Imperialism was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy History High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (January 2003 — December 2009)

The problem isn't that is should have a definition, its that imperialism is not a "big boner that comes on everyone".

the first line should read, "Imperialism, AS defined......." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.79.54 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's way overdone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.71 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that imperialism can be "relatively benign as in Canada, or brutal as in the Congo Free State.[8]"

A bit of research about the indigenous peoples of British North America or the Metis should bring this statement into question.

24.67.195.233 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm having a really hard time coming up with an example of benign imperialism. First, we'd have to rule out examples in which indigenous peoples were oppressed, displaced, or eliminated. We'd then have to rule out places in which people imported from elsewhere were subjected to cruel conditions (such as slavery or other exploitative forms of labor). The closest situations I can come up with would be Iceland under Danish rule, Svalbard under Norwegian rule, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon under French rule. The latter two might not even count considering they are still territory of Norway and France. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, you`re having a hard time because the concept of benign is exogenous to the imperialist phenomenon. It is what it is: power over other people. Of course authority can produce good and so does imperial power, but that is not a point that needs to be made in a whole section. Particularly, "examples" of imperialism will always look double-faced through ethical lenses. Imperialism is not about being good, it is about being imperial. Notwithstanding the relevance of imperialism on ethical issues, what this article needs is to conceptualize it, relating it to basic modern phenomena like the rise of nation states and the international division of labor. Ideally, rhe historical section should not stop until we reached today. That would make a good article for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.11.222 (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No discussion on that? No mention whatsoever to the most basic characteristic of imperialism according to its most worldwide influential definition? I mean, no one needs to be a leninist to acknowledge that imperialism is closely related to industrialization, the second industrial revolution particularly (you know, railroads, steel and stuff), and the distribution of capital and labor on a world scale by powerful states. It is a pity that an entire section is dedicated to the soviet imperialism (a very interesting case, for sure), while no mention to the intricate relationship between the creation of ussr and the concept of imperialism is presented to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.11.222 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 3 items from the See Also south. The framing of "socialist imperialism" as an accusation could be counted as implicit one in the body of the article. Prolly best you can do ATM. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love the wikilink for Barbara Bush - must make for interesting table talk with Dubya! Perhaps this one? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph ("Imperialism always involves the massive export of capital to foreign countries for the purpose of exploiting and dominating both their labor forces and their markets. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, represents the stage at which a country's consumers cannot buy all the products that have been produced, and additional markets must be sought after. The dominant feature of imperialism is the repatriation of invested capitalis current") is currently an unsourced wild claim that clashes with the broader definition of the first paragraph, and moreover simply repeats to 100% an extremely partisan (Leninism) view that is, contrary to what the first comment in this section states, far from being the 'most basic characteristic'. To restate the obvious: imperialism is not 'closely related' to industrialisiation, not least as it is not restricted to the 19th/20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.4.250.108 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I believe this should be further investigated and discussed within this page. The comparison between communist and capitalist imperial countries could also be further explored.

Leaving ethical considerations aside, it would be nice to see how the character of imperialism changed over time - references of Empires being built on a fit of absent mindedness might be appropriate, but let more qualified people decide that. It would also be helpful to elaborate on the differences in character of various colonial empires - The British Empire deserves a section of its own here, it would be the first empire that would come to mind when anyone mentions imperialism. I would like to see justifications - not justifications in that sense, but a motive behind empire building for each major colonial empire and how that character changed with time: from the empires of the New World to New Imperialism, at least. It would also be relevant(I think) to mention how the entire concept faded away giving rise to nation states of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.128.130 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under US Imperialism, it states, and I quote; "The early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism". Some may have, but the founding fathers, and here I include Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, were all quoted as agreeing with, and promoting, imperialism from historical quotes and writing. Then, we go on to Jackson's taking of Florida, and the historical how and why. From this, the US was mostly founded on imperialism, and the statement quoted above would be a fallacy. Being such, imperialism in the US goes all the way back to a time before 1776, and not the late 1800's. I agree that qualified people should take a look at several things in this article, and the United States is one of them.--Craxd (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imperialism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 07:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review this one soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would ordinarily quickfail this article.

• The WP:LEAD at 682 characters of readable prose does not adequately summarize the 15314 characters of readable prose in the main body. This LEAD should be about 2 or three paragraphs and 1500 to 2000 characters, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please include a summary of each section in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the main image shifted down a paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In the absence of an infobox, could this be included on any political templates like those at the top of democracy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a half dozen paragraphs with no inline citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has too many very stubby paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

• "Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain in Africa, Asia, and the Americas." is this a sentence?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Imperialism

• In light of the Colonialism vs imperialism section File:Colonial Africa 1913 map.svg is quite puzzling. It has a rather meaningless WP:CAPTION that points to an article about "process of invasion, occupation, colonization and annexation of African territory" after you said that was not what this article was about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Even in the text you start talking about colonies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be reworked. I am going to fail this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, but early on it says "It's generally accepted that modern day colonialism is an expression of imperialism and cannot exist without the latter. The extent to which "informal" imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described as such remains a controversial topic among historians." Doesnt that show some degree of bias/ an opinion presented as a fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.185.195 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ONE DEFINITION OF IMPERIALISM

There is only one definition of Imperialism, that expounded on by Vladimir Lenin. Imperialism is State monopoly capitalism, the main superpower now being the United States. It began after free market capitalism gave way to Monopoly capitalism around the end of the 19th century. It is more pronounced today than ever and will be replaced by socialism and then communism, the highest most advanced stage of human society. Furthermore, colonialism is just a bourgeois term for free market capitalism.

This article is just a mish mash of pluralist and 'neutral' opinions. The Roman Empire was not an Imperialist system. It was a slave owning society preceding the feudal socio-ecomomic system. This clever pluralist interaction of different factors and definitions by Wikipedia "authors" only leaves one bleary eyed and agnostic and numbs people's minds to the truth of Marxism-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. The existence of neocolonialism is still disputed. This is made quite clear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences on page 7232, saying "For some, [neocolonialism] is a virulent form of modern imperialism. For others, the absence of intent negates the political relationship. Neocolonialism remains a contested concept". Secondarily, the Roman Empire was an imperialist system. The definition of imperialism, provided by the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is the "domination or control by one country or group of people over others". The Roman Empire fits under that (exampli gratia: the invasions of Judaea, Gallia, Germania, Africa, Aegyptus, Dacia, etc). You're confusing the concepts of Imperialism with Colonisation. Definitions must stay relevant. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone link Lewis Samuel Feuer to his wiki page, please and future thank you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.220.148 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All you have to do is add double brackets around the name of the article to "wikilink" to it: [[ ]]. I do a "show preview" before I save to make sure the article actually exists (name of article will appear in red if article doesn't exist). Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, relying upon a single citation of a Swedish source (Magnusson, Lars (1991). Teorier om imperialism (in Swedish). Södertälje. p. 19. ISBN 91-550-3830-1.) the article asserts:

The word imperialism became common in the United Kingdom in the 1870s and was used with a negative connotation.

A quick glance at the entry for imperialism, n 1. in the Oxford English Dictionary shows that the 1870s' time frame for this assertion, but not the negative connotation, is contradicted by the evidence of common usage, viz:

Etymology: < imperial adj. and n. + -ism suffix: after imperialist.

1. An imperial system of government; the rule of an emperor, esp. when despotic or arbitrary.

1858 Westm. Rev. Oct. 344 To lower the intellectual vigour of the nation,..to exhibit to the world how the waywardness of mind will yield beneath the compression of a stern resolution—these are the tasks set itself by Imperialism.

1861 C. H. Pearson Early & Middle Ages Eng. xxxiv, Roman imperialism had divided the world into master and slave.

1861 G. Smith Irish Hist. 18 There appears to be in the Keltic race a strong tendency to what is called Imperialism.

1869 Times 15 Oct., Imperialism, or, indeed, any worse form of despotism.

1870 Daily News 8 Sept. 3 That this meeting begs to express its delight at the downfall of Imperialism in France, and the proclamation in lieu thereof of the Republic.

124.186.104.184 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the Islamic caliphate, which fits all of the traits of an colonial empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.179.178 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains this image, there is no information on the image page or the article page under the image on what the different colours are, who's empires these areas of land were within; Only "scramble for Africa" is written. In the article there is also no year mentioned, although 1913 is mentioned on the image page, but the colour's meanings as well as the year really should appear under the image in the article, otherwise the image is not very useful at all.  Carlwev  11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I think this article just needs to be rewritten. It is unfocused and makes no mention of a theoretical framework for understanding imperialism. I think we should organise an outline based on the different sections which lay claim to it, starting with a focus on:

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Colonialism

The production of an outline for this article would be fantastic so we can actually organise the thing, because its focus right now is completely variable between sections and it really shows the differences between the authors which have worked on it in the past. Ifly6 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses variable capitalisation of imperialism. I feel that it should be lowercase in all forms unless starting a sentence.

For example, I mean:

• British imperialism
• For us, imperialism is the...
• Imperialism led to [x]. However, by [y], imperialism and empire-building [blah].

Ifly6 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

imo, there should also be a section "Italy". --Neun-x (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Michels (1910): Elemente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Imperialismus in Italien => http://catalog.hathitrust.org

So, what's going on with the sudden flurry of edits by just-registered editors? The edits seem legit, but something's very fishy ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this might be an unregistered class? I've informed the Education program here. Pinging the new accounts that have been editing here; could you perhaps shed some light on the situation?

@Dannyt19, Alikoca190, Matt.Faf, Yorkie15, Yangjasmine, Syim912, and Kjamjamz:, @Feras.yahya, AkuraJ, Dutchstig, Rachellfaithh, Jessiiee14, IC-edit, and Sikseb:, @Trausnitz, NasraAhmed, Tlux211, Emilybourke, Sara.koopman, and RyanRAM: Sunrise (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to the note at WP:ENI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added material a while ago that has repeatedly been manipulated, it said a scholar describing the existence of progressive empires and regressive empires. Britain and ancient Rome were what he regarded as progressive empires, he regarded Nazi Germany as a regressive empire. That material was altered in the past, and I restored it. Just now I noticed that it was obnoxiously altered by removing any reference to Nazi Germany, and instead of saying Britain and ancient Rome as being what the scholar saw as progressive empires, that was replaced with the Portuguese Empire.

Sigh, Jesus Christ!

I'm tired of fixing this repeated vandalism so I've removed that material I added in the past. It's apparent that a very significant portion of editors on this article are immature people acting idiotically out of perhaps bias, or perhaps just to be a pain in the ass. The fact that other users here did not notice "British Empire" being changed to "Portuguese Empire" as being something that appeared to be a manipulation of the content, that is also highly disappointing.--174.88.218.170 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a POV tone criticizing the topic that is very apparent in the intro by focusing above all on the criticisms of imperialism rather than on a NPOV definition of what imperialism is. Imperialism has indeed become a word of slander, however in history there were imperialist sentiments had positive connotations commonly in reference to spreading civilization and uplifting societies deemed to be backwards by the imperial power, such as the case of the Roman Empire or British Empire in India.

I am not posting this to either promote the idea of imperialism nor condemn it, I am posting this to address a concern that the article is not presenting the whole picture well. It is focusing too much on claims made in history condemning imperialism while not acknowledging the claims that have been made in history justifying it.--174.88.218.57 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) If you think that changes should be made to an article, the best approach is to start by fixing it yourself, using statements that can be cited to reliable sources. If anyone objects, they will undo your changes and then the issue can be discussed. Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia rules WP:NPOV do not require editors to be neutral about imperialism. They require that all serious analytic viewpoints included in the article, in approximate proportion to their importance in the scholarly literature. So for there to be a problem that has to be important interpretation that got left out or seriously downplayed. User 174.88.218.57 needs to specify exactly what that Missing Interpretation is before he could tag the article has problematic. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As matter of fact most literature is negative about imperialism. Popular usage is pejorative and academics researching it criticizes it with same naturality an academic of slavery has little sympathy for that institution. Of course, there also are serious voices that proclaim certain benign effects of imperialism. Dentren | ^Talk 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the country list Britain is listed first, but then above the USA it is again listed, but this time under 'Great Britain.' Is there a specific reason for this? Or is it just an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TC9078 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1920 Galsworthy wrote in In Chancery (p. 294 Wordworth Classics) "the Colonial disposition to own oneself ... is the paradoxical forerunner of Imperialism”. This must have had some clear and distinct meaning for him. I do not understand it and the first section of the article does not help. It may be worth working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.113.15 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was recently editing the page Imperialism and I have come to realize that they are virtually the same thing and such research as I have conducted has not proven otherwise. Anyone against this idea or any reason why it has not happening already or if I am looking over some important factor? Thank you. --Jackery01 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading over this page about a year ago and it seems that there have been some massive changes to the page. A lot of the changes have begun to push an incorrect narrative of Imperialism, and omitted the fact that Imperialism is not simply about military acquisition of territory. Its about exerting political dominance on others through either through military force or diplomacy (and other soft power influences, such as trade, culture, religion, etc...). The active removal and omission of the so call soft power influences on the page needs to stop because it perpetrating an incorrect narrative that is leaving out half of the actual concept of imperialism.

This is from the UK's English definition of Imperialism from Oxford Dictionary. "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means." ^[1]

This is from the US's definition of Imperialism from Oxford Dictionary. "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." ^[2]

Also there are 4 essays in 2 separate chapters of the book "American Compared: American History in International Perspective, Volume II: Since 1865" by Carl J. Guarneri that talk about the various forms of imperialism. The differences between Greek, Roman, British, and American imperialism. And how American imperialism largely differs from the more traditionally mainstream imperialism of the British Empire, and Romans. 69.228.32.133 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Imperialism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511153707/http://porter.umdl.umich.edu/p/philamer/ to http://porter.umdl.umich.edu/p/philamer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008091712/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512015502/http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/imperialism.pdf to http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/imperialism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225004118/http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf to http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf

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) 13:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperialism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720214335/http://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html

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) 11:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is almost exclusively focused on the last 500 years. Many important empires existed before 1500.
• This article almost exclusively focuses on European empires. Non-Europeans also built many empires.

List of largest empires

I suggest covering: Akkadian Empire, Alexander the Great, Persian Empire, Athenian Empire, Roman Empire, Umayyad Caliphate, Mughal Empire, Timurid Empire, Mongol Empire, Qing Dynasty, Aztec Empire, Inca Empire, Bantu expansion, New Kingdom of Egypt, Songhai Empire, Khmer Empire, and Majapahit Empire. Jwray (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about US imperialism after World War II in the form of client states? (2A00:23C7:CF0A:5A00:1C39:6426:FF89:E33E (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Has it only been since 1945? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.70.17 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph only mentioned USA and Britain. Seems like typical anglophobia to ONLY consider britain and USA. Either that, or it's shaped by present bias, which should have very little impact on history of the past. I included the USSR and Nazi Germany, because those empires rapidly expanded and forced millions into servitude as well. In the scope of modern empires, they are very notable. Impfireball (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should proceed at least from what countries call themselves. Britain called itself an "Empire." Nazi Germany, too. But the USA and the USSR are not. I think that you are wrong when you see some "anglophobia" here. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This line is included in the piece on the Empire of Japan in the section 'Imperialism by country'. This is simply untrue. There is no way, in the history of conflicts has this not happened before. Off the top of my head, I can name the First Anglo-Afghan War as an example. Which occurred in the 1840s– sixty years before the events of the Russo-Japanese War. That sentence should be removed. Iamdmonah (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just shuffled the sentances of the lead to be more logical (chronologic; motives then methods).

Most importantly I have tried to make the first sentance clearer what imperialist expansionism does particularly, other than just being expansionist in the sense of an empreror calling them self titular ruler of all the lands. So adding the political and economic dimension to the blunt expansionism/conquest. For that purpose I put the methods at the end of the sentance and distinguished them between hard and soft power (as groups of methods from cannon boat politics, over cultural imperialism to exploitation like slavery and its racist mechanisms).

I hope this makes sense and works in the sentance.

PSI also exchanged the word gaining with "extending" and mentioning the motive of access Nsae Comp (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Venezuela on this list of imperialist powers is very odd. Every other country on the list has arguably tried to expand economic and political control across the world, but Venezuela has not. Territorial disputes do not constitute imperialism, and neither does some right-wing conspiracy theory about Venezuela controlling the Bolivian and Ecuadorian governments (which is plainly false). Being a relatively large country with some regional influence is not the same as being an imperialist power. I don't want to just delete the Venezuela section because this would promote backlash, and it's important to show a range of views, but we should at least try to make the article less biased on this point.

FlibbaDibbaDoo (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason the flag of the United States is shown prominently with no textbox to support its presence at the top of this page? I think the trolls are out again; suggest imminent removal. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map incorrectly colours Vancouver Island in blue as part of the USA when it was actually part of the Dominion of Canada in 1898 and should therefore be red for British Empire.

Here is the file page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2260:5330:2166:A2D9:1C89:CF5A (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For editors looking to flesh out that section, a few sources:

• Revell, Louise. Roman imperialism and local identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Webster, Jane, and Nicholas J. Cooper. Roman imperialism: post-colonial perspectives. University of Leicester, 1996.
• Erskine, Andrew. Roman imperialism. Edinburgh University Press, 2010.
• North, John A. "The development of Roman imperialism." The Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981)

Firse source is in particular widely cited. Happy editing. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nazi Germany not part of the imperialism per country? Nazi Germany is the epitome of imperialism. Adrianolusius (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The imperialism section for Germany is far too short. The Berlin Conference and Prussia, for example, also come to mind on the subject. The section should be called Prussia / Germany. Adrianolusius (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Theories of Imperialism section appears quite odd to me for several reasons. First, there is very little emphasis on any theories of imperialism apart from Lenin and Hobson -- at minimum I think this should be expanded to include a short mention of Baran and Sweezy, Nkrumah, Frank, Emmanuel and Wallerstein given their enormous influence on more modern theories of empire.

Second, the mention of Rodney is commendable but it does not cover what made his theory of "capitalist imperialism" notable, as this passage could have been written by any other dependency theorist.

Third, the discussion of Joseph Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, and Norman Angell was an interesting read, but does not reflect their notability within imperialism studies. Schumpeter may warrant a mention, the other two's influence seems negligible (please correct me on this if I'm overlooking something, I am only reading the sources provided). The confusing thing about this paragraph is that it mixes discussion of Hobson's early work with his later theories (which Schumpeter, Veblen and Angell were closer to), giving the impression that they all opposed imperialism when they didn't -- they only opposed militarism, which they saw as completely separate from capitalism or imperialism.

Does anyone have any strong objections to changing this section?Mirkyton (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain didn't hold control of Northern Morocco in 1800, that map is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:2C40:12E4:9C35:6F52:3596:2CBB (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the standard practice on here in articles having to do with colonialism and imperialism is to discuss Britain's historical relationship with Ireland in terms of a "colonial arrangement", and then make dubious comparisons between Ireland and Britain's overseas colonies. In this particular article readers are told that England's "imperial ambitions" began with the "Tudor conquest of Ireland", before shifting to Britain's colonization of India.

The problem of course is that Ireland was never a "colony" of England (or Britain) in any but a European context: it was a small territory that was annexed by its much larger neighbor, in the process of nation-state formation. By the 19th Century Ireland was fully incorporated into the UK and enjoyed full legal protections under the Crown and political representation in Westminster (something not even the 13 American colonies had), on equal footing with Wales, England and Scotland. Such a trajectory did not play out in India, in Africa, or indeed anywhere else outside of Europe.

There are a number of reliable sources describing the Ireland = India false equivalence as historically myopic and erroneous[1]. Other than a small number of fringe historians, this perspective on Irish history is generally promoted by scholars in the field of "Irish literary criticism" (ie, not historians). But even the literary critics are cognizant of the fact that the historical consensus is against them[2] (p. 103).Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Israel count as imperialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Israel has no overseas colonies and never had. It is located in some of the areas where the previous Jewish kingdoms lived (the kingdoms of Judah and Israel and the Hasmonean kingdom). In fact, many parts of its historical estate are under foreign rule. הלל. (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is easily assumable that the 3rd world, in its agenda to rob the developed nations of peace and of means of procreation, misattributes 'imperial', which means 'well and correctly measured' (e.g. SIS system of metric measurements) to 'hegemonic', which means 'to dominate'

Is there a particular orgabisation behind that malice, or does it originate from disgruntled 'violent revolutionaries'? PeterGL (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The value suffers from excessive Eurocentrism. There is no reference to the empires of the ancient world (Akkad, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.), those of the Middle Ages (the Arabs, the Mongols), those of the New World (the Incas, the Maya, the Aztecs) and there are many more. The value needs a very serious correction. הלל. (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every empire is necessarily driven by imperialism. While historians normally apply the term "imperialism" to European colonial powers, I'm not so sure that they apply the term in the same meaning to all of the examples you gave (and I have serious doubts regarding Greece and the Maya). Rsk6400 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark4tune: Please take a look at WP:BRD and WP:EW. Would you please explain why you think that the expressions "nation" and "subjects" in the way you want to use them are helping to make the text clearer ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's exactly what imperialism is. A single nation ruling over various smaller subjects. I would think this would be obvious to anyone editing this page. Dark4tune (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still didn't read or respect the guidelines I recommended. According to my ODE, a "subject" is "a member of a state other than its ruler", i.e. a "subject" is a person, and we are not talking about dominating persons, but about dominating whole areas and their populations. Finally, I doubt whether all imperialist states can be called "nations". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes your change even worse, is that "foreign subject" has a special, legal meaning, and "foreign subjects" are under the power of the laws of the country they live in even in the most anti-imperialistic of nations. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make those rules up yourself? The guidelines you recommend don't provide any backing on any of the statements made in your previous reply. Links to reliable sources would be helpful. Dark4tune (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines tell us what to do in case of a disagreement. If you want to have a change made, you have to get consensus. You didn't answer to my points regarding English language. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't answer to your points regarding English language? What does that even mean? Dark4tune (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The points I made about the ODE and the meaning of "(foreign) subject". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, provide me a link to those exact meanings and we'll talk again. Dark4tune (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works, see WP:NOCONSENSUS. The ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, you can surely consult your own dictionary. I think this discussion has gone on long enough, feel free to seek dispute resolution, WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why people would suggest that the Ottomans were an Imperial power, but there are so many statements that are blatantly false, unsourced, and even worse, rely on Nationalist propaganda. The claim of “colonization” is unsourced and is a far reach from the supplanting settler-colonialism of the Americas, South Africa and Israel. The claim that the migration of the Serbs was due to persecution is also unsourced. 169.148.43.82 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are very vague, the only point that might be not WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here is that about the migration of the Serbs. But that's a link to the detailed article, which has a lot of sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the Doctrine of Discovery somewhere in the articles about imperialism and colonialism. I cannot add it as both pages are semi-protected. 76.26.49.188 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, etc. various imperial powers regarding Islamic culture should not be the primary attention within this article; This article is about the topic of imperialism.

Western civilization has to compose and complete this article for further references within our encyclopedia.

20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.111 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\[reply]

There should be a section on the benefits of imperialism. The introduction of modern medicine and modern agriculture has caused a drastic decline in the level of disease in Africa and Asia. As a result the population of many areas has increased by a factor of 10 or 20 in much of the said zones. 2A00:23C7:9985:1701:5C94:1B62:3F46:D5A5 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence, first paragraph, in Imperialis by Country \ United States is in contradiction to the Wikipedia article on Smedley Butler, and the citation supplied is dead. As far as I know, and it is backed up by the Wikipedia article on Smedley Butler, he was never "far left". 199.130.230.137 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is just a stub, but the Roman Republic was also imperialist. The phrase "Roman Empire" is usually defined as the Roman polity during the time frame when an emporer ruled. The Roman republic was imperialist for centuries. 199.130.230.137 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]