Wikipedia:Peer review/Decolonization/archive1

Decolonization

I nominated this article for COTW, and it went from an embarrassing and incomplete couple of paragraphs, into a very comprehensive overview of the process of decolonization. Obviously, this is a very important subject that no dictionary would be complete without. I'm submitting it here for two reasons:

1. If anything has been overlooked, or something glaringly obvious is missing, I hope a number of fresh eyes can point it out.
2. Since it has been hastily thrown together by a large number of contributors, copy editing and Manual of Style advice would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully after Peer Review, and possible AID, this could become FAC material.

Thanks in advance for your comments. —thames 20:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty complete... but if it should have any chance of becomming a FAC, you'll need references, references and references. It'll be harder on an article written by more than a couple of editors (in other words, you'll have to get _everyone_ to tell you what references they used where), but it should be doable. Other than that, I find it a very good, well written and balanced article =) WegianWarrior 03:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

the formatting is bad when I use Safari as my browser (but no problems with firefox). With Safari, the "From Wolrd War II to the present" table is screwy, with the "year" column being about 3 inches wide and all the text beneath the table being restricted to a three-inch wide column. I don't know anything about html or wikiformating, though. I hope you can fix it. Dave (talk) 16:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what is meant by "white Dominions". Also, should Afghanistan be included here? (Both under the Brits and under the USSR.) What about decolonization from earlier periods, such as the Roman colonies of Britain and Spain? — RJH 19:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

We discussed that on the talk page and decided that there was a substantive difference between imperial conquest/occupation and colonization. Moreover, the word in modern context and usage refers almost entirely to the period which the article currently covers. AFAIK, the Romans had different levels of imperial administration for different territories, but they weren't colonies in the modern sense of the word (a nation occupied, economically exploited, and 'civilized', but not formally part of the occupying country). Non-colonial empires formally integrated their territories.

If you follow the "white Dominions" link to the Dominions article, about halfway down it states: "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa (prior to becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth in 1961), with their large populations of European descent, were sometimes collectively referred to as the 'White Dominions'."

I suppose Afghanistan could be included, but the Great Game article makes it seem as though Afghanistan was never successfully colonized by either side. —thames 19:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, Afghanistan was never a Dominion, which has a specific legal meaning. It was sometimes independent, although influenced; sometimes a British protectorate (1880-1919, IIRC) . Septentrionalis 05:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• IMO, I think the article confuses a lot of things. There are errors in 20th century Portuguese decolonization, for instance. Plus, there's no information about it (there were wars... Guinea Bissau gained the independence throw war - the country is not even part of the article). More, the philipines were really a U.S. colony? Are we talking about dominion or the colonization of European power across the globe? If we are talking about everything, then we should start with the begining: Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, Rome... If we are refering to the European colonization it should only foccus on that. The Map well... i think it is USA POV (because of philipines maybe). It would be more useful if it was a 19th century partition map. But we need a lot of maps. -Pedro 22:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Philippines certainly was a U.S. colony. They weren't named the "philippines colony." If you look at the wikipedia article on the Philippines you'll see that the U.S. gained the Philippines from Spain after defeating Spain in the Spanish-American War. They were a U.S. territory, then commonwealth, then given independence. But, aside from semantics, de facto they were a colony.
  • I think the article makes clear in the intro that the period being dealt with is specific to the european colonies. On the talk page we discussed whether this article would apply to all empires or just to european colonies of the past few centuries. As the term is used in academia today, decolonization refers to the latter: the independence of countries from european colonization over the past two centuries. We can clarify that further, as well as add information on Guinea Bissau—I'll do that ASAP. —thames 04:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added three notes on Guinea-Bissau's guerilla resistance, leading to its independence. I've also tried to clarify the scope of the article in the lead paragraph. —thames 15:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Ok. But there's info about Indonesia (case of East Timor) and that article will confuse even more people. I'm constantly correcting that East Timor was invaded by Indonesia (it didnt became independent from indonesia, it was a foreign invasion they left East Timor before the independence) and it was a still a Port. colony (under UN administration) and it was Portugal that gave the independence to East Timor in 2002, not Indonesia. Historically speaking, there were guerillas in the Portuguese African colonies. But I see that only in Angola and Mozambique were there were clearly guerillas. But in Guinea Bissau, it was different, Portugal had a lot of trouble dominating it, and it lost control of the territory. I dont know if you can compare it to other countries like in Spanish America or the USA.
• Most of Portugal's colonies only became independent in the 1970's, and there's only dates, not info at all. The Post-colonial organisations: these have historical and cultural reasons, and the colonial powers havent the power to decide if a country wants to join or not, they all decided to join.

  In place of colonial structures, former colonial powers created institutions which more loosely associated their former colonies.

• I disagree with this phrase, it is POV.-Pedro 10:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that many people don't realize the proper history of East Timor. However, I think there are limits to how detailed the Decolonization article can get. If we were to go through the unique story of each colony, the decolonization article would be tremendously long. However, I have added East Timor's 1975 declaration of independence and subsequent reconquest by Indonesia, in order to give better clarity and background.
  • I realize that the shared history of the former colonizer/colonies is an important element of the post-colonial organizations, but let's face it: the British Commonwealth only includes former British colonies, just as the Latin Union basically only includes former Spanish colonies, etc. There certainly is a measure of choice involved on the part of the now-independent former colonial states, and moreover, not all former colonies are part of the post-colonial organizations. But, how would you suggest altering or adding to that description? —thames 15:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• The latin union aim is to unite Latin languages speakers (every main latin language - Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian), and not only former Spanish colonies, at least today. It also has the aim to spreed these linked languages even more. It also has a cultural aim.

Due to a common history and culture that the former powers and former colonies has, they dediced to create organisations... blah blah blah...-Pedro 11:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I've updated the description of the post-colonial orgs as per your recommendations. —thames 14:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)