Talk:Colonization/Archives/2021

Wrong definition?

the article states that the definition of colonization is:

"Colonization (or colonisation) is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components."

but this definition looks more like the definition of expansionism and in fact, with this definition, there is no way to distinguish conquest with colonisation

for me, a much better definition of colonization is "process (through conquest, treaty or settlement in an unoccupied areas) that leads to the creation of a colony", and for colony "territory with its own government/administration/system of laws (due to its physical or cultural remoteness) but still dependent on a metropolis"

another apporach is to counsider that as an historical event and only counsider the colonization by europeans to america and then to africa/asia regardless other "similars events" throughout the history(which seems to be the "common" definition of colonization) but that seems the point of the article "colonialism" so I think the previous definition would be more relevent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.12.101 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the source Empire: A Very Short Introduction the definition of colonization is:

Colonization refers to large-scale population movements where the migrants maintain strong links with their or their ancestors' former country, gaining significant privileges over other inhabitants of the territory by such links. When colonization takes place under the protection of clearly colonial structures, it may handily be called settler colonialism. This often involves the settlers entirely dispossessing earlier inhabitants, or instituting legal and other structurs which systematically disadvantage them.

I don't have access to the full book but maybe this definition is wrong in the current article. --PJ Geest (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't like this definition, cause first of all colonisation are not settler colonisation and does not always involved local inhabitants and the last sentance just seems like a value jugement (what does "involves the settlers entirely dispossessing earlier inhabitants" mean? or what does he mean by "disadvantage" in "structurs which systematically disadvantage them"?).it looks more like a critique of colonisation than an actual definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.141.4 (talk • contribs) 12:21, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

AFAICS, @PJ Geest: has this right and the article currently has it wrong (see e.g., the quotes from the OED here) This appears to have impact in WP beyond this article; see, for example, this edit. I'm no expert but, barring objection, I propose that this article be edited to bring it into line with the OED definitions quoted by the source I linked above and harmonized with the Colonialism article. Also, see this, mentioned by PJ Geest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead definition should be based on a source, like here previously explained here. Not liking the definition based on source is not a good reason to replace the definition--PJ Geest (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your OED definition seems to be an exact copy of the one by your Howe source.

I have provided a second definition, which is by Marc Ferro from a book discussing colonization.

Now I get the feeling, since Ferro is not an english author that the understanding in social science and the english general use is somewhat different. I though think that Howe was focusing and talking about settler colonialism and not generally about colonization as Ferro does. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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