Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th 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 first European colonization wave (15th century-19th 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 18:08, 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 Age of Discovery, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th 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 Spanish Empire or Hernan Cortes. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nonstandard division and move to combine discussions. Gazpacho 07:17, 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 four centuries? (b) during the middle of this "wave of colonization" a whole continent went in completely the opposite direction and gained its independence from Europe? (c) this "wave" suddenly stopped on December 31st 1899 and a new one started? (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. This is an argument for improving the titles and tweaking the dates, not deleting the articles.  The point about "a whole continent [going] in completely the opposite direction" (actually two continents) is an argument for two more detailed articles complementing a concise general article.  The terms First and "Second British Empires are frequently used exactly because of the effects of the American Revolution.  Iberian colonialism rooted in feudalism and slavery (and the Caribbean slave colonization by other powers) was dramatically different from the colonialism of European industrialization.  The main ambiguity (relative continuity for the British) is the result of British early industrialization plus defeat of the French in India, Canada and the Napoleonic wars.  The dates should overlap and not be hard and fast.  "Opposite direction" is misleading anyway for the western U.S. and Canada -- there is a respected school of U.S. Western history (e.g. Earl Pomeroy, Howard Lamar) that looks at the "territorial phase" of legal status of various conquered areas as colonial not only in regard to conquered native peoples but also vis à vis the fully incorporated states, including governance and economic dependency & resource exploitation.  Perhaps there is a similar argument for interior Brazil & Argentina, don't know that history. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What's wrong with splitting by centuries? Who uses this concept of "waves"? Gazpacho 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Quite - these "waves" are phrases coined by Lapaz.  But in my opinion, even splitting by centuries is imposing arbitrary time slices.  It took the Portuguese from 1415 to 1540 or so to get from the coast of North Africa to Japan, and discussion of this can't be split in two at 1500.  Similarly for the Spanish conquest of the Americas - Columbus arrived in 1492 and it continued through into the 1500s.  Similarly for the Scramble for Africa, around the turn of the 1900s.  The subarticles already present in the article on what might be described as "standard headings" (ie ones commonly found in books or used by historians) are enough for further discussion.  Gsd2000 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how splitting at 1900 is any better. Other options exist, like splitting by country or by recognized watershed events (e.g. the Indian rebellion). Gazpacho 19:17, 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 comment above & discussion below. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consider organizing the sub-articles by continent colonized or by colonial power.  Those strike me as more logical organizing principles than centuries. --Richard 05:16, 28 September 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. Lapaz 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lapaz that reorganizing according to a different scheme does not require deletion of this article. Gsd2000 could withdraw the AFD nomination and then we could get to work to determine if there is a mutually acceptable organizing scheme.  Gsd2000's proposal below looks good to me.  --Richard 04:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Improve the titles, work on the dates (e.g. say 15th c. to early 19th c., late 18th c. to late 20th c. & allow overlap), rework levels of detail & avoid duplicating language in unified (& more conceptual) article on colonialism vs. more periodized articles dealing with colonialisms of different forms related to different world economies. But those are reasons to edit, not to delete. Ngwe 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not opposed to subarticles in any way. I have put a proposal here: Talk:Colonialism Gsd2000 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this proposal better than the break up by centuries. --Richard 04:43, 29 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.