Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Please indicate which ones, I just quoted most of the sources. ] (]) 06:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::Please indicate which ones, I just quoted most of the sources. ] (]) 06:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The vast majority of the total RS published about the Armenian genocide or Armenia / Azerbaijan conflict. (] · ]) ''']''' 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The vast majority of the total RS published about the Armenian genocide or Armenia / Azerbaijan conflict. (] · ]) ''']''' 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:Of the citations use to justify that it is viewed as a case of, or analysed using a framework of settler-colonialism:
:# Can be used, but it's not as clear as would be ideal, and as added I have concerns over the fact that the ellipses cover multiple paragraphs.
:# Good source, should be used, should include quote.
:# Doesn't really say settler-colonialism
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# Does not say it's settler-colonialism, but that the efforts of Hrant Dink and the case of the Armenian genocide are important to building an intellectual environment for a variety of issues.
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# I can understand how we use it to support settler-colonialism, though it doesn't specifically say settler-colonialism, needs other sources to support it.
:# Good to use.
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:# Doesn't say settler-colonialism
:There's no issue I see in adding a section on Artsakh here, but you need to cut down a huge chunk of the non-relevant text you added, and use sources that actually support the points being made. You have some sources that can be used, but as shown from these first few, many of them are irrelevant.
:As a final bit of clarification, sources that detail potential colonialism are not enough on their own, as the article focuses on settler-colonialism, the sources must specifically deal with settler-colonialism and not just broader colonialism. -- ] (]) 17:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Why is this topic confined to post-15th century examples
The definition of "settler colonialism" given in the article seems to apply equally well to colonialism as practiced by empires in previous eras, such as the Phoenician?Carthaginian quasi-empire, the empire of Alexander and his generals, the Roman empire, the Mongol empire, etc. Should not these also be included in the article? K.a.carroll (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
K.a.carroll you're right that the article needs a lot of work. However, you will have to look at the books about settler colonialism to find out what they cover and emphasize. (t · c) buidhe02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
But you will find it applied to older European conquests involving population movements, such as Greek settler colonialism in Sicily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Pardon for bumping this discussion but what sources have you found @Horse Eye's Back specifically calling ancient Greek colonialism in Sicily as "settler colonialism"? The Wiki page itself doesn't actually ancient Greek "settler colonialism"?
@K.a.carroll - in addition to comments said by @Alaexis and @Buidhe, it seems like the term "settler colonialism" is almost inherently Eurocentric and pertaining largely to the so-called "Age of Exploration" and the height of European (or Euro-descended countries like the Anglo-America's post-independence colonial empire) imperialism during the 15th to early 20th centuries.
Even on the page for the Conquest of the Canary Islands the opening section cites a journal describing the Spanish conquest of the Canary Islands and the Guanche people as the "first" example of European settler colonialism in Africa, cause I guess we're excluding the Roman province of Africa and the Greek dynasties of ancient Egypt. Similarly, I'm not seeing many reliable sources consistently calling the Roman province of Asia or Alexander the Great's South Asian, Central Asian and West Asian campaigns as among the first examples of European "settler colonialism" in Asia. And when I see terms like "colonist" being applied in reliable sources, they never refer to say, the Aztecs or ancient Egyptians the same way RS may call the British "colonizers". Or look at how Hawaiian King Kamehameha the Great is generally revered in Hawaii despite also being "colonizer" who lead a 30 year conflict to conquer various islands.
It's rather interesting since a country like Singapore seems like an extremely good example of so-called "settler colonialism" just like Taiwan. Only about 13.5% of the country's modern-day population belong to the Malay peoples, who are considered Singapore's "indigenous" population. The vast majority of the country is populated by, and largely dominated by (in social/political and ethnic demographics) Han Chinese and Indian descendants from migration waves to Singapore. Yet I have not seen an abundance of reliable sources describing Singapore as an example of "settler colonialism" the same way we call Australia, Canada, et al "settler countries". I have a feeling this is because Singapore was not populated by majority of European immigrants but reliable sources also discussing about how Taiwan may qualify as being an example of "settler colonialism" makes me wonder if the term may be applied in some sources to Singapore in the future.
What I think makes the term more rather confusing is how the term "settler colonialism" seems to also be tied to a specific definition of "indigenous" peoples, with the term "Indigenous" usually only being applied to the Native Americans/Pacific Islanders and some marginalized minorities like the Sámi peoples of Nordic Europe or the Irish Travellers. For example, I'm pretty sure countries like South Korea, Germany or Czech Republic (to name a few) do not officially recognize any "Indigenous" peoples whatsoever as defined under the United Nations or other related organizations. One may argue that this rather preposterous since ethnic South Koreans, Germans or Czechs would never say that their people are actually "indigenous" to say, Pakistan or Ethiopia. But unfortunately, it is what it is.
Ultimately, whatever reliable sources cite are what is featured on the page and my opinions are just that of one person. I don't work for any reliable news outlets or journals and we can't cite my own words that aren't published in any reliable source. What reliable sources do imply seems to paint "settler colonialism" as a specific kind of "colonization" to provide a more simplified or time capsule view of the world because literally every society/tribe/etc throughout human history has had to be "colonizers" to ensure the spread of their native language/culture/etc beyond their original borders and onto others. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The definition of indigenous peoples is based on reliable sources not Misplaced Pages editor's opinion. Often the definition of being indigenous is about being subjected to colonization, if not this article is also not relevant. If you actually hit the sources, you can find settler colonial analyses of certain situations in Europe, such as Russian expansion, Plantation of Ulster, and Prussian and Nazi policies in Poland iirc. Sorbs in Germany have sometimes been referred to as an indigenous people but many countries are reluctant to officially recognize indigenous peoples. (t · c) buidhe13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Archetype?
While both are widely considered examples of settler colonialism, I think it's more accurate to say the archetype was the Anglo-American settlements. In comparison, the Zionist colonialization has not been as successful to date. In the US or Australia, there is no longer a Indigenous population significant enough to challenge political power in the country. We should strive for high quality sources which means looking at academic papers and books, not The Atlantic. (t · c) buidhe03:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The Atlantic article is opposed to the concept of settler colonialism as a frame of analysis. However, it is quoting Patrick Wolfe and other scholars in the field, who state that Israel is a far better example than the British settler colonies.
They based their analysis of settler colonialism primarily on Israel. Rather than East Timor, the British settler colonies, and what not. As the Misplaced Pages article should reflect what they claim: Israel is their given example. KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you copy paste the quotes here? Maybe we can check if they are typical or perhaps cherry-picked. (t · c) buidhe04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Wolfe and many of his fellow theorists tossed down a final desultory intellectual move. Surveying a worldwide tapestry of colonial oppressions and conquests, they insisted that a single nation offered the sharpest and most troubling example of settler colonialism: Israel... Wolfe wrote that Israel was unique for its Jewish founders’ deceptive ideological sleights of hand, their “self-hatred,” and the denial of its oppression and “extirpation” of the Arabs. “Zionism rigorously refused, as it continues to refuse, any suggestion of Native assimilation,” Wolfe wrote. “Zionism,” Wolfe insisted, “constitutes a more exclusive exercise of the settler logic of elimination than we encounter in the Australian and U.S. examples.” Wolfe (and most scholars of settler colonialism) based their theories on Israel, @Buidhe:. Wolfe argued that the British settler colonies often zig-zagged in and out of settler colonialism. In contrast, he saw it as a fundamental part of Zionism and Israeli identity as a whole.
According to Google scholar: Israel is mentioned 10x compared to any individual British settler colony. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.) KlayCax (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a misrepresentation of Wolfe's point of view. If you look up
There certainly have been alternative conceptions. But I'm referring to the dominant opinion within the field, @Buidhe:. Albeit I know that it's somewhat controversial.
We can't cite a the Atlantic for what is the mainstream opinion in the field. Wolfe is certainly important and reliable for his own view, but I'm not sure he is even arguing what you are suggesting. (t · c) buidhe04:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The Atlantic is considered a WP: RS per WP:RSP. We certainly can cite them in this particular instance, @Buidhe:. By far, the field takes as its archetype Israel. Wolfe argued that the British settler colonies alternated between settler colonialism and alternative forms of imperialism. In contrast, he viewed Zionism itself as intrinsically settler colonialist. That's the difference. KlayCax (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The Atlantic may be reliable for some topics (it's overrated imv), but the author of this article is not an expert in the field of settler colonialism or anything related. While I cannot read the full text, I am unsure if this is supposed to be straight journalism or an op ed/analysis (which would make it not reliable except for the opinion of the author). In any event, when there are a million scholarly sources it is hard to justify citing one that has much less expertise and academic rigor. If you think Wolfe disagrees with the overall statements about settler colonial studies, please cite him directly and not via the Atlantic. (t · c) buidhe04:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
He's not an expert. But he cites people who are experts in settler colonial studies to state that. We can't use Wolfe's words (who has unfortunately passed away) to state there's a present consensus.
This is a case where WP: RS clearly applies. Of course it's a controversial statement to make: but so is the subject of settler colonialism in general. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
If you have a source that contradicts what the article states. I'm fine with keeping it reverted. If not, I don't see the objection here, as The Atlantic is considered a WP: RS per WP: RSP.
Zionism is widely seen as the best example of settler colonialism among those who support the concept/consider themselves scholars of settler colonialism. KlayCax (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Source reliability is not a blanket yes/no question and rsp is not intended to give you that. reliable sources are more a question of citing better quality and more authoritative sources that you can find/access. I do not consider the Atlantic to outweigh the multiple academic sources I found that came to an apparently different conclusion about the field. (t · c) buidhe05:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
None of the academic sources mentioned contradict including Israel in the lead, @Buidhe:. Wolfe and other scholars argued that the British settler colonies had period of territorial expansionism that could be classified as such. However, they were adamant in saying that these forms of settler colonialism were imperfect, and often absent in certain forms of their expansion, so the map itself is problematic. In WP: RS's Israel is the mostly common nature designated as settler colonalist. It's also important to not fall into an American-centric framework. (i.e. Most editors here are white people from North America. So the United States is the most common nation that comes into mind. But Canada took more land, Australia was often even more brutal through things such as the Black War, and Israel was seen by Wolfe and is seen by most scholars in the field as being the best archetype of what a settler colonialist state looks like. That is, Zionism is of itself is a form of settler colonialism that is more archetypical than the British settler colonies.) KlayCax (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Which other scholars supposedly hold this view? Can you quote from the books they wrote (not a partisan Atlantic article)? I'm not opposed to mentioning Israel in the lead, because it is widely studied in the field, but I am not convinced that your version is accurate or based on solid sourcing. (t · c) buidhe23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the map of the colonial empires before the Seven Years’ War, the following settler colonial projects should be listed: Western Sahara (by Morocco), the Canary Islands (by Spain), Xinjiang & Tibet (by China), and Crimea & Siberia (by Russia/USSR). Maximations (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Cdjp1 Hello. I'm not quite sure how you arrived at the conclusion in your edit summary , but if you look at the sources, virtually all of the sources in the added section have one or more of the following words/phrases: “settler”, “colonial”, “colonialism,” or “settler-colonialism.”
We can see this if we look at the first 9 sources they appear in the text As per, WP:FIXFIRST, if you take issue with a particular source, please flag it instead of deleting the entire section! However, it is clear that there are multiple reliable sources that verbatim characterize the conflict as settler/colonial or describe policies of planting settlers.
You stated that there were a number of of “irrelevant sources” in the section. Which ones are you referring to?
Watenpaugh, K. D. (19 October 2022). In…Middle Eastern Studies, unspooling this argument…invites recasting the Ottoman State and the successor Republic of Turkey as a settler-colonial polity in fields beyond the genocide of the Armenians….From a historian’s perspective thinking about the Ottoman State as a colonial-setter state is a tool that….
Walker, C. J. (1988). …the scheme being put forward for the region's direct administration from Moscow will at least end its colonial status within Azerbaijan…
Demoyan, H. "The region of Nagorno-Karabakhfought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region….The struggle of the Armenian people of Karabakh against the Azerbaijani colonial rule is also …”
Camacho, Fernando Padilla (7 February 2024), The swift colonisation programme put in place by President Ilham Aliyev includes urban reorganisation and reoccupation of urban and rural areas.
Astourian, Stephan H. (5 December 2023), “In a way, imperialism built the nation , its historiography, and its identity.”
Davis, Angela (9 February 2016) Ongoing efforts to create a popular intellectual environment within which to explore the contemporary impact of the Armenian genocide are central…to global resistance to racism, genocide, and settler colonialism." *Travis, Hannibal (31 December 2019), To view genocide, as did Raphael Lemkin… is to invite comparisons to such important Western projects as settler colonialism or the Vietnam or Iraq wars. In the case of Turkey, the thesis that not only the Armenians … were victims of a long-term process of colonization, Turkification, and Kurdification—across a variety of regimes—threatens the myth of Turkey as a moderate and secular state…
Jacobin article -- Aidan Simardone Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states.
THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE. “referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.”
Noted that of the sources that explicitly mention settler colonialism, the majority refer to eastern Anatolia rather than Karabakh. It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology, which is a further indication that it's UNDUE here. (t · c) buidhe06:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology
The vast majority of the total RS published about the Armenian genocide or Armenia / Azerbaijan conflict. (t · c) buidhe14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Of the citations use to justify that it is viewed as a case of, or analysed using a framework of settler-colonialism:
Can be used, but it's not as clear as would be ideal, and as added I have concerns over the fact that the ellipses cover multiple paragraphs.
Good source, should be used, should include quote.
Doesn't really say settler-colonialism
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
Does not say it's settler-colonialism, but that the efforts of Hrant Dink and the case of the Armenian genocide are important to building an intellectual environment for a variety of issues.
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
I can understand how we use it to support settler-colonialism, though it doesn't specifically say settler-colonialism, needs other sources to support it.
Good to use.
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
Doesn't say settler-colonialism
There's no issue I see in adding a section on Artsakh here, but you need to cut down a huge chunk of the non-relevant text you added, and use sources that actually support the points being made. You have some sources that can be used, but as shown from these first few, many of them are irrelevant.
As a final bit of clarification, sources that detail potential colonialism are not enough on their own, as the article focuses on settler-colonialism, the sources must specifically deal with settler-colonialism and not just broader colonialism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}
Question: It's a little unclear where are you asking this to be added? In the File:Colonisation 1754.png image itself? -- macaddct1984 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
