Talk:Danish overseas colonies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move this page to "Danish Colony empire" (2007)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

--194.255.124.250 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

194.255.124.250 is a currently blocked IP who vandalised a number of pages, including Empire, where he made this change, during the course of his latest spree, including this particular comment, so I think that idea can be disregarded. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more nonsense from that IP. This page should stay consistent with its ten other colleagues. Valentinian T / C 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not nonsense. --Arigato1 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all similar pages are named differently and the grammar is horrible. Valentinian T / C 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Please don't claim something you not have resourced. --Arigato1 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links: Belgian colonial empire, French colonial empires, German colonial empire, Swedish colonial empire. Other articles use the form "X-sh Empire" e.g. British Empire but English knows no such thing as a "colony empire". Valentinian T / C 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Iceland and the Faeroe Islands[edit]

The question that I want to put forward is whether Iceland and the Faeroe Islands count as colonies. Both regions were ruled as any other part of the danish kingdom (under absolutism) inhabited by non-danes (Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg). That is to say that it was administered in exactly the same way as areas inhabited by danes. At that time there was no distinction made between parts of the kingdom inhabited by danes and parts of the kingdom inhabited by non-danes. In the "proper" over-seas colonies this was quite different because the whole administration was built up in another way. 92.225.41.181 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A colony is basically an area that is not represented in the legislative assembly of the "mother" country. Both Iceland and the Faroe Islands, just like Norway, have been represented throughout, either in the Folketing or the Rigsdag or the Stænderforsamling. So "dependencies", yes, but not "colonies" - no more than Scotland and Wales are British "colonies".
Many WP articles about colonialism fail to distinguish between these definitions.
By the way, the Danish flag depicted in the article looks wrong. It is too long, and the inner squares are not squares. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than one definition of the terms "colony" and "colonial". In this article the Faroes and Iceland are not referred to as "colonies", as they weren't, really, but they were part of Denmark's overseas empire.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that there are more definitions. Maybe I should have added that the one above seems to be widely accepted.
Anyway, the Faroe Islands are referred to as a clony in the article since it says "Colonial status ended in 1948". I think this is also the reason for 92.225.41.181's remark. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it and corrected a few other mistakes. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We have Italian Colonial Empire and Danish Colonial Empire all caps, but French colonial empire, German colonial empire, and Belgian colonial empire without caps. Which is preferred? Goustien (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all caps is preferred for original titles only, and as there was not a contemporary entity called "Danish Colonial Empire", it would probably be best to move it to "Danish colonial empire". I can't speak for the Italian article as it is outside my scope of knowledge. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Empire?[edit]

Are there any sources supporting the use of "Empire" about the Danish overseas territories? It does not strike me as the most common usage. If there aren't then the article should of course be moved to a more common name.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing myself. Here is one source I found that describes it as such. It states "18th century Denmark was an empire on a par with other contemporary European empires. Denmark partook in all the events that mark polities as empires." Adondai (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion submitted to a journal by someone who isn't actually an accredited historian. There are a literally thousands of refereed articles submitted and accepted around the world every year, including maverick ideas and opinions. Wikipedia is reliant on reliable sources, not WP:FRINGE secondary pieces for academic discourse. If you have to comb around the web to find one such opinion, it's certainly not mainstream or WP:DUE in any shape or form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While I must admit that I am not particularly knowledgable about the historical facts of this era in Danish history, I can add that the Danish colonies of the time was frequently referred to as just that:The Danish Colonies (Danish: De Danske Kolonier). Until the notion of the term "Empire" is settled perhaps the title should be just that? RhinoMind (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adondai Certainly Denmark at the time was a Colonial power (Danish: Kolonimagt), but an Empire too? that seems far-fetched, just from the fact that the colonial possessions were rather small and did not encompass entire populations or anything of that nature. They were governed in cooperation and by acceptance of local rulers too. I am sure any scholar using the term Empire about The Danish Colonies, must have meant it in a most casual way. RhinoMind (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across this now and was struck by the odd title. It seems there's a consensus it should be moved or have I missed something here? Ping RhinoMind, Adondai, Iryna Harpy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakikaki (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is named descriptively, then it fits with colonial empire. If it is named prescriptively, then it may not. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation (again) 2012[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I agree that the article should really be moved to Danish colonial empire (lower case), as a purely descriptive term, not an official title. There never a "Danish [Colonial] Empire" in the same sense as the British Empire. I think this article needs moving as soon as possible. Peter (Talk page) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Peter Talk page 14:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danish colonial empire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer map?[edit]

Yes the map need a slight touch up still. Jemtland in Sweden should be red. After Denmark and Norway split into two countries it was named øst-Trøndelag. Jemtland still use the Norwegian seal in the flag.

Also Skåne, the southernmost state in Sweden belonged to Denmark for a long time, the language spoken in the area is still based on Danish. This area could also be made red for historical correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.139.54 (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At mediawiki, I've suggested adding circles around the smaller possessions; see [1].

--Nø (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current article seems to be WP:OR as it stands. There is no such thing as a 'Danish colonial empire' in English language scholarship, and the only place that pays lip-service to such an entity is Wikipedia. Firstly, find reliable sources for it being an 'empire' in the sense that the concept exists in English, then you can discuss updating maps which shouldn't actually be in an article which probably needs renaming. It's not up to editors to invent polities (and history), but to follow sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you may have a point there, but an article about Danish colonies as a whole seems in place. What should we call it, then?--Nø (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure. I think it's worth checking around similar articles for the sake of uniformity across Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Danish colonies would be the obvious choice. That title already redirects to this article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a technical request to move the page. TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Danish overseas colonies. Consensus seems to be to move it there rather than leave it here or anywhere else. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danish colonial empire → Danish colonies Danish overseas colonies – WP:RELIABLE sources don't call it a colonial empire according to discussion on talk page. The translated titles from Danish and Norwegian also don't refer to it as an empire. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this should be sent to a full discussion, since the talk page has comments across many years (over a decade) with differing opinions on article titles. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Danish overseas colonies per WP:CONSISTENCY with Belgian overseas colonies, Swedish overseas colonies. This is the style we're using for ones that do not (according to RS) constitute colonial empires. Previous discussions above were all about capitalization (and they're correct to have concluded in favor of lower case), until you get back to 2007 (!), in a thread too old to be of use (many of the articles it once made a consistency argument about are no longer at the names the were when that argument was made in favor of the "empire"-laden title. "See the old move discussions" is generally not helpful. We decide in 2018 what the title should be by what 2018 policy, guidelines, and reliable sources say, not by what people were arguing about over a decade ago under different circumstances and criteria. PS: Just "Danish colonies" is too vague, and could refer to Danish inroads, from ancient times to modern, into nearby territories, e.g. the Danelaw.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I didn't suggest that title is that it was moved there in 2007 and then moved back in 2008, so I figured that such a move would be controversial (unlike my proposed move to Danish colonies, which I would've done myself as an uncontroversial move if the page didn't already exist). TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Danish overseas colonies per WP:CONSISTENCY. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Danish overseas colonies per WP:CONSISTENCY sounds like a fine idea. Sam Sailor 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The exact phrase "Danish colonial empire" is found in Mutiny in the Danish Atlantic World (Bloomsbury, 2017); Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism (Greenwood, 1991); Scandinavian Colonialism and the Rise of Modernity (Springer, 2013); "Why the Danes Got There First – A Trans-Imperial Study of the Abolition of the Danish Slave Trade in 1792", Slavyer & Abolition (2014); and "The scope and structure of the Danish negro slave trade", Scandinavian Economic History Review (1971). It is not problematic and not particularly rare. Srnec (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that by Srnec's argument, a move is not strictly necessary. However, the article deals with a series of colonies rather than an empire, and I think a rename as suggested would be meaningful.--Nø (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per the Danish Wikipedia article [2] – a featured article - literally translated as "Danish colonies", no "empire". Note above that User:Srnec moved Belgian overseas colonies (referred to by User:SMcCandlish) to "Belgian colonial empire", DESPITE there being a note stating that the term empire is NOT used commonly in Belgium. They then removed the note to cover their tracks. I can't be bothered reporting this blatant vandalism to subert a move discussion but someone else may wish to.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivar the Boneful (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are many things that are called/named differently in different languages. That the Danish Wikipedia uses some name has literally no weight/bearing, since this isn't a proper noun. Similarly, Belgium does not speak English, so it is the same situation. Even with proper nouns, French Wikipedia calls London "Londres", does that have any bearing in English? -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Danish America" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Danish America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25 § Danish America until a consensus is reached. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danish_overseas_colonies&oldid=1212530797"