Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century)
I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the The Scramble for Africa, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the British Empire or British Raj. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nonstandard division. Gazpacho 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page has been created with the aim of splitting the main article of Colonialism (which Gsd2000 correctly points out is "too big") into two different articles chronologically separated. Gsd2000 is deleting content on the Colonialism page arguing it is too big, and then wants to delete forks created to deal with this size issue? This defies my logic. Lapaz 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not disagreeing with forks.  I am disagreeing with these particular forks that you have created, for the following reasons: (a) a "wave" that lasted a whole century? (b) during the middle of this "wave of colonization" (post WW2) virtually every single colony went in completely the opposite direction and gained its independence from Europe? (c) this "wave" suddenly stopped... when... on December 31st 1999? (d) how is anyone ever going to stumble across this article unless as a link from another article?  (e) where did this title and chronological division come from - you?  if so, it's original research.  If anything a new article should be created, "History of Colonialism", not these. Gsd2000 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The second phase of modern European colonization, that associated with European industrialization, ended in the mid-to-late 20th century.  It began, arguably, for the British, in the late 18th century or perhaps with the Napoleonic Wars, before the first phase ended everywhere (e.g. Latin American revolution).  For the French 1830s-1850s; Germans and Belgians late 19th c.  So what? (Hey, is this a rolling wave?  Just a thought... though I would prefer a different title.) The fact that in the early 20th century some societies were highly industrialized while others were essentially peasant societies at the same time in different parts of the world doesn't mean both things weren't true or that it is wrong to speak of the industrial era in places where that obtained even if for other places it didn't yet.  A few colonies still exist.  More importantly, in many ways the peak of European colonial engagement in Africa came after decolonization of India, Malaysia and Indonesia.  Trotsky called it "combined and uneven development" and you don't have to like his politics to see that it's a pretty good way to describe history on the global scale.  Improve the titles, don't cut the articles.  Ngwe 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the reasons listed by Lapaz. The Ogre 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Lapaz. --Pan Gerwazy 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Perfectly happy to see this refactored differently, renamed, etc., but if Gsd2000 had something else in mind, he had an excellent opportunity to deal with it differently when he removed this material from Colonialism and failed to refactor it elsewhere. He did not do so: he simply deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. See comments above and at Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cclowe (talk • contribs) 25 september..
 * Strong Keep. Per Lapaz. --Don&#39;t mess with Scott. 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the above reasons. Zamyatin 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Gsd, you are now arguing that there's nothing wrong with creating sub-articles, but just with the title of these articles. First, clearly there is no reason to think a century stopposed on December 31st, 1999. Most historians date the beginning of the 20th century with the First World War, in 1914. Clearly dates are always debatable. In fact, the whole principle a cutting a period in two is debatable, and is probably one of the main characteristics of Modernity. I just thought it was a more or less convenient way to break the Colonialism article in two sections (and you have never argued in the Colonialism page that dividing it according to these two broad  distinctions was illegitimate). Second, if your issue is with the title, then you should ask for the page to be moved to a better name, and not ask for deletion. If you rather name the article "History of colonialism from the 15th century to the 19th century", IMO it doesn't make any big difference. I have to add that I disagree with your proposal to remain only with "concrete articles": as if Colonialism from 15th century to the 19th century wasn't concrete. And I think an article dealing with colonialism should deal with this subject as at least an European matter, and not according to national lines. Although the British & the French colonization are not the same (and you've deleted all content in the Colonialism article addressing these distinctions), clearly both belongs to a common historical phenomenon. It is not the Khoikhoi who colonized Berlin! Lapaz 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.