Revision as of 16:10, 29 December 2012 editDeskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 editsm →Israel: spacing← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:11, 29 December 2012 edit undoUbikwit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,539 edits →Israel: file a request for a content dispute resolutionNext edit → | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
A few reliable sources does not a consensus make when there are other reliable sources who disagree. This is a hotly contested issue (which is why Misplaced Pages monitors articles pertaining to the I/P conflict as tightly as it does) and we on Misplaced Pages are compelled not to take sides in this debate. Including Israel on here would be doing just that. You do know that this isn't the same as the dispute we had at settler colonialism, right?] (]) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | A few reliable sources does not a consensus make when there are other reliable sources who disagree. This is a hotly contested issue (which is why Misplaced Pages monitors articles pertaining to the I/P conflict as tightly as it does) and we on Misplaced Pages are compelled not to take sides in this debate. Including Israel on here would be doing just that. You do know that this isn't the same as the dispute we had at settler colonialism, right?] (]) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:The fact that both Matts and I feel that they belong on the list would seem to represents a consensus. Particularly in light of the reliable sources cited and under discussion at the ] article | |||
:You have reverted the same edit three times now, and this would actually fall under 1RR. | |||
:Why don't you revert your edit, and file a request at ] to try and make your case on the basis of the sources. | |||
:It also seems that you may be canvassing Moxy in a manner such as to influence the outcome of the debate here WP:Canvassing. | |||
:As it stands you are on the verge of being blocked again. If you revert your edit and file for a content dispute, nobody is going to come after you for violating 3RR, let alone 1RR. | |||
:You are going to have to learn to use the procedural mechanisms available here when you disagree with other editors over content. | |||
--] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit | |||
Are you guys kidding? You're really edit warring with each other again? Next person to revert this article gets a block from me, and it won't be a short one. Do not edit war. Do discuss. --] ] 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | Are you guys kidding? You're really edit warring with each other again? Next person to revert this article gets a block from me, and it won't be a short one. Do not edit war. Do discuss. --] ] 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 29 December 2012
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
/Archive 2 /Archive 3 |
Historian's Views
In the Countering Disease section, two sentences that make rather strong (and opposing) claims are vague and uncited:
"Many scholars have argued that evidence that supports this practice as having been executed on a larger scale across North America is weak. Yet, growing evidence is showing that other indigenous communities were purposefully infected, citing oral history from the descendants of said peoples."
I added a citation needed and by who? template to these sentences. Suggest removal if they remain unsourced. 199.68.196.142 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Other viewpoints on colonialism?
There seems to be a lack of other viewpoints on colonialism (namely, that it had positive effects) except in the section on diseases. The imperialism page may have some useful references. Allens (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not contending that colonialism always had positive effects - the case of the Belgian Congo is a rather thorough counterexample of that. Allens (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"Impact on health" has an anti-colonialist bias and is misleading
Most of the issues can be more directly attributed to migration, they are not intrinsic to the emigration motivated by colonialism. In fact, I suspect that it's not hard to make the case that colonialism has had in the long-term a beneficial impacts on socioeconomic indicators, including improvements on health, when compared with similar regions that had not been colonized, or perhaps even colonies that became independent earlier, or that were seen as less interesting than other colonies for the colonizing countries. This is not unexpected from increasing technology and infrastructure, and fueling the industry and the economy, specially in the long term, after ceasing a potential "monopoly" over these resources from the colonizing populations. --Extremophile (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Summary style
Currently, the section on the impact of colonialism is rather long; most of it should be moved into the article on that topic, with only a (balanced!) summary left. Allens (talk | contribs) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Allens,
- I think quite a lot of this article could benefit from WP:Summary style, not just the "Impact of colonialism and colonization" section. Most obviously the massive lists of colonies in the history section. These could go into a list article or else be removed completely.
- I feel some big edits coming on!
- Yaris678 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Mistake
Moreover, American revolution was the first anti-colonial rebellion, inspiring others- This statement is false, Ireland had been engaged in an anti-colonial rebellion centuries prior to the American War of Independance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.32.254.6 (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not commenting on British and Irish history but the idea that the American revolution was the first anti-colonial rebellion clearly doesn't stand up. Maybe it was the first successful, large scale rebellion against colonialism, if you define colonialism narrowly. But even that I'd want to see a good source for.
- More importantly, the statement has nothing to do with the section, which is about liberalism.
- I have removed the offending text.
- You do know that you can edit Misplaced Pages yourself, right? If you think your edit may be controversial, it can make sense to discuss it on the talk page first. However, we like to say be bold!
- Yaris678 (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed merger with Imperialism
Colonialism is virtually synonymous with imperialism; that is, even though a "colony" originally implied settlers moving to lands already occupied by a different people (or, more rarely, unoccupied) during the 19th century it became far broader in meaning and included many "colonies in which there were no permanent settlers (or very few). And I suspect that imperialism (a word that was coined relatively recently) emerged because it was less ambiguous than colonialism. Consequently, I think this article represents an example of content forking. This is also suggested (e.g.) by the the fact that the first link to Imperialism is well "buried", several paragraphs down. Grant | Talk 09:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - The terms "colonialism" and "imperialism" are definitely not synonymous. While they may be similar in topic, the two terms have different connotations/denotations. The recent connotation of "colonialism" is that it is not carried out in the policy of broadening an empire to compete with rival empires, and may also mean a form of commercial/business practice, while the connotation of imperialism is that it is completely sponsored/carried out by states with the aim/goal to increase the size/power of their empire and compete with rival empires. Additionally, the articles are already too large to merge into one article. It makes more sense to keep them separate/distinct. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Unbalanced historical perspective
The article as written gives a passing nod to the reality that (a) colonialism existed prior to European involvement in Africa, Oceania and the Americas; and that (b) other colonial powers, in addition to the European ones, were actively involved in building colonies during this time, and following. I note that the history section devotes one paragraph to colonialism prior to the fifteenth century (and really says nothing at all about its origins); and seven paragraphs about European colonialism subsequent to that. The Roman Empire, one of the most important and extensive colonial powers in history, gets a cursory mention and there is no comparison and contrast of their colonial project with that of later empires. All we learn about the most significant indigenous empire - the Aztec - in two sentences, was that they had one, and used conquered territories as a source of sacrificial victims. Were those territories colonies? Why or why not? We never are told. Even the lede, after defining colonialism in the first paragraph, spends a long second paragraph discussing European colonialism post-1500; and absolutely nothing at all about colonialism prior to that period - as if it had just suddenly popped on the scene, devised by people living in a single cultural context. I checked the archives and could only find a brief discussion, dating to 2006, essentially musing about whether this article was essentially about European colonial expansion post-1500; and whether a second article was needed. There seemed to be no resolution. So I'm raising it again here. fishhead64 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- The issues with the topic/scope of this article probably has to do with the concept of "imperialism/colonialism" becoming coined and used as a term to describe the recent developments in the 16th to 20th centuries. This is probably why the editor in the previous section thought it would be a good idea to merge the two concepts. If the scope of this article addresses "Western" culture, some of your examples should be included as well. But the main issue is that the topic of this article is too specific. I think we should expand this article to include non-"Western" culture/peoples, so that this doesn't present a biased/incomplete viewpoints or examples. There is already an article on colonization, but that one also fails to address viewpoints/examples outside of the recent developments from the 16th to 21st centuries. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, M0rphzone. I would love to hear other opinions on this. I am by no means an expert in this field, or even an amateur one, but as the primary go-to article for researchers and students, I think we can do better. And perhaps I can begin by posting notes on project groups related to the empires/historical periods lacking here to ask for help. fishhead64 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this concept of "colonialism" had already existed, for example, with colonies such as the Magna Graecia, and Phoenician colonies such as Ancient Carthage. I am also not an expert; should I put up a notice for WikiProject experts in this topic/field to clean up this article? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you have time, that would be lovely! Much thanks! I'll cast about for others. fishhead64 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Invalid link
The " How did Easter Island's ancient statues lead to the destruction of an entire ecosystem?, " link in the note sections is invalid.
I do not know how to sign my posts, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.80.253 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Israel
I have removed Israel from the list of European colonial states, as there is no consensus that characterizes them as such. Including Israel is controversial, polarizing, and largely based on political POV. Moreover, numerous counter arguments have been made by scholars and historians against these claims eg. that Zionism is a liberation movement for a long displaced diaspora group returning to its land.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many reliable sources describe Israel as a colonial state, and many as a state currently engaged in settler colonialism, as you are well aware of from your editing on the Settler colonialism article. Your entire statement above is POV. It doesn't matter if the inclusion of Israel on the list is something that you find "controversial, polarizing" it is not "largely based on political POV" but on what the reliable sources say. --Ubikwit (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
A few reliable sources does not a consensus make when there are other reliable sources who disagree. This is a hotly contested issue (which is why Misplaced Pages monitors articles pertaining to the I/P conflict as tightly as it does) and we on Misplaced Pages are compelled not to take sides in this debate. Including Israel on here would be doing just that. You do know that this isn't the same as the dispute we had at settler colonialism, right?Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that both Matts and I feel that they belong on the list would seem to represents a consensus. Particularly in light of the reliable sources cited and under discussion at the Settler colonialism article
- You have reverted the same edit three times now, and this would actually fall under 1RR.
- Why don't you revert your edit, and file a request at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests to try and make your case on the basis of the sources.
- It also seems that you may be canvassing Moxy in a manner such as to influence the outcome of the debate here WP:Canvassing.
- As it stands you are on the verge of being blocked again. If you revert your edit and file for a content dispute, nobody is going to come after you for violating 3RR, let alone 1RR.
- You are going to have to learn to use the procedural mechanisms available here when you disagree with other editors over content.
--Ubikwit (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Are you guys kidding? You're really edit warring with each other again? Next person to revert this article gets a block from me, and it won't be a short one. Do not edit war. Do discuss. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
To tell the truth I don't understand why we need "Colonial migrations" section and why does it only talks about europeans. Moreover it seems that sources that are given are just statistics and don't tie it with colonialism--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- C-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- C-Class Africa articles
- High-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles