Talk:Colonization/Archives/2015

Empire vs. Colonies

The articles main picture, a map of "World empires and colonies 2007" should be changed. The term colonization can be used when;

• A specific area is under the full or partial political control of another country, and occupied by the settlers from the said country;
• A group of people of one nationalit or ethnic group living in a foreign city of country, and;
• (Biology) A community of animals or plants of one kind living close together or forming a physically connected structure.

The term 'Empire' should be removed, as they no longer exist.

The maps contents should be harmonious with the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Nations such as Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Russia etc should be removed. The only nations that currently hold colonies are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand. I shall make a new map and present it to this talk page to discuss the issue. GBozanko (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made the following map, of the UN List of Non-Self Governing Territories for the benifit of this article. GBozanko (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map make a distinction between the Self-governing part and the colonized part of those four countries ? For instance it look like Corsica could be a colony, but is it considered as so or is it a regular department of France ? And young non-US teenagers may not know that Alaska is a full-fledged US state and not a colony.Großinquisitor Zweihänder (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced historical examples or viewpoints

This article fails to address the colonization of places by other peoples/cultures and prehistoric peoples, such as the Austronesian/Polynesian peoples colonizing the islands in the Pacific and also the island of Madagascar. This is most likely because of systemic bias, but it should be fixed. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the worldview issue template. This user says, "This article fails to address the colonization of places by other peoples/cultures and prehistoric peoples," but the "Classical period" and "Middle Ages" sections under the "Historical Colonization" heading are actually bigger than the "Modern colonialism" and "Colonization of Europe" sections. If some group that colonized some island (etc.) is not in the article, it could be a notability issue or just no one got around to researching and adding it. If it is notable and not in the article, then an editor is free to add it. However, I don't think it's fair to say the article itself is skewed against a worldview of the topic, and this tag has been on the article for nearly 3 years without discussion. Abierma3 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Science policy colonization

This section is entirely unsourced, and it has had the template indicating that it is unreferenced and may be subject to deletion for over 6 months. I am removing it for failing verification. There were two sources I was able to find that might pertain to the section. The first is an opinion piece (op-ed) that states, "The concepts that we use in science policy reflect historical debates about class, economics, and politics that exert continuing influence on how we think about the role of publicly supported research in society" (http://ostaustria.org/bridges-magazine/item/8175-pielkes-perspective). The second is a journal about colonial legacy on science that states, "African nations with a British colonial legacy are much more productive [scientifically] than countries with French or other history" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319133548.htm). These two are inadequate to support the section as it is. The section seems like too big of an NPOV to leave unreferenced, as it makes some lofty, unsourced accusations: "Scientists from poorer, emerging or developing democracies may mainly be given the role of collecting raw data. Experts from developed, industrialized democracies may have biases unchallenged that run counter to the best interests of emerging democracies such as South Africa."

The text of the removed section is below in case editors in the future are able to source it and re-add it to the article.

There are suggestions of science policy colonization, which argues that science policy is increasingly being dominated by scientific experts from developed, industrialized democracies. Scientists from poorer, emerging or developing democracies may mainly be given the role of collecting raw data. Experts from developed, industrialized democracies may have biases unchallenged that run counter to the best interests of emerging democracies such as South Africa. There are also concerns (UNESCO 1999) that the accountability mechanisms imposed on knowledge experts are inadequate.^{[citation needed]}

Indeed, several advanced countries have political policies which limit publication of scientific research, and curtail the free speech of scientists by limiting public interviews of their work.

Abierma3 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Colonization

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Colonization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com":

• From Boko Haram: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/africa/abduction-of-girls-an-act-not-even-al-qaeda-can-condone.html?_r=0
• From Jewish Autonomous Oblast: James Brook, Birobidzhan Journal;A Promised Land in Siberia? Well, Thanks, but . . ., The New York Times, July 11, 1996
• From Kazakhstan: Wines, Michael (13 July 2002). "Wines 2012". The New York Times.
• From Hispanophobia: "Immigration — and the Curse of the Black Legend." Tony Horwitz. New York Times 9 July 2006
• From Latvia: David Jolly (18 June 2009). "Latvian Health Official Resigns Over Cuts". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 April 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 of introduction and biased article

The article seems to have a liberal bias. The fourth paragraph of the introduction appears to be written more like a rant against colonialism and doesn't fulfil the role of an introduction as providing a broad summary of the article content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.171.30 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)