Talk:Decolonisation of Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

This is a work in progress. More countries to be added. Nickis74 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Nickis74

Table

The table section should use Template:Dts to express dates in sortable format. Goustien (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Accuracy?

The USA and Russia were not the "colonial powers" that Korea was freed from. I've edited the table, as burying this information in a footnote is misleading. 140.247.45.43 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

SU and US occupied, not colonized Korea

Can we really speak of colonization of Korea by these powers? I'd say they occupied the country, but to what extent did they systematically extract resources for instance? 83.83.1.229 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dtrummer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There are two linked areas where there is some dispute: the application of MOS:RETAIN, and the application of MOS:TIES.

On the MOS:TIES issue, I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say that the predominant colonial power in since-decolonised Asia was Britain, and the variants of English those countries use – if they still use them – are derived from British English. Indeed, MOS:TIES does have a clause specifically dealing with "Commonwealth" topics.

Secondly, on the RETAIN issue… I am convinced that the eight-year use of British(-derived) English constitutes a long-established usage of an English variant that should not be changed without consensus. Admittedly, the 2011 change probably shouldn't have been done without consensus either. However, the article has still used British English for a longer time (by some arguments, since inception – actual consistency wasn't enforced until the 2011 move).

As a result, I am confident that the general tenor of the discussion is in favour of moving. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Decolonization of Asia → Decolonisation of Asia – The article is written in British English, but the article title is written in American English. Treetoes023 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Happily888 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Edit conflict

@Treetoes023, Amakuru, DrVogel, and BarrelProof: queried move request Happily888 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - the article was first created using the "-ize" spelling (which could be British Oxford spelling I suppose, or it could be US English): [1] - so per MOS:RETAIN I'd think we should keep it that way, even though it's been flip-flopped back and forth a few times over the years. Note also that "The article is written in British English" is only because the OP edited it to be that way today.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Personally I think the move makes a lot of sense, but I don't think it should be processed here as uncontroversial. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Before yesterday, the opening sentence used -ization, and there were more -ize spellings than -ise spellings in the article. If it was British, it was Oxford British. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It has stuff like "neighbouring". Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Oxford British uses both "neighbouring" and "decolonization". Oxford is a British institution. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we probably at least agree that this is not uncontroversial. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    @Dr. Vogel: Even if it uses Oxford spellings, that's still not a reason to move the article. What are your reasons for favouring the move?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Happily888: Sorry for the edit conflict. Two different users added this requested move at the same time. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Happily888 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES: Philippine English should be used in the article which retains the “z” spelling. Shwcz (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The spelling within the article was changed from the "isation" spelling to the "ization" spelling in this edit by an IP user, 24.8.163.177 on 13 August 2019, in contradiction to MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. This led to the most recent page move from Decolonisation of Asia to the current page title on 2 November 2019 by user Roastedturkey. The "isation" spelling was used stably in the article for over eight years, from 9 March 2011 to 13 August 2019. Also, since the majority of countries in Asia that were colonised by English-speaking countries were colonised by the British Empire (see this table), and the United States' interests in Asia began significantly after the United Kingdom's (in 1898 vs. the 1600s), it makes more sense to use British English in the article. Happily888 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support – This article originally used British English before it was changed by an IP user, so I changed it back. Per MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. Treetoes023 (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. The article was originally started with this spelling, and that's the spelling it should use. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. I'll leave it to the page editors to decide if it should be in Oxford English or American English, but either way, it'd be -ization. SnowFire (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly per MOS:RETAIN, the article should use the "isation" spelling as this falls into the exceptions of WP:TIES, with a majority of the article referencing the former members of the British empire, so it should be using Commonwealth English or British English. The change will also reduce ambiguity because MOS:CONSISTENT usage of the "isation" spelling was already achieved prior to these mass edits in 2019, with these edits contradicting the policies referenced above and showing that the former spelling should have been maintained. In this article, the British English spelling makes significantly more sense than American English spelling. Happily888 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The "strong ties" exception does not apply here, because there is no single country that can claim to have a strong tie to this article's subject. And the spelling should be changed throughout the article to match the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that the spelling throughout the article did match the title. From 9 March 2011 to 13 August 2019 the spelling throughout the article used the "-isation" spelling, and from 9 March 2011 to 1 November 2019 the spelling for the article's title used the "-isation" spelling. The spelling throughout the article and the title both used the "-isation" spelling stably for over 8 years from 9 March 2011 to 13 August 2019. The article's spelling was changed to the "-ization" spelling on 13 August 2019 by the IP user 24.8.163.177, which was a violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. The title's spelling was then changed to the "-ization" spelling on 1 November 2019 by the user Roastedturkey, another violation of WP:RETAIN. This article should return to the "-isation" spelling that it used stably for over 8 years until it was changed in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. Treetoes023 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This article was originally started on October 26, 2009‎ with the "-ization" spelling, and that is the spelling that the article should use. It should have never been changed to the "-isation" spelling per MOS:RETAIN. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN's policy states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." The consistent usage of British English on this article was established for over 8 years, longer than any other English variety. This article should return to British English as it was the English variety that consistent usage of was established on this article. The variety of English that was originally present on this article only applies if an English variety's consistent usage has not been established in an article as MOS:RETAIN's policy also states: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." This article already established consistent usage of British English so the original variety of English is irrelevant. Treetoes023 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The article's title and variety was established for a year and a half before it was inappropriately changed. The current title is where the article should stay. MOS:RETAIN: "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety". That happened when the article was originally created and existed for a year and a half with the current spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

British English was established for 8 and a half years, 7 years longer than the original variety and was inappropriately changed as the consistent usage of British English had been established in this article for far longer. MOS:RETAIN: "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" only applies if a consistent usage of an English variety has not been established so it does not apply here as British English was established. MOS:RETAIN: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." Treetoes023 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely applies here, as the fact that we are even having this discussion clearly shows there is a dispute as to which version of English to use, so we must default to the article's original spelling, which is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You are ignoring the "When no English variety has been established" part. British English was established, the original English variety only applies if no English variety has been established, which is not true in this case because once again, British English was established on this article for over 8 years. Treetoes023 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The creation of the article with the current spelling is what established the version of English that this article should use. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN perfectly explains that the reversion to the spelling variety used during the creation of the article should only be used When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, which is clearly not the case here as "-isation" was established here through consistent usage. Happily888 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The variant of English was already established with the creation of the article, as the title itself has a particular variant of English in it, so it should have never been moved from that. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support As argued by Treetoes023 above. British English usage in the article had been longer running than US English. – robertsky (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not the standard we use to determine which version of English to use in an article. We go by what the article was originally started with, not what it has used longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

it was consistently used for 8 years or so, and went unchallenged. Feels like it meets MOS:RETAIN. – robertsky (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It does not, because the article was improperly changed from one version to another in violation of MOS:RETAIN. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The change was not a violation of MOS:RETAIN because it fell into the exceptions of reducing ambiguity and MOS:TIES, shown in this edit summary on 3 March 2011 by Victor falk: sp., int'l eng. This "-isation" spelling became the established variety through clear consistent usage within the article for over eight years, confirming that this variety should have continued to have been used. The "-ization" spelling only returned as a result of being inappropriately changed on 13 August 2019 by an IP user, in violation of MOS:RETAIN, as the user doesn't provide a reason which falls into the exceptions of the guideline: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Happily888 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TIES simply does not apply here, as there is no one country that can claim specific ties to this article. We're obviously not going to agree on this, which is why the article must revert back to using the version of English spellings that it was created under, per MOS:RETAIN. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if MOS:TIES shouldn't apply here, the exception of reducing ambiguity in MOS:RETAIN does. Also, MOS:RETAIN states that there doesn't have to be agreement about which variety of english should be used, only that the English variety [that] has been established … through consistent usage should be … maintain[ed] in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Under MOS:RETAIN, the English variety should not be changed back to the original as this should only occur When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, which clearly isn't the case here as the "-isation" spelling was used consistently for over eight years. The english variation should only be changed to the "ization" spelling when there is clear consensus to the contrary, which hasn't been shown yet in this RM. Happily888 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Our policies on this are very clear that you don't get to switch an article from one English variant to another. The article was created under one spelling and existed under that spelling for a year and a half, so it should have never been moved from that to begin with. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that you haven't properly read the policy. Consistent usage of the "-isation" spelling has been established and should continue to be used. Happily888 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and revert the article's text to its original language per WP:RETAIN. While it is of course correct that TIES beats RETAIN, both the British and Americans have strong WP:TIES to this topic, and so TIES becomes immediately irrelevant and we have to go to RETAIN. Red Slash 20:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• support for consistency, British English should be followed. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Why British and not Bangladeshi, Burmese, Indian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Singaporean, or Philippine English. Shwcz (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

    The root of Bangladeshi, Burmese, Indian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Singaporean English is largely British English. – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

    • And the root of Philippine English is American English. Shwcz (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

      No one is disputing these, so why are you bringing up this? – robertsky (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Philippines has more MOS:TIES with this article than the United Kingdom. Shwcz (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, if you want to go into specific countries then, then why not consider the other countries you have mentioned as well? Won't these countries be having more MOS:TIES to these article as a collective British English/EngVarB over the Philippines' American English roots? – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: How about we just create American and British versions of Wikipedia? As an American, I think reading British English is equivalent to reading something in another language. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Another Comment: It appears to be inconclusive what spelling the author intended to use, as both spellings were used in the original edit. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Only one spelling was used in the original title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This initial edit of the article shows that it used both "decolonization" and "decolonise". It also provides reasoning for Victor falk's page move on 3 March 2011 and Mclay1's page move on 9 March 2011, showing the moves comply with WP:RETAIN as both spelling varieties were used and the page moves established consistency, which continued for over eight years until 13 August 2019. Happily888 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Consistency should be made by changing the text to match the original article title, not the other way around. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:RETAIN – The original author used both spellings so it's not clear what was originally intended. The original author didn't even use a capital letter for Asia so the intention behind their choice of spelling can hardly be trusted. In 2011, User:victor falk was the first to establish consistent usage with "Decolonisation" and so, per MOS:RETAIN, that is the version we should use. It remained that way until 2013 when an IP user changed the spelling in the first sentence in clear violation of policy. The page was not moved to the current title again until 2019. MClay1 (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2022 (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.

Rewrite?

This article is currently not much more than a bunch of lists, which I feel doesn't cover this subject nearly as well as it should, especially because it is a vital article which should really be more than a few lists. I think that this article should be written and structured more like the Decolonisation of Africa and Decolonization of the Americas articles. This criticism also applies to the Decolonisation of Oceania article. – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)