Talk:Colonization

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


Israel[edit]

I changed the words "minority of opinion." But the page should reflect that there is no academic consensus that Israel is a colonizer. Also if the page includes the Palestinian predominant view, for a well rounded understand, it should include other views as well. I am reverting my edit. Please feel free to discuss here. --RCrew92 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)RCrew92[reply]

Hi RCrew92, a few of things here, in my mind:
1. You're introducing a large amount of new information here, so it should be discussed at TALK first rather than added and then discussed.
2. There is a lot of work on Israel as a settler colonial state from reputable academic journals and University presses. See, for example: Eyal Weizman's The Conflict Shoreline - Colonization as Climate Change in the Negev Desert (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eyal_Weizman_and_Fazal_Sheikh/tLIRswEACAAJ?hl=en), Lorenzo Veracini's "What can settler colonial studies offer to an interpretation of the conflict in Israel–Palestine?" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2015.1036391), and Omar Jabary Salamanca , Mezna Qato , Kareem Rabie & Sobhi Samour's "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648823).
3. You cite an essay from The Jewish Political Studies Review, a journal not ranked by SCIMAGO JR, and published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (https://www.jcpa.org/jpabout.htm). While another side should be represented in an encyclopedia, it should come from academic journals like those cited above (Settler Colonial Studies, for example). Also, the article from The Harvard Crimson falls under Wikipedia:RSSM, because it is student media, which is " considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community." While "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." So, my point here is that better sources are needed to make the points you introduce here, especially on a topic with so much nuance required.
Ultimately, given these points, I think it makes sense to remove the recently added sources until better ones can be found. This is a contentious topic and should be handled carefully. Discussion should take place on the TALK page before anything is added in this manner, per my reasoning above, although I am open to hearing what other editors think on the matter.--Hobomok (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation for Palestinian perspective is from a book called zionism and the state of israel, self described as "controversial analysis" using the bible written by Michael Prior- not a historian or polisci but a theologian and a poet?! aYou can change the section to include some unbiased peer reviewed journals as well for the Palestinian claim. In the meantime I deleted the unacceptable source See informatoin about Michael Prior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Prior_(theologian) For the Israeli side Here's a source from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies written by Dr Alex Joffee History PHD. Here's another peer reviewed source https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0263276416688544?journalCode=tcsa but it's behind a paywall and I don't have access. here's an article that specifically links the colonization claim to delegtimizing the state of Israel and showing it is born in sin https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/unpacking-the-global-campaign-to-delegitimize-israel/ source Gil Murciano. Foreign policy analyst at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). German Institute for International and Security AffairsYale. I will share some more on this page as I find them. I think the plan moving forward is to rewrite the claim from the Palestnian angle using legitimate academic sources and then share the counter claim from the Israeli perspective using legitimate academic sources. What do you think about this game plan moving forward. I like the summary sentence. Also I don't think it should say Palestinian side or Israel Perspective since each side is hardly monolithic in their views. It should just say the claim and the counter claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCrew92 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final note- it seems like you cited some better sources than Michael Prior. I deleted his comment and will let you rewrite that part. I didn't have acces to the second book cited so I wasn't able to extrapolate additional information other than what was already included. I think we need to be clear that there are several angles. We should provide readers with each one in as unbiased a way as possible (also avoid assigning partisan terms to each angle- ie the Palestinian perspective and the Israeli perspective). Looking forward to working with all the researchers here! --RCrew92 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)--RCrew92 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)RCrew92[reply]

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]