Talk:Colonization

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2015; 2016; 2018; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

History Low‑importance

	History portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Colonialism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject ColonialismColonialism articles

International relations Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Arab and Chinese colonialism[edit]

Although it is undisputed that Arabs and Chinese colonized territories in the course of establishing their empires, the article contains no mention of these historical events. Banderswipe (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply sources and descriptions. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead on current colonies[edit]

The last paragraph of the lead seems tendentious to me. In particular the references to Bermuda and that there have been "countless" referenda. In some cases those referenda have been in favour of retaining a territory's dependent status and they have not been removed from the list. Places like the Falklands, Gibraltar or Bermuda should not be classified as colonies in the lead without some qualification.

I tag @Nsae Comp who last edited that paragraph and may have views on the matter. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I left it as it is because I am not knowledgeable in the particular decolonization histories. But I was close to replacing it with my addition about the UN list. Maybe by not naming them, but rather saying that there are more territories than on the UN list that are contested regarding their colonial status. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and remove Bermuda now. That should be relatively uncontroversial given all the sources there refer to Puerto Rico.

I'll leave it a couple days and, if nobody objects, I'll try my hand at a more even-handed write-up. Jtrrs0 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence[edit]

The section on Classical period colonization describes ancient farm colonies displacing nomadic hunter-gatherers. The opening sentence of the article says, "... process of establishing control ... for the purpose of exploitation ..." Ancient "farmer-colonialists" displacing nomadic tribes is not the same as exploiting said nomadic tribes as farm labor. It follows that the definition of "colonization" in the opening sentence does not describe Classical period colonization. The inclusion of the word "exploitation" prevents the definition from applying to the case of Classical period "farmer-colonialists." Chino-Catane (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Exploitation" does not only refer to exploitation of people. It can also mean exploitation of resources, such as land. The sentence is correct. Zero^talk 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose an arbitrary but particular ancient group of farmers from an already-established agrarian society transferred themselves to a truly uninhabited piece of land, started farming it, and maintained associative relationships with the society from which they migrated. Would this instance have constituted "colonization"?

Second case: Suppose these farmers did displace nomadic tribes. They would not have "exploited" people but land instead; but what's the difference between "exploitative" farming of land versus non-exploitative farming of land? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes. (Think of colonization of Mars to exploit the mineral wealth there.) (2) This question does not relate to the lead sentence. Nor is the lead sentence supposed to cover all the complexities of the topic. Zero^talk 04:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero "Yes. (Think of colonization of Mars to exploit the mineral wealth there.)"

Per the follow up question, what is the difference between "exploitative farming" and "non-exploitative farming", with regards to Classical period migrating farmers? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't use either expression so I don't see the point of the question. All farmers exploit the land that they farm. To say that a colonizer exploits the land they colonize just means they make use of it for their own benefit. Zero^talk 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero Thanks for the explanation. In your reversion summary you remark that "Ferro uses 'exploitation' repeatedly", but Ferro does not use the word "exploitation" on page 1 at all, the cited page. In the entirety of Chapter 1, Ferro uses the word "exploitation" once on page 8. He uses the word to summarize elements of a Portuguese film that describes "exploitation of those voyages". Your summary also remarks, "all three sources emphasise the use of force", but what does use of force have to do with ancient farmers exploiting uninhabited lands? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned all of Ferro before writing and found that he repeatedly uses "exploit" in the same sense as our first sentence. This is my final reply. Zero^talk 03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per revision 1232615364, unless WP:RS can be produced explicitly stating the definition currently presented, I propose modifying the opening sentence to express the Ferro definition verbatim. Are there any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferro does not give a single definition. He immediately asks "Has there been any change in the meaning of this term?" and over the following pages explains that there has been. Zero^talk 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions from Charles Verlinden, "The Beginnings of Modern Colonization", Cornell University Press, 1970, pages ix and xii:

What in fact is the original meaning of "colonization"? The word derives from the Latin colere meaning "to cultivate," "to put to use," "to make of value." Therefore it is not surprising that the first meaning of "colonization" and of "to colonize" should be agricultural.

It was at this time [11th century] that the term "colonization" began to assume the meaning which it still carries today—that is, conquest followed by exploitation—together with the resulting unfavorable moral connotations which those two terms evoke in the minds of contemporaries.

This is a fair summary of the old and new meanings. I have no objection to giving both, but I strongly object to removing the second meaning which is the predominant one today. Zero^talk 04:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Verlinden offer a clearly stated definition of colonization like Ferro does? The opening sentence can state Ferro's definition. The second sentence can state Verlinden's definition. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Ferro does not give a clearly stated definition. Zero^talk 08:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
2012 2015 2016 2018 2021
This page is archived by ClueBot III.