This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 07:42, April 16, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
I have recently removed some points about activities under Argentine flag in Califonia, Peru and Manila (?) in the 1810s and 1820s. These events are clearly related to the Spanish American wars of independence and not part of an expansionist scheme by Argentina, which was by then a very fragmented country. The question is what things to include and which not. For example, the Chilean annexation of Easter Island is very much aking to the annexations of the Great Powers in Oceania, and I argue thus that it should be included. But then question is should the Argentine occupation and the British invasion of the Falklandsin the 1820s and 1830s be included, and if so, why not Ecuador's occupation Galapagos be? How do we select which events fall under the category of New Imperialism? Dentren | Talk15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is unfortunately much in this article which is wildly ahistorical. New Imperialism is much narrower in meaning than the article appears to suggest and refers principally to the British and French empires from the 1880s. For example, there is almost nothing relevant in the section on Indonesia. And why do we discuss 1930s' appeasement? At the same time, we have almost nothing on the French empire in Africa or the Fashoda incident. The section on Chilean imperialism (!) is actually longer than that on British colonial expansion in Africa. It really needs to be junked entirely. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that Chilean stuff can be trimmed down, but before that happens information about German, French, US and British colonial adventures in Oceania should be added. It is not the ordinary procedure in Wikipedia to delete content to give due weight, but rather to add content to the underepresented subject. Dentren | Talk18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content in in Oceania fits much better in the article maritime history of Chile. I do think however that Chile's and other small powers and nations roles in New Imperialism should not be overlooked, but should be streamlined to fit a narrative dually centered on the nations subject to the "New" imperialism and the Great Powers. Dentren | Talk16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdmarte.
The present text says bluntly that 'In 1899, Britain set out to complete its takeover of the future South Africa, which it had begun in 1814 with the annexation of the Cape Colony, by invading the gold-rich Afrikaner republics of Transvaal and the neighboring Orange Free State.' I think it is not disputed that the Second Boer War, which began in 1899, was initiated by attacks by the Boers (Afrikaners) on British settlements. The Wiki article on the War says 'The conflict broke out in 1899 after the failure of the Bloemfontein Conference and Boer irregulars and militia attacked colonial settlements in nearby British colonies. Starting in October 1899, the Boers placed Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking under siege, and won a string of victories at Colenso, Magersfontein and Stormberg. In response to these developments, increased numbers of British Army soldiers were brought to Southern Africa, and mounted largely unsuccessful attacks against the Boers'. Does this sound like Britain 'setting out to complete its takeover of the future South Africa'? I know that there were British interests, led by Cecil Rhodes, who wanted to occupy the Boer territories. Moreover, after a long and bloody conflict, Britain did in fact obtain control of the whole of what is now South Africa, though not long after that it also conceded a large measure of self-government to the colony. However, if that was the intention of the British policy all along, I think a source should be cited. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:D451:20E:657E:8FD8 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section "Motivations", the first listed is "Humanitarian", written with what I feel can be pretty evidently observed as an obvious bias toward colonizer rhetoric, being extremely generous in some cases and outright uncritical in others. Notably there are no citations in the entire paragraph to support the supposed "humanitarian" effort of african colonization beyond the literal and rather infamous piece of white supremacist propaganda "The White Man's Burden", which has long been analyzed as being both an excuse and apologetics for conquest. The piece in the paragraph where the author states that "this had positive effects" especially is not only laughable, but quite frankly deeply troubling. Again, not only is there no citation of these supposed "positive effects", but as far as i'm knowledgeable, it's actually rather agreed upon that european colonization did far, far more damage to their colonies than any positive.
Looking through the history I see a "HawkNightingale175" reverted an attempted revision as being "biased information", which is quite funny and also frustrating considering how obviously biased the section is already--not even to mention the part where the author erroneously refers to those who present evidence that this was not a "humanitarian mission" but instead good 'ol white supremacy, as "Historical Revisionists", which is just...kind of wow. I suppose you could say that it's "Historical Revisionism" in the absolute most generous of terms, but I feel that this is clearly loaded phrasing.
I'll be blunt, this is in my eyes a disgusting, and frankly a-historical framing to present this period of brutal colonization and enslavement as in any way "humanitarian"; It would be like framing Germany's actions in WW2 as "defensive". I'm more of a history nerd rather than an actual historian, but if no one else touches up this section within the near future, I'll probably set aside some time to completely revise that section with citations, but i'd like it if a Historian, Anthropologist, and/or Sociologist could put their expertise and academic resources to this section in my stead. IntoDaDark (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum - your "digust" at different perspectives is irrelevant. Further, the section you're referring to is about the motivations for colonization, not what you believe the outcome was. And it's meaningless to claim that something is "agreed" to be true if you're not going to even make a token effort to prove this. What do you want exactly? A section of an article to be removed based on your opinions and assertions? 183.177.48.166 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what a forum or discussion are. You also don't seem to actually understand what you're reading and are having a reactionary meltdown as a result. Alternatively you're just arguing in bad faith which is probably also true regardless. You're pathetic and not someone worth wasting my time over responding to seriously. IntoDaDark (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a part of the greater 19th and 20th century New Imperialism by the Western and Japanese empires. It was colonial acquisition and southward expansion for the benefit of an imperial power. Also, why does it need a citation when literally every entry on the timeline has no attached reference to it? 184.185.222.15 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdmarte.