated with the same effort, has been uploading slightly variations of the map File:France colonial Empire10.png. These duplicate variations (File:Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, File:1Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, File:11Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, File:13Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, File:Empirecolonialfrançais.png, File:Carte Empire Français.png), which he has been trying to propagate in many wikipedias, are incorrect and less detailed than the original map, since they do not differentiate between the two very different French colonial empires, and confuse French colonies with failed occupation attempts (namely in Brazil). Though you might be interested. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am very interested, to what I've seen the maps differentiate mostly in the area of Canada and both maps (old and new) are unsourced or sourced to something that looks different from both. I have no knowledge about the French empire but this seems like a problems related to sources. Tomer A. 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a proper map should be sourced. The question for me is that the fomer map has been around for long, and I believe many knowledgeable editor could work on it. The "new" map (in fact, maps) appears as an isolated effort by a single recent editor trying to impose his view on a great number of wikis. This latter map also presents huge differences in India and Brazil, that are known not to be real. The Ogre (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gd21091993 seems to have changed his attitude, as can be seen in this discussion on my user page at the French wikipedia (in French). And he does make good points about some of errors in File:France colonial Empire10.png. Let's see where this will take us. The Ogre (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There are so many languages i can speak. Let me know what are the results of your discussion. I do not agree with your statement that since many people saw it, it must be true. I meet errors based on this fallacy daily in wiki. Tomer A. 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Gd21091993 is not replying to my call for cooperation. He seems to have gone into a sort of wiki-break... Oh! And I did not mean "since many people saw it, it must be true". I quite agree with you. I just meant that the first map has been around for long and editors should work on it rather than inventing a new unsourced map and pushing it in all wikis. It would be nice if we could find someone like User:Trasamundo for the Frech Colonial Empire maps... Thanks for the smile!! The Ogre (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to make edits to that map provided there is consensus for the changes. Kmusser (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DAmnit

EmpireFrench.pngFile:EmpireFrench.png is the good map why you hate me an kick me all time, you insult me and i don't talk with you because you ban me for 2 month !! then i wait for explication ? GD21091993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.29.123 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

needs more Haiti

"Extent of New France + French Louisiana" should show the Caribbean colonies of France as well. It's silly to exclude them when they're perfectly well in the frame of the map and were valued as/more highly. (Caption could be changed to French North America or French colonies of the Americas.)

Further, the second empire section should note the Haitian expedition ordered by Charles X in 1825 that crippled the island with payments, led to Dominican Republic's secession, and doubled tariffs on British goods &c. returning the republic solidly to the French sphere of influence. — LlywelynII 20:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

[3] walk victor falk talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


European conquests in the main picture

The main picture is wrong. Countries conquered in Europe were not part of the French colonial empire. They were not colonies, and it's insulting to call them so

I agree, the map is totally unsourced, and it even includes most of Portugal, despite Revolutionary France's defeat in the Iberian peninsula against the combined powers under Arthur Wellesley. Pietje96 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

End of the colonial empire?

The end of the French colonial empire is currently set at 1977 in the article, but it's unsourced and it's not clear what was the last state to leave the empire. I think this should be clarified and maybe added to the lead. In the meantime, I'm going to tag the dates as unsourced. Laurent (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the same can be said about the start of the colonial empire. I'm going to tag this too. Laurent (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Africa and Asia

I find it shocking that only a short paragraph is written about French colonialism in Africa and Asia. Most of this article seems to address the French-British wars (Europe)- about who have conquered what and where (point scoring). Am I the only one who thinks this article does not address the real subject of this article? Tamsier (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

last paragraph

The last paragraph makes it sound like Quebecois and Acadians are the only longstanding French speaking communities in Canada. There is a sizable population (half a million) of Franco-Ontariens in Eastern and Northern Ontario. There are smaller, but notable populations of Franco-Manitobans and also in Saskatchewan that do not fall into the other categories. I think it would be better just to remove the brackets and leave it at "French Canadian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaperBill (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Map: Spain and Portugal

Spain and Portugal was never part of the French colonial empire. They were invaded but not conquered and less colonized. This map is politically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.119.177 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. There is a serious mismatch between the map and the article: the article deals with the French colonial empire, and the map includes the First French Empire.
1)The first Napoleonic empire was not a colonial empire.
2)The first Napoleonic empire is not developed inside the article French colonial empire.
3)Spain and Portugal did not belong to the first Napoleonic empire (except Catalonia)
Trasamundo (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually Spain did become a Napoleonic Kingdom, so one can consider it a part in a way. However, Portugal was never fully conquered or established as any sort of puppet state or such. Completely incorrect. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Second largest empire ?

Second largest empire, after the British empire ? Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, the Russian empire exceeded twenty million square kilometres, about 40% larger than the French Empire.Eregli bob (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

End of the French colonial empire

Looking at the French Union article and the French Fourth Republic about the French Constitution of 1946, it explains my reasoning better: they were colonies but under the French Union which granted different rights. The colonies then had their wars and withdrew from the French Union. As such, the colonial empire as it was ended in 1946 and instead we have colonies of the Union which fought in wars and withdrew. This matches those two articles. Otherwise, why say it 'ended' in 1980 with Vanuatu when French Polynesia remains? Should it be still a part of the colonies? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To flesh this out more, as Alfred Simpson discusses: The 1946 French constitution, while resembling British colonial theory, was distinct: metropolitan France, the overseas departments, and the overseas territories were instead part of a single French Union from which:

In theory, therefore, there were no French colonies, just a French Union, or just one France, depending on the provisions of the constitution you took most seriously.

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, as I added here, this was more lip-service than reality in terms of the power structure but I do think we are better served by separating the material by the actual French structures (both the French Union and the French Community) rather than continuing to call them part of the French colonial empire. As Simpson notes, that is more of the British construct of colonies within the British Empire rather than treating it as "the French Union" from which the various overseas territories withdrew. As such, portions of the post-1940s history will move to the French Union and others to the French Community articles as they reflect withdraws from those various entities rather than a loss of 'colonies' which on paper cease to exist in 1946. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
well no-- You're mixing up "colonies" (Which nominally ended) and "Empire" which continued. Alfred Simpson explicitly discusses the French Empire during the fourth Republic: "Under the Fourth Republic (1946-58) there were four categories of territory in the French Empire. The first comprised Algeria,...." p 284 So Simpson is your RS and he rejects the idea that the Empire ended in 1946. Wikipedia editors have to follow reliable sources and in this case you are not following your own reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think you're taking a ridiculous amount of the single use of the word "Empire"? We're not talking about the First or Second French Empire but I think he mentioned it the French Union as an empire in the general sense. How is there a "colonial" empire if there are no more colonies? I would agree that your point may make sense in an article like List of French possessions and colonies that mentions what happens to the colonies (converting them to overseas territories, etc.) but do you have a reliable source for your version? Especially one that explains how the 1980 independence of Vanuatu suddenly transformed the prior "colonies" and ended the empire on that date? Was there a constitutional change that explains how those people changed in terms of rights in 1980? What about French Polynesia? It isn't independent so did they change? If so when and how? If not, does the "colonial" empire continue until the next colony becomes independent or something? Again, this article is different from the French Union, the French Community (the 1980 delineation is in the middle of the French Community period) so unless you have a reliable source that would justify eliminating French_Union#Withdrawals_from_the_French_Union and French_Community#Decline_and_abolition and rewriting France#Contemporary_period, which describes the overseas territories as a "vestige of the colonial empire" (i.e. the colonial empire ended), and the sources within those articles, I don't get the justification for your viewpoint. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You need a RS -- the one you cited rejects your argument. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I'll start an RFC on the issue. This version has no sources on the issue and you still haven't provided me one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
look at Cooper, Frederick. "French Africa, 1947–48: Reform, Violence, and Uncertainty in a Colonial Situation." Critical Inquiry (2014) 40#4 pp: 466-478. in JSTOR -- Under the French union, he says it was still a "Colonial situation". Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's just do it as an RFC. We should list it on the WikiProject France and and at numerous pages given the number of pages that are affected by this issue. I'm not smart enough to get French constitutional theory and I don't know if there's maybe some middle terms in terms of terminology that may be better (the "empire" ended but the situation remained in some form?) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: When did the French colonial empire end?

The consensus is that the 1980 date is the one in common use, per RJensen's erudite explanation. The earlier date is mere rhetorical posturing. I leave it to those here to do the actual work of adjusting articles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When should we say the French colonial empire ended, 1946 or 1980? 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1946

1946 is not the customary date. It's a new innovation by Ricky81682....The source he uses explicitly states that the French Empire was in operation in the 1950s. I have not seen any reliable source use 1946; Decolonization of the French colonies mostly happened around 1960. Rjensen (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

1980

Threaded discussion

The question is what the RS say. They do NOT say the French Empire ended in 1946. Ricky81682 cites Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire. Simpson says the empire persisted writing: "Under the Fourth Republic (1946-58) there were four categories of territory in the French Empire. The first comprised Algeria, and what were known as the 'old' colonies...." see Simpson (2004). Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention. Oxford UP. p. 284. Simpson says the Empire persisted during the fourth Republic, and he uses the term "colonies" as well. Another leading scholar Tony Smith explores "The French Colonial Consensus and People's War, 1946-58" in JSTOR. So we have the colonial theme developed long after 1946 by the scholars. Historian Tony Chafer see abstract explains what happened in 1946: "In an effort to restore its world-power status after the humiliation of defeat and occupation, France was eager to maintain its overseas empire at the end of the Second World War." Chafer says decolonization happened 15 years later. It is up to Ricky81682 to justify his claim and he has not found any RS that supports his contention that the French Empire and colonialism ended in 1946. A leading historian dates the end of the Empire in 1980: Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (1996) p 304. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have some sort of online link to Aldirch? Is Vanuatu the last French colony and everything else is not a colony? Does the French Republic's French Union/French Community/etc. mean nothing? Again, I don't get what about 1980 makes it defined as the end of the empire so someone context to Aldrich's thinking may help. It feels like it's just a guess because Vanuatu left and someone else tomorrow left France, then the colonial empire is said to have continued until 1980 for some odd reason. According to Todd Shepard, the 1946 Constitution eliminated the term colonial subjects with the idea of French Union citizenship. As such, I agree that there remained an empire in concept (at the very least, a secondary class of citizenship) but it wasn't state/colony but this French Union routine and so the best thing is to put in the French Union piece that for all intents and purposes, it was the same thing which is why those nations wanted independence. To me, if there are no colonies, it's not a colonial empire (an empire remaining but not a "colonial" empire to me). I mean, you repeatedly talk about a French Empire, but French Empire mentions the First and Second and the colonial one only. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I cited the library copy of the Aldrich book--It's the single most important resource and you need to look at it. 1980 is when the last colony became independent. Today there's some tiny specks that are unlikely to become independent, as well as the major case of New Caledonia. It's been mired in a complicated situation and still belongs to France, so in that sense the French Empire is still lingering. As for the word "colony", Paris officially used a number of different legal designations (like "protectorate" or "mandate" or "condominium" or "territory" etc) for what the rest of the world calls a "colony." It always denied Algeria was a "colony." The RS typically use "colony" for all of them. There is an ambiguity about "Empire," because the First French Empire refers to rule by an Emperor (Napoleon I), and the Second French Empire refers to Emperor Napoleon III. In between the two men, France did not have an Emperor, but it did have an empire. As for the "French Union" It was a short-lived device to centralize power in Paris while informing the colonials that now they were "equal" to all Frenchmen. Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What about the French Community or what France is currently? Are you saying there was never a change in that way? You agree that the terminology changed but we use that terminology in the end. At some point they became the Overseas departments and territories of France. That's the legal definition of them (Dependent_territory#France really) and that's the way they are described everywhere else. To be consistent, you would have to argue that all of those articles should call them colonies. I understand you want to be considered colonies and some sources may call them that but legally they were considered departments as of 1946. Similarly Puerto Rico is legally a commonwealth or unassociated territory of the US and while people may say it remains a colony, it's not classified here as a colony. The French Union isn't that different from the British Overseas Territories or whatever other legality that other nations used but it was what it was, a device that for all intents and purposes stopped the existence of colonies in favor of a claim of equality. Just because you (or some RS) may consider the change a farce doesn't mean it had no effect. One argument could be that the empire never ended but none of the other European (or American) empires are said to remain. However, as some point, all of their "empires" are said to have ended in favor of whatever the current system is (all articles have a decolonization section which means the colonies ended and then there is a 'legacy'). You are discussing the legacy of colonization which is that these decolonization efforts resulted in little because they were a farce (and then declarations of independence, etc.) The really strangest construction is to say the empire remained until 1980 because that's when the Vanuatu left and if another territory leaves tomorrow, then the empire retroactively continued until that entity left. That's just academics coming up with WP:FRINGE theories at that point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The French government used a variety of terminology, which changed several times after 1945 depending on who was in power in Paris. De Gaulle and his supporters insisted (until the very last moment) that all these overseas places were an integral part of France and could never never never become independent. However the main reliable sources use the terms "colonies" and "empire", and say the end came in 1980. (Leaving the future status of New Caledonia somewhat vague.) Wikipedia goes by the reliable sources. As for "fringe" theory, the leading experts such as Aldrich and Clayton provide the statements that Wikipedia (and other reference books) depend on. Wikipedia does not depend on the terminology the French government at the time--that was POV or propaganda constructed for political purposes that few experts at the time really believed in. For example, officially, the French government never called Algeria a "colony"/"colonial" but that's what the scholars and experts call it. eg books titled: The Making of Contemporary Algeria–Colonial Upheavals and Post-Independence Development, 1830–1987 (1988); Imperial identities: stereotyping, prejudice and race in colonial Algeria (1995); Muslim law courts and the French colonial state in Algeria (2014); The politics of frenchness in colonial Algeria, 1930-1954 (2002) Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the date that the consensus of reliable sources support, whatever that turns out to be, including no consensus, if there isn't one among historians. For starters, IMHO all arguments based on the French Constitution, French official treaties, documents, and the like are completely out of bounds for any discussion on this topic. Why? Because they are, obviously, highly POV: you cannot get more POV than what a country says about its own land area and territories (or the converse, for that matter--see Bantustans). Is Tibet occupied by China, or an integral part of it? What about Taiwan? What sources should we consult about that, the Chinese constitution, or equivalent? When researching whether Transkei or Bophuthatswana were independent countries, should we give credence to South African governments laws, constitutions, and declarations? Not picking on the Chinese, or the South Africans here, could just as well find examples from the United States, Britain, or many other countries. My point is, that any arguments based on official French documents should be disregarded as POV and play no role in the discussion. (Comments by reputable French historians, may, of course, be considered alongside with any other.) Further, I have a problem with the formulation of the original question, insofar as what date we should say the colonial empire, as "we" shouldn't say anything; we should merely reflect reliable sources and if there's a disagreement among them, we should say that and reference both sides. There's no need for "us" to have a consensus here for any one date; if reliable historians disagree about the date, then we should simply report the disagreement, along with a couple of refs from each. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Btw, @Rjensen:, are you the H-net guy? Just curious. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


  • No earlier than 1980. I am not convinced we can call the non-departments like New Caledonia anything but colonies. However, it is clear that France still had colonies well after 1945.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 1980. A constitution is a primary source. If a constitution declares that colonies have been transformed into something else, but they still exist just the same under a different label, we should still treat them as colonies - if independent sources agree. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "1946" option. Summoned by bot. RS are very clear that France had colonies (and fought hard to keep them) long after that. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French colonial empire has been replaced by French Union in 1946

The French colonial empire officially ends on october 27th 1946 when it has been replaced by the French Union and when the « indigénat » has been abolished. Since 1946, citizens are equal and have the right to vote. Since 1946 one part voted for their independence and the other chose to become French departments with the same status as departments of mainland France. This process continues today. For example, on one side Mayotte became the 101st French department after the 2009 referendum and on an other side a referendum on the independence of New Caledonia will be held soon. However France refuses to reintegrate former territories becom independent, it refused to reintegrate Moheli and Anjouan when their authorities asked it in 1997. Among the overseas French territories only 5 (regions Overseas: Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana and Mayotte) definitely chose the status of French region, while the rest can at any time request a referendum for independence. Saying that the French colonial empire existed after 1946 is the same thing as saying that the French colonial empire still exists today because there is no difference between the 1960 referendum on the independence of Senegal, the 1980 one's on Vanuatuan independence and the referendum which will soon be in New Caledonia. If citizens of New Caledonia say "Yes" to Independence you'll change the date from 1980 to 2018?... And in the future, for another Overseas collectivity? Excuse my poor English.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Official reference : Conseil constitutionnel - Constitution de 1946, IVe République - 27 octobre 1946 «La France forme avec les peuples d'outre-mer une Union fondée sur l'égalité des droits et des devoirs, sans distinction de race ni de religion. L'Union française est composée de nations et de peuples qui mettent en commun ou coordonnent leurs ressources et leurs efforts pour développer leurs civilisations respectives, accroître leur bien-être et assurer leur sécurité. Fidèle à sa mission traditionnelle, la France entend conduire les peuples dont elle a pris la charge à la liberté de s'administrer eux-mêmes et de gérer démocratiquement leurs propres affaires ; écartant tout système de colonisation fondé sur l'arbitraire, elle garantit à tous l'égal accès aux fonctions publiques et l'exercice individuel ou collectif des droits et libertés proclamés ou confirmés ci-dessus.»

Self-determination is recognized by the 1946 french constitution and the notion of colonization is clearly rejected in 1946.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

we have gone over this. The RS say the government action was a sham and that the colonial empire continued to exist with little real change. For proof: see "Did France's Colonial Empire Make Economic Sense? A Perspective from the Postwar Decade, 1946-1956" by Edward Peter Fitzgerald, The Journal of Economic History Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 373-385 online Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1956 is not 1980. The year 1980 is not serious. There is no differences in self-determination between 1980 and today. Do you have a reliable source which explain that the decolonization in 1979 was a sham????? Lamine Guèye's laws abolished indigénat and law #46-645 (April 11th, 1946, Félix Houphouët-Boigny) abolished all forced works, it's the truth and not a sham. The Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (many reliable sources in this article) was founded in 1946 and legaly promote self-determination. The first effective independences of former French colonies (Cambodia, South Vietnam, Morocco, Tunisia, Laos, French Guinea) began during the French Union (democratic votes recognized by UN), it's the truth and not a sham. You really believe there was a French colonial empire until July 30th, 1980? Why this year 1980? What will be happen if New Caledonia, Corsica, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy or French Polynesia vote for independence in the future? The people'll read on Wikipedia that French colonial empire ended in 2018 or 2020?? It's not serious.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
. A leading historian dates the end of the Empire in 1980: Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (1996) p 304. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we have a quote from this book? Nowhere in internet the French colonial empire ends in 1980, only in wikipedia. A colonial empire mean there is colonies... Before 1980, New Hebrides were an Anglo-French condominum... The French colonial empire was officially replaced by French Union in 1946 renamed French Community in 1958 (New constitution). In 1960, all the member of French Community were Independents. French Community officially ended in 1995 by law. There was neither new law nor new status in 1980. 1980 seems only be the date of the last independence of a territory administered by France. There are still other territories administered by France nowadays. If the French colonial empire officially ended in 1946 but some authors said it still exist after 1946 in other forms. Wikipedia have to write "French colonial empire officially ended in 1946 but some authors said it still exist after 1946" because there was no entity called French colonial empire after 1946 anymore--Monsieur Fou (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources RS, NOT on private interpretations of primary souces. The RS discuss French colonies & empire after 1946, as in "Did France's Colonial Empire Make Economic Sense? A Perspective from the Postwar Decade, 1946-1956" by Fitzgerald, in The Journal of Economic History. Better read "The French Overseas Empire" by Frederick Quinn. it covers the empire--esp Vietnam, Algeria & African colonies into the 1950s. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you guys stupid or just plain francophiles?

How can you include the client states of Napoleon as part of the French COLONIAL Empire? .

As a french citizen, I feel this does not do justice to historical truth and intellectual honesty. You have readers all over the world counting on you to produce a historically accurate article.

Wow Wikipedia, I expected more of your editors!

2001:1388:102:F932:2027:B5AD:A6E2:F46 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Yes, it's just laughable how it includes places like occupied Portugal. -TE — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarEldamir (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Golan Heights

Glide08, you are making changes regarding the Golan Heights, including one in this article. This has been discussed for a long time here on Wikipedia. That Israel administers the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem under civil law does of course not mean it is not occupied territory. You should read those many discussions and if you have something to add based on reliable sources, do it, but until you can prove it is like you say, saying that they are not occupied and "part of Israel" is not acceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

hasdvkabsk kabkvkavbava iurfiUI AHVE THE MOS T QRVBE FI FIGWIWRF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.39.87 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing the cover and structural data

The previous version of the article is poor in trustfull information and full of errors in citations sources. Yes, it can be a translation from French Wikipedia, however, this article uses a forceful bibliography in terms of data and authors. Even citations are using data from the Russian Tsar nineteenth century in terms of length data area, completely off topic.

In conclusion, bad editing by someone who is not dedicated to it and uses tools like just can understand.NY89 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, unattributed translations are disallowed per WP:Translation. Secondly, the translation is very poor. By the looks of it, it's a machine translation. Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing.". Thirdly, the translated version has a number of issues unrelated to the translation itself, including not following MOS:UNLINKDATES (dates and years should not be linked), broken references, incomplete references, and claims that fail verification. If you think this article would be improved by using material translated from the French article on the same subject, you can place the template {{Expand French|Empire colonial français}} on this one. Or, if there are specific points, you can bring those up on this talk page.
I have reverted the article to the previous version, because the quality of the translated version is unacceptably poor. Please don't change it back, but rather follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss.
I'm not sure what you mean by "citations are using data from the Russian Tsar nineteenth century in terms of length data area", but I suspect you might be referring to Taagepera's article[1]. It details the timelines of various empires' geographic extents. On pages 501 and 502, the area of France at different times of its existence is listed. Specifically, it says on page 501 that the area in 1670 was 3.4 Mm2 and on page 502 that the area in 1920 was 11.5 Mm2. TompaDompa (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rein Taagepera (September 1997). "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia". International Studies Quarterly. 41 (3): 501–502. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00053. Retrieved 16 September 2016.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French colonial empire. 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:

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) 14:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=BWaBHTLTdmgC&pg=PT236. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —0xf8e8 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

French imperialism within Europe

If "French imperialism" is redirected to this, then the imperialist escapades in Europe between 1790 and 1815 should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.71.22 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Move Request

This is NOT an empire. It was a republic in 1790-11804, 1848-1852, and after 1870. It was only an empire in 1804-1815 and in 1852-1870, both positions created by Napoleon I and Napoleon III. Before 1790 and from 1815-1840, it was a kingdom. Such uneducated people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosodium23 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Better educate yourself. The word "empire" doesn't necessarily refer to a country ruled by an emperor. This is one of the meanings of the word but neither the only nor the commonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.71.22 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, here the term "empire" is referring to imperialism and not to a specific political system nor to the official name of the French state. Sandtalon (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Has French Colonialism ended?

France occupies more timezones than any other country in the world due to its overseas holdings. It still retains part of South America, and has numerous islands scattered throughout the world. What's more is that it plays an incredibly active, and at times military role in its former African colonies, and also presides over their currency. This in many ways would appear to be the continuation of French Colonialism in a slightly altered form, not a post colonial reality. 176.168.180.249 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but the French Colonial Empire as an entity ended in 1946 Kanto7 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing the date of the end of the empire from 1980 to 1962

The issue of placing an exact end to the French Colonial Empire has been raised before, but the last time I believe was in 2015, according to the archive.

I dispute the idea that the independence of Vanatau is considered the end of the French Empire- for one, Vanuatu is a small island country, and France has current overseas holdings which are larger in both size and population, such as French Guiana and Martinique respectively. If losing Vanuatu means losing a part of their "empire," then the French Empire still exists. According to the Algerian War article, the French Colonial Empire ended after 1962, which makes a lot more sense to me, since Algeria was a huge part of France and one indisputably a colony of France.

I'll come back here with sources that aim to answer the question of when did the empire end exactly, but for now I propose to change the date to the Independence of Algeria.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_colonial_empire/Archive_1&oldid=1167985114"