Talk:Chronology of Western colonialism

message: I can understand that this list is not meant to be all-inclusive for sake of size, but there are major omissions, especially the history of colonisation in the Pacific - Australia, New Zealand, the Mealanesian countries and their subsequent arbitrary divisions, Hawaii, etc. etc. Unfortunately, I couldn't contribute such dates without doing significant research.
130.195.86.38 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Omissions 

message: The first colonies in the entier history of the world where not made in 1481. There have been many empires that have had colonies . One footnote says that the west is not the only people to colonise "ONE!" . As i say on the colonialism talk page this representation of history boarders on Racism. This is highly POV where is the ottoman empire, ethiopian or aztec empires.Hypnosadist 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to Colony and Colonisation for other examples of colonialism. This chronology and the main colonialism article relate to the European colonization which started in the 15th century. One Wikipedia page can't possibly include the Aztec Empire with the Ottomans and with the Scramble for Africa, this would have no sense at all. I am more than surprised at being accused of racism insofar as my contributions to this chronology, the colonialism article or the scramble for Africa can hardly be called racist! Refraining from hasty judgments might be a good idea. Cheers! Lapaz 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is as biased as colonialism 

message: I am tagging this compilation of POV/arbitrarily chosen events as TotallyDisputed. Just a few examples: 
* 1917 October Revolution in Russia is included, but 1917 February Revolution or 1905 Russian Revolution are not. 
* I guess Al-Aqsa Intifada is here because someone deemed it an anti-colonialist event? It is a severe POV.
* Why 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, of many peace plans, roadmaps and initiatives? 
etc. It seems some WP editor decided to use this "article" in order to advance some political agenda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I deleted Oslo as well.  --GHcool 00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made an attempt to clean up this mess and added a few relevant events. I also added the ref I am basing on. I don't think that every armed conflict in the last couple hundred years and every publication on human races should be listed. Before adding new entries, please explain, based on reliable sources, why they should be here. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you honestly believe that the publication of Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is unrelated to colonialism? —Sesel 16:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this article mostly consists of original research, and should probably be deleted as inherently being original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a timeline of facts be classified as OR? —Sesel 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These "facts" have all been gathered into a group that is allegedly significant to the "Chronology of colonialism". According to whom are these, and not other events (or none at all) significant to that chronology? Something is original research if it "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." The source in this case appears to be User:Lapaz. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How can a chronology, which only lists historical events in a chronological order, be POV and OR? You might dispute some points, but deleting so many things is not legitimate (although good things were added, I'm putting them back). Arthur de Gobineau, Gilberto Freyre, Frantz Fanon or Edward Said's books are major books concerning this theme, I don't know how can you contest that. Some very important historical events, which are in themselves unrelated to colonialism, are mentionned, as the history of colonialism is not unrelated to, say, World War II, which had some consequences on decolonisation. The end of the Cuban missile crisis and the beginning of the Detente is also an important marker concerning colonialism-related events. The question of Israel and the Arab states apparently is a major issue that you lift: let's debate that issue separately and not mix everything then. Personally, I don't think including Israel-related events and pan-Arabism stuff is POV, neither that it implies that Israel is a colonial state. But these events were a major part of Arab-states policies, and Nasser's was part of the Non-Aligned Movement. But let's not confuse the issues concerning books with the Arab-Israeli conflict (claiming that "some WP editor decided to use this "article" in order to advance some political agenda." is definitely not assuming good faith, and is a bit an over-sensitive reaction, if I may allow myself.) Lapaz 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By that logic, every event in the last couple hundred years had something to do with colonialism. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jayjg.  If somebody nominates this article for deletion, I'll be among the first to "vote it off."  --GHcool 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at recent changes, there seems to be 3 different issues that you lift: 1/ the books 2/ the Israeli-Arab conflict 3/ major world history dates. I'll make one talk section for each to adress them separately, OK ? Lapaz 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion  

message: Why shouldn't Gilberto Freyre, for example, be included? His book was a major work on the colonial society in Brazil, wasn't it? Lapaz 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that I did not read that book. I think relevant books should be listed as references. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers and quotations from those books would be ideal. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want page numbers and quotations? It's not like we need a cite to prove a statement here: this is a chronology. Lapaz 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you need to show that reliable sources have stated that these events are significant ones in the "Chronology of colonialism". Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, all right. But then mentionning "quotations from those books", as you requested, is not the way to proceed (as it would be difficult proving the influence of one book by quoting this same book). Perhaps you believe we should mention works which indicate that Gilberto Freyre's book was a ground-breaking work on sociology concerning colonial society in Brazil, or that Gobineau's work was one of the first, important theorization of racial theories, or that Fanon was a very important intellectual source of anti-colonialist movements? No problem, just put citation tags where you believe they are appropriate. Lapaz 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the publication of a book was an event in itself, we need a ref. showing its relevance & importance to the subject. If we use a book as a source, then per WP:CITE we'll need page numbers and quotations. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: The purpose of this chronology is not to become a "world-history chronology", nor is it to claim that the Chartist movement in Britain had "something" to do with colonialism and should be listed. It is only to put the very few major events which can't be bypassed when looking at this time period: World War I & World War II definitively had many consequences on Colonialism. Will you argue against that? What about the Missile crisis? Do you claim that decolonisation was not linked, in any way, with the Cold War? Or rather, do you claim that Cold War matters did not interfere with that history? This is the rationale for inclusion of these events. Again, I don't think you can compare World War II with "just any events." Lapaz 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? Lapaz 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CONTEXT. One example: you removed both Gobineau's book, which had a main influence on racist theories which have legitimate colonialism (but this is for the section above) & you also removed the Franco-Prussian War, claiming it had nothing to do with colonialism. Strictly speaking, you are correct. However, apart of being a major event of European history, leading to the isolation of France by Bismarck and paving the way for German imperialism, this war had the result of creating a "revanchist" sentiment in France, which explains the reluctance of many French politicians towards colonialism at that time. Thus, it is important to list this war, as a marker of world history which had influence on both German and French colonialism. If we proceed in counter-factual history, it would have been perhaps possible that, without that war, French colonialism would have been stronger and more popular. While what actually happened was that until WWI, the French colonial empire was not popular in France, and French colonialism was mainly the result of private initiatives, supported by a growing "colonial lobby" opposed by those who seeked revenge against the German empire. Lapaz 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Other example: you claim it is POV to include the October Revolution but neither the February Revolution nor the 1905 Revolution. But the October Revolution has been, like it or not, a main inspiration for anti-imperialist movement, just as the Comintern has supported anti-imperialist movements. The Communist Parties, Stalinist or others, did support anti-colonialism. We just have to accept this fact, it is not a matter of being pro-Communist or anti-Communist (the Cold War is finished, by the way). It is an important event in the history of Colonialism, just as Wilson's 18 Points are also an important event in the history of colonialism. Both the US and the Soviet Union have supported, in some extent, anti-imperialism against the imperialist powers of Europe. Of course, there is much to be said to this support to anti-imperialist movements, both from the Soviet Union & the US. But that overreach the scope of a simple chronology. Lapaz 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Others problems: the foundation of the United Nations is, perhaps, not important in the history of colonialism? And the 1961 Paris massacre is, of course, some really uninteresting event, without any relation whatsoever to colonialism? Lapaz 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above is a good example of OR. By this logic, any major event in the last 1-2 hundred years may qualify. I think we should demand that every entry's relevance should be supported by RS (see WP:CITE), or simply put this OR list for deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please put "citation tags" after the dates you feel request such citations. Lapaz 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them, please. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you stretching things a bit too far? The Bandung Conference hardly needs a reference... Neither does the Algerian War or any other colonial war, nor does the Herero Genocide. Lapaz 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that some entries are too obvious to be in the list, then it should be very easy to find a reliable source referencing their relevance to the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not stretching things too far. I personally think this List is pure original research, and cannot help but be so. I'm just itching to list it on AfD, but I'm holding off so you can source it. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major world history dates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chronology of Western colonialism. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316041458/http://www.lire.fr:80/critique.asp/idC=31184/idR=219/idTC=3/idG=2 to http://www.lire.fr/critique.asp/idC=31184/idR=219/idTC=3/idG=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This list is overflowing with conflicts that don't have anything to do with colonialism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly needs cleanup 

message: Chronology of Western colonialism and Timeline of European imperialism are both timelines that are about pretty much the same thing; I can't identify any clear difference in their content; although of course the second would exclude the United States. Both are incomplete and they would be better if combined. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion