Talk:Colonialism

"Colonialism is the exploitation..." does not reflect a neutral point of view

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:NOTFORUM Kowal2701 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

---

“Colonialism is the exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group” is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, as required by Wikipedia NPOV.

Instead, it is an application of revisionist history to advance a political view that has become deeply embedded in Wikipedia editors to the point where they operate within a bubble of self-confirming bias.

To say colonialism is exploitation is to take sides - the colonists are bad, the indigenous people are victims. While this may be correct, it is not neutral. Neutrality means to observe but not judge - to understand what is happening, not to apply value judgements.

From a neutral point of view colonialism is about

• the movement of a peoples who posess superior technology (ships, navigation, firearms) that enables them to move to a new land and become local inhabitants
• population growth in which the existing homeland becomes too small to support a commonwealth or land control creates an inequitable hierarch
• money-making by finding resources that are abundent somewhere else but scarce at home
• adventurism
• disposal of petty criminals, dysfunctional family members, other socially undesirables by putting them on seagoing ships.

It is based on the evolutionary fact that while humans look different based on adapatation to a local environment (people closer to the equator have darker skins to protect from a stronger sun, for example), they all are homo sapiens - a species that kills its own species, and is hard-wired to establish and enforce hierarchies of power by the control of other people's lives, liberty and property.

This current Wikipedia definition of colonialism is nothing more than an attempt to use a neutral medium to shift the hierarchy of power that occured after one region on the planet (Europe) experienced a technology explosion that gave it tools to voyage that took its people all over the world, tools of power in the form of superior weaponry, tools of husbandry in the form of farming, and complex law that enabled a small leadership group to organise large numbers of subservient peoples by developing the concept of employment, where one works for someone else voluntarily for pay, provided one does what one is told. Contrast this to less sophisticated societies where the economies were tribal (an extended family that cooperates for survival), slave based (which was practiced in many indigenous societies now portrayed as exploited, when by these terms, they were exploiters), or strong-man societies where a principle rises to the top by conquest, using fear and force to get others to do their bidding.

Human history is a history of movement. Home Sapiens displaces Neanderthals. Basques colonise Wales. Anglo Saxons invaded England and killed the Celts. Vikings came to France and the King let them stay because he would lose, whereupon they become Normans (Norsemen). Normans sailed over to England and won the Battle of Hastings claiming England as their own. British East India Company and the British Navy become tools of global expansion and control 1/6th of the planet. And that's just the British Isles. Colonisation - the movement of a people from one homeland to establish another has happened all over the planet for as long as their have been humans. If there was someone already there, there would be winners and losers.

I will not bother replacing the language in the article, because the believers in what has been written dominate Wikipedia, and it will just result in bickering. However, it is disappointing because I am writing an important research document now, and find it useful to quote Wikipedia not as the source of truth, but the Wisdom of Crowds. However, in this case, it fail.

I invite the editors of this page to try again. Akonga (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to provide ample amounts of sources to prove that humans are hard wired to establish heirarchies. 2001:B07:AC9:3627:29F0:2248:7E60:D69B (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Uh…. Dominance? 2600:4040:AEBA:C200:D4F0:806C:440:4787 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Every one of your bullets describes some facet of exploitation of the resource (the colony) by the colonizers... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, but this site is governed by an ideology which conflicts with the truth of the matter. Characterizing colonialism as an extension of human nature, rather than an evil unique to a certain group, is contrary to certain narratives. You will not get NPOV here. 174.103.222.226 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. This page presents post colonial theory as an absolute truth. I've put the definition from the 1936 OED with link below

Colonialism (kõlõunializm). [f. prec. +-ISM.]1. The practice or manner of things colonial. 1864 ELIZ. MURRAY E. Norman I. 48, I daresay she willbe a nice motherly person, and untainted by colonialism. 1883 American VI. 46 The narrow trammels of colonialism.b. A practice or idiom peculiar to or charac-teristic of a colony. (Cf. provincialism.)1887 MRS. D. DALY Digging & Squatting 239 To use a colonialism, the place was going ahead'.2. The colonial system or principle.1886 DICEY Eng. Case agst. Home Rule (ed. 2) 273 English Colonialism works well enough. 1889 Standard 20 May 3/1 There are three competing influences at work in South Africa..Colonialism, Africa.. Colonialism, Republicanism, and Imperialism.Colonialist. rare-¹. [f. as prec. +-IST.] An adherent of a colonial system.1813 Examiner 18 Jan. 34/2 Not continuing to conduct themselves like submissive colonialists.Colonialize (kõlõuniǎləiz), v. nonce-wd. [f. COLONIAL+-IZE.] trans. To make colonial.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271839/page/n637/mode/1up

The redefinition occurs with UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) in 1960

• “The colonial system—and colonial administration in all its forms—must be completely abolished”* .Colonialism is framed in moral and legal terms: *“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights”* .The resolution refers to “colonial countries and peoples in territories under colonial domination” and calls for an unconditional transfer of power to dependent peoples

This was led by left wing governments, the Soviets, post colonial theorists like Franz Fanon. They turn a morally neutral word - colony - just being a group of people and colonisation it's people, into a term that necessarily is of subjection. It is defined to promote a political purpose of any European settlement as evil, but exclude analysis of non European settlement.

That becomes explicit with writers like Edward Said who then retcon it to exclude continguous land territory as morally neutral, for the sake of Arab, Ottomans, etc.

This article is written as if the post colonial theorists are describing an uncontested moral truth. That is not the case.

The genesis of the term is hidden in the article Hickster999 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2025 (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.

Mis-captioned, irrelevant image

Hello @Des Vallee:, I'm seeing a number of issues with the image you inserted {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonialism&diff=prev&oldid=1300196218 here]. The file name is Bedouin transfers. The arrows and tents on the image show Bedouin transfers. In 1946 it was British land. In 1947 it was still British land, and those were proposed but never enacted borders for future states. From 1949-1967 it was Egyptian or Jordanian land. This is the source for the image. The article doesn't mention anything about Bedouin transfers. Mikewem (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: The 1946 land shows Jewish settlements, with the other image showing Palestinian majority lands, while it also shows Bedouin displacements that is directly related to imperialism, and shows the continuous encroachment of Israeli land into Palestine. Des Vallee (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the new image and caption are better Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: They are fine and get the same general information across although it's overworded, people still refer to the entire region as "Palestine" so "formerly identified as Palestine" isn't needed, referring to the region as "Palestine" is the correct decision. Des Vallee (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Cdjp1: on this, due to involvement in setting the new image. Des Vallee (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Change in the borders of Israel and Palestine over time, showing the increasing Israeli control of formerly Palestinian territory. Would be the best change. Des Vallee (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You’re still at 2 reverts within about 2 hours. Please self-revert your recent consecutive edits to avoid a WP:1RR violation Mikewem (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, you’re at 3 reverts within about 14 hours. I highly recommend self-reverting @Des Vallee: Mikewem (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: No there wasn't, there was a single revert that returned the article to it's original description by Cdjp1. Your making things up. Des Vallee (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I am returning the article to it's stable version, by Cdjp1 not my preferred version. Your edit warring by inserting your own personal version into the article. Des Vallee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

See you at the incidents noticeboard Mikewem (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: See you at the boomerang. Des Vallee (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: It looks like all it would take to avoid a report is changing the word “increasing” to “extent of”. Thoughts? Mikewem (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: Jesus, what kind of a statement is that, the only editor engaged in a dispute removing a change by a uninvolved editor needing a change to get involved in ANI. I would oppose that and would wait for others, to be involved in the discussion. Des Vallee (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok Mikewem (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My take: this is a bad image to display here. Illustrations in an article should not be based on qualified examples of the topic that are referred to only tangentially in the text. The article would be better off without this image. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Half of the section is about the image however. Not "tangentially" related. The image as an example of Manifest Destiny has no text in relation to the article, it isn't mentioned at all but the image is still present. Should that also be removed? It seems to be much more unrelated to the section. Des Vallee (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Same thing could be stated on the "Dutch family in Java, 1927," which has a single word in relation to a massive section, or for that matter the vast majority of images on Wikipedia. Des Vallee (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Definition section

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)

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)

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)

(and Webster) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Idk, it’s the equivalent of citing web pages in an academic topic, and they’re very far form the WP:BESTSOURCES Kowal2701 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

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) buidhe 21:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, I'm not sure the second sentence makes sense, at the very least it doesn't read well Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Tried to clarify that, colonization isnt 100% the same as colonialism afterall. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

As noted in my edits, I tried to summarize the def chapter in the first lead sentence, hopefully not (as claimed) amoumting to WP:OR. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ah sorry, intersectional is already in there. Good, well then. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

PS: you are right about the annexation and internal colonialism. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Colonial_Countries_and_Peoples

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

In this way the article (tagged as post colonial theory) makes sense. Hickster999 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Bruce Gilley is textbook WP:FRINGE. Please remember that WP:NPOV refers to neutrally conveying mainstream science's view, not making that view value-neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

As many, many people have tried over the years to say - the article is not currently NPOV and is not fit for purpose. Hickster999 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2025

Remove "Beginning in the 7th century, Arabs colonized a substantial portion of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia and Europe." from the Medieval subsection. Lands that were conquered in the Arab expansions do not fit the definition of colonies as they were politically integrated into the state and not made into sufficiently self-governed dependent territories. Mr balling (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, uncited and can't find anything to support, especially in WP:WIKIVOICE. In future please don't suggest changes based on your own original research, changes to the article need to be based on reliable sources, particularly scholarly sources for a topic like this. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:REMOVAL for our guidelines on content removal Kowal2701 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

bias needs explanation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SOAPBOX, misunderstanding of WP:NPOV Kowal2701 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

---

To remain NPOV you need to explain the basis of the term you use. I have listed the actual academic sources to show that which you delete to hide.

Currently you write; "While different forms of colonialism have existed around the world, the concept has been developed as a description of European colonial empires of the modern era. "

That is a POV statement without source which is inadequate.

"Colonialism is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also claim superiority. While frequently an imperialist project, colonialism functions through differentiating between the targeted land and people, and that of the colonizers"

That's an absurd statement by fact. There were no people in the Azores or Falklands for example. Yet the definition renders it non existent. Without basis.

The etymology section Has no source and is useless as it doesn't lay out where you are getting the term. That is POV.

The whole piece reads as extremist Post Colonial theory - without the ability to recognise itself. It includes rants on all manner of irrelevancies related to that philosophy. Cultural colonialism? Not as a 1978 concept by Kenneth Coutts Smith drawing on Latin concept of cultural imperialism is written as an apriori truth & then assigned to American boarding schools with a conspiratorial purpose as a truth.

While I accept that this page is written by extremists who delete reasonable, articulable objections to bias - it is extremely inappropriate to delete even comment criticism instead of having a simple, sourced explanation of the development of the term

I give example below

"In 190, the United Nations formally redefined colonialism through Resolution 1514 (XV) by expanding it beyond mere territorial control to encompass all forms of alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation. This broader definition recognized that colonialism was not only about direct political rule but also included economic dependency, cultural domination, and systemic denial of peoples’ rights to self-determination. The resolution declared that any such subjugation violated fundamental human rights and impeded global peace, calling for the immediate and unconditional transfer of power to colonized peoples “in all its forms and manifestations.” This shift reflected the influence of newly independent Asian and African states and aligned with emerging postcolonial critiques emphasizing that true freedom required ending both political and economic domination."

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271839/page/n637/mode/1up Hickster999 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

These were the sources for the redefinition of the word used by the page.

Amílcar Cabral – Return to the Source: Selected Speeches

Year: 1973

ISBN: 9780850311052

Focus: Colonialism redefined as a process of economic extraction supported by cultural domination.

---

International Law and UN Framing

4. Mark Mazower – No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations

Year: 2009

ISBN: 9780691141848

Focus: Shows how UN language moved from trusteeship to condemning colonialism “in all its forms.”

5. Antony Anghie – Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law

Year: 2004

ISBN: 9780521702720

Focus: Tracks the shift in legal thinking at the UN from empire to decolonization as a norm.

6. Adom Getachew – Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination

Year: 2019

ISBN: 9780691179155

Focus: Examines how African and Asian leaders redefined colonialism to include economic structures during UN debates.

7. Sundhya Pahuja – Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality

Year: 2011

ISBN: 9780521153782

Focus: Explains why development and sovereignty became part of the anti-colonial legal framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hickster999 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to make one thing clear briefly. No one is required to jump through your hoops or complete all your homework assignments. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we're not entitled to indulge an interlocutor out to the ends of the earth because they feel that to be the only way to their desired truth. We have more formal [[WP:|dispute resolution procedures]] here, but I'm going to treat this only as far as is reasonable. (Why did you take up my entire screen posting the sources already cited in the article? Those are the only data I already for sure know about here.)

Here's the bottom line—it's easy for anyone, even experienced but cranky editors to decry POV. The step forward is always the same: cite your own sources to back up what heretofor has actually been you opining quite extemporaneously—or there's not going to be much to talk about. The UN source clearly doesn't even disagree with the definition written in the article. It purports itself to be an even broader superset of what was previously a kernel of meaning!

And naturally, I'm happy to dismiss the 1933 OED out of hand. Have you heard of the etymological fallacy? You should also know that, quite explicitly, on Wikipedia, age of sources is often a vital point of consideration, which I hope mostly makes sense.) I'm not sure you could ask many of the people, who would've been the rightful perusers of that OED entry nearly a century ago, but now are living in a world where new knowledge has been synthesized and revealed to different strata of society, and the idea that most anyone of that demographic (or any, I'd reckon) offers "adventurism" as a core component of colonialism like you have, instead of something sounding more like our radical extremists—if you're not willing to consider this as among the reasons for our paradigmatic discrepancy, then we're already done here.

NPOV doesn't mean "no point of view"—if you're going to ignore all the current sources others take more seriously, then NPOV requires we ignore your concerns. That's just how it is. Remsense 🌈 论 11:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ll add a sentence on first uses of the term if I have time/can find sources/can be arsed, there’s plenty of other sites they can whinge about "postcolonial extremists" on, closing this Kowal2701 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2025 (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.

Bias

This articles starts with a warning that claims need verification. In the first paragraph the claimed definition of the word does not link to a source saying that but to a general list of books.

I would encourage any of the activists to please use the dispute resolution system for the reasoned points on how this article presents postcolonial theory as fact. Personal insults do not make up for reasoned, sourced points on why the etymology and description should be improved.

Above and beyond that, there is a consistent pattern with the edits to present a more extreme postcolonial conspiracy theory so that acts of colonialism by non europeans are removed (Spain). on that basis - because an a priori claim that no books say so, but apriori claims on things like residential schools remain. I give link below to the point i just made.

Half of the page is basically a rant about the "colonial era" with pot boiler accusations.

So - it's fine for you to have this page, but you need to declare your bias. You need to declare that your definition is not holistic, remaining standard by oed 2 and optional in 3.

The pocket definition is; Colonialism n. the policy or practice of acquiring political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

that's what the first paragraph should be, then an explanation that it's a concept in post colonial theory later on! 

I said nothing to warrant personal accusations that i demanded anyone "jump through a hoop", i am introducing the basic notes demanded by wikipedia to explain the usage of the language of the article. i don't understand that editors are ridiculing my suggestion to include the UN Resolution 1514.

The etymology section should show how post colonial theory creates its concept or the milder version you have in the minor dictionary

Please bring me to the arbiter, I have not even edited the page. I have opened my editing of it to prior discussion, in response you have locked down the conversation and ridiculed me. this feels inappropriate and an egregious mendacious response. I hope this helps. Take care xx

. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain Darío Fernández‑Morera (2016) Frames Islamic Spain as a system of imperial power, religious hierarchy, economic extraction, and foreign domination over native culture Reddit+1Wikipedia.

ISBN‑13: 9781610170956 (also ISBN‑10: 1610170954) AbeBooks UKBolWikipedia

2. The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797 Roger Collins (1989/1995) Presents Moorish takeover as a structured colonial project: invasion, elite settlement, administrative overhaul, and long-term rule over indigenous Visigothic populations AbeBooks UK+4Wikipedia+4AbeBooks UK+4.

ISBN‑13: 9780631194057 (also ISBN‑10: 0631194053) AbeBooks UKAbeBooks UK.

3. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al‑Andalus Hugh Kennedy (1996) Chronicles the evolution of Islamic governance in Iberia from conquest to dissolution, emphasizing hegemonic rule, legal‑cultural imposition (Arabic, Sharia), and elite dominance over local populations Wikipedia+15taylorfrancis.com+15AbeBooks UK+15.

ISBN‑13: 9780582495159 (ISBN‑10: 0582495156) Hickster999 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hickster999, this isn't a reasoned discussion, you've called other editors "activists" and "postcolonial extremists", which are blatant personal attacks. I looked at most of the sources you provided, they don't improve the article, see WP:SYNTH. I have expanded the first paragraph of the definition section to give a little background, anymore isn't due imo. People can click on the link to the Bandung Conference if they're interested in the history. Ultimately the disdain you showed for recent scholarship to me indicated there wasn't a productive discussion to be had here that would be inline with wikipedia policies. Honestly Remsense and I have been rather kind since soapboxy comments by editors with no experience of wikipedia usually tend to get ignored or removed. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

im sorry, but u deleted out of hand in order to preserve a defintion of colonialism which does not exist in mainline thought or dictionaries, you wrote "I want to make one thing clear briefly. No one is required to jump through your hoops or complete all your homework assignment" which had no reasoning.

As a matter of fact the definition is wrong unless it is explicitly listed as post colonial theory. There is no "disdain" for your ideological group - you just need to list it as what it is. A point of view to create a holistic theory.

Including actual dictionary definition and the development of the term within a restricted field of study, hence the whole pot boiler history framing the world in those terms.

It is certainly not "productive" to delete multiple people time and again in order to preserve a philosophy. I can equally say that you act with "disdain" to the multiple sources which say Spain and the Balkans suffered under colonialism, but you delete it all as it does not fit within the world view of post colonial studies.

This page isn't about "colonialism" it's a very long winded exposition of postcolonial theory without disclosure of that. I don't care if you ignore me, tbf. This is just an example of what is killing wikipedia. Be better. Take care. Hickster999 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2025 (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:

• Palestine-Israel Historic Borders Over Time.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Ottomans missing in 20th century

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