Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonization in Europe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization in Europe[edit]

Decolonization in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pure collection of original research. This list mixes all eras and political regimes under inexplicable "decolonization" banner. Renata (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a list, not an article, so it might help to rename it as such. The concept is both sound for an encyclopedia and useful as it now sits. I can see no rational reason to toss this. Carrite (talk)
  • delete - arbitrary concoction, WP:OR, like insinuations that the Belgian Revolution of 1830 liberated the Southern Provinces of the Dutch colonial power or that German Confederation was the colonial power of Liechtenstein, to name just a few problems. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be blatant OR, and possibly POV, for example, it refers to Russia and Norway as colonies of the Mongol Empire and Sweden, respectively. Also, this article is not sourced, the inline citations just lead to explanatory notes from the author. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this is effectively a partial list of European countries by date of independence. This should be renamed and expanded, because as Miacek says, "decolonization" isn't appropriate here; however, this is a useful start to a comprehensive list. Note that a few countries are included here that don't fit the inclusion criteria at the top: for example, San Marino obviously didn't gain independence after World War I. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Colonization in Europe, which certainly is a well documented phenonemon, particularly during the Classical period up until the Middle ages and beyond. See this source. --Martin (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename - the list is intended as supplement of the Asia, Africa, Americas, Oceania. I agree that it can be improved - by clearly distinguishing between "decolonization" (Ottoman, Russian, Austria-Hungary, Cyprus, Malta, etc.) from other cases (Europe is the only continent with so many "other" cases - Americas/Oceania don't have any and Africa/Asia - only a few. That's why the article name is "in Europe" instead of "of Europe") and by altering the lead section accordingly. About the sources - all info is from the respective Wikipedia articles like "History of ...", just put in a single list. Alinor (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I implemented some of these changes, please see the revised version. Alinor (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know what to make of the page. It seems an artificial fusion of several different concepts: European countries formed at the end of WWI; Countries formed by the break-up of the Soviet Union; Origin of European states, etc., etc. Because of this, there are some seemingly arbitrary categorizations: Slovenia coming from the Ottoman empire rather than from Yugoslavia; the Baltics from the Soviet Union in the 1980s rather than from Russia in 1918, but Poland in 1918 rather than in 1945; Portugal from the Crown of Spain rather than the earlier independence from Castile/Leon; France from the Frankish Empire and not from the Angevin Empire; and what's with the United Kingdom dating from 750 years before it ever came into being (Athelstan did not rule Scotland and Northern Ireland). The list is all over the place, with no clear concept of what it is supposed to represent. It seems an attempt to force a page into the decolonialism framework seen on other continents that really doesn't apply to Europe. Agricolae (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. That's exactly why this article is incurably OR and should be deleted. The history of the Baltic states in the USSR (1940-1991) is best treated as the Soviet occupation of Baltic states, the secession of the Dutch Southern provinces is not treated as decolonization in scholarly sources, to name just a few inaccuracies. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belgian secession is already corrected in the new version as non-decolonization.
In the list are put the earliest entities that are continuously followed by independent governments up to the present day (eg. Kingdom of XXX -> Republic of XXX -> Second Kingdom of XXX) without interruption periods of foreign rule (excluding occupation during war - mostly in WWI and WWII). The USSR annexed the Baltics after WWII. Of course some countries could disagree and not recognize this (thus claiming that de-jure the Baltics are not part of the USSR), but I think that nobody objects that de-facto they were fully integrated into the Soviet state, just like the rest of its territory, under civilian administration, etc. - for 40-50 years.
Anyway, this and some of the crown-separation cases could be discussed/changed as needed. Alinor (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Baltic republics were fully integrated or not does not overshadow the core of the problem: this case is not treated as colonization by the majority of sources. Neither should we. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple definitions of colonization or Colonialism (make sure you check the article). However, what you're constructing here is a hopeless mish-mash, having broadened your concept of colonization to the extent that Kosovo's (or Abkhazia's!) gaining of independence will likely be treated by you (but not by sources) as 'decolonization'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I use the term as described on the decolonization page. There the Soviet Union/Russian Empire is listed along with the other "classic" cases.
Kosovo/Abkhazia would be listed as non-decolonization secessions from Serbia/Georgia, and Serbia/Georgia as a whole have theirs dates/events.
The non-decolonization cases are included (but clearly marked as such; we can add a different color if needed) in order to have a complete timeline and to cover all current countries. The list does not claim that EVERY state is decolonized. Alinor (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on the principles of the decolonization article (as said in one of the notes - it is not a list of independence dates). The states formed without decolonization (like Denmark, UK, etc.) are marked as such (merged "colonize" columns). Occupations during war are not considered. Mergers/seccessions of already independent states too (like most of Yugoslavian republics). Subsequent acquisitions of additional territories are not considered (may be mentioned in a note). Of course there could be some discrepancies - please improve where applicable. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is not a list of independence dates, and yet of the first 19 entries in the table 18 are non-decolonialism events - independence or foundation events, so the first part of it is just such a list. You say you don't consider mergers of already existing states, yet you do so with Castile and Aragon to form Spain, and you again do so with Portugal and Spain in order to report Portuguese separation from Spain rather than from Castile. You say subsequent acquisitions of additional territories are not considered. Does that mean Scotland is just 'an additional territory' of England? I doubt the Scots with their 800 years as an independent kingdom would agree. These cannot simply be fixed because the criteria are arbitrary. It cannot be simply renamed because it isn't a coherent list. Getting down to brass tacks, do you have a source representing scholarly consensus that calls the freedom of Poland decolonialism? Do you have a source that considers the freedom of Lithuania in 1990 of a kind with that of Slovenia in 1918, yet entirely distinct from that of Slovenia in 1991 or from Lithuania in 1918? If you have no such scholarly consensus, then it is WP:OR. 'Improving' the list based on our own opinions simply adds additional levels of OR and POV. Lacking a coherent source for such a list, I think I have to say Delete. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and of the 50 entries 21 are non-decolonization. And that is the reason for this debate - Americas/Oceania don't have such, Asia/Africa have only a few, but Europe has too many.
Yes, almost half of the entries don't apply to the list that lists them. Why does the list of decolonization list entries that are nothing of the sort. Given the inherent differences, even the so-called decolonization events mostly aren't. Just because there is a decolonization page for the other regions does not mean that there must be one for Europe or that one is appropriate, any more than we need a Medieval History of Africa page.
OK, if the opposition is so strong the list could be further colored differently, or even split in two parts, but the eventual split would break the timeline. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Castile/Aragorn merger - this is not a decolonization event, so what do you mean? All of the "unification" events are a merger of sorts. The "crown unions" issue could defined more explicitly, yes. About the earlier cases of such 'merger/separation' there were wars fought over the issue, so we can't consider it similar to "two equal states take a joint decision".
Here we are debating characterizations of states that don't belong in a list of decolonization anyhow (although I challenge you to come up with rational criteria that distinguish the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire (decolonization) from the liberation of Navarre from the Emirate of Cordoba (not decolonization, apparently).
Here we come to the decolonization-page content. I don't know what reasons/sources the editors there had, but I suppose that because liberations from the Ottoman empire were mostly in the 19th century, eg. Ottoman/Austria-Hungary/etc. 'special' empires are contemporary of British/French/etc. and they had servient territories. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion is the decolonization talk page, not here.
A possible solution to the "crown unions" splits/mergers (and similar gray areas in the non-decolonization entries) is to use multiple dates (denoting the different events/steps in the relationship) - like the "1922/1936/1953" for Egypt and the "1901/1942/1986" for Australia, etc. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the base tracks - I just implemented the definition from the decolonization article. There Yugoslavia is not listed, Ottoman/Russia/Soviet/German/Austria-Hungary are listed - so, I put Slovenia in 1918 (Ottoman) and Lithuania in 1990 (Soviet). I think that this is non-OR/POV and as sourced/consensus/etc. - because it is used a long time already on the Decolonization page. I agree that post-WWI German/Austria-Hungary and post-Soviet newly independent states are borderline cases, but both empires and USSR are listed in the Decolonization page (lead) - so I think the list here is consistent with that (Poland, etc.). Alinor (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not accurate to say that just because you copied the format of other pages, that it is not OR or POV. Some of those other pages are POV. They combine into one list true decolonizing events, the release of a colony, with the carving off of regions from a crumbling coherent state by outside force, with nationistic movements resulting in independence. Britain considered Bermuda to be a colony, while they did not consider Ireland to be one, and the forms of rule were different. The Ottoman Empire considered Saudi Arabia to be part of a unified Ottoman state, just as Spain considers Galicia or Navarre to be a part of the nation. Indonesia did not consider East Timor to be a colony, any more than India considers Goa to be a colony. To lump these is POV. To lump them without published sources that do the same is OR. Likewise, to say that you 'just implemented the definition from the decolonization article' and applied it to Europe is the very definition of OR by synthesis. Do any scholars consider what the Austro-Hungarians did in Europe to be colonialism? What happened in these other regions was different in kind from what happened in Europe. As to other pages not using the breakup of Yugoslavia, of course they didn't as Yugoslavia controlled no territory outside of Europe. However, compare the histories of Slovenia and Lithuania and I don't see how a distinction can be drawn that would cause the two to be treated differently. Simply put, its all being made up as we go. It's OR. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If other pages are OR/POV, that should be discussed there. This list here is just a supplement to the decolonization page. Also I am not so sure that Saudi Arabia/etc. were "integral part". You can see here. Of course they didn't use the term "colony", but some other like "vassal"/"client"/etc. - but we have similar cases in British/French/etc. cases with "protectorate"/etc. And a mere label doesn't explain the situation in each case, there are different aspects in the relations, etc. - but the basic thing is that there were a separation from a foreign power (regional like Ottoman/Austria for european territories or remote as British/French/etc. for Africa/Americas/Asia). Yugoslavia is different from the USSR in that Yugoslavia was formed by decisions of three states, but the USSR was formed in succession to the Russian Empire/Republic during the Russian Civil War. So, the new states in the ~1920s, that emerged after the civil war are Poland, Finland, Baltics. Poland/Finland are independent since ~1920s (and Poland is also formed on German territory, not only Russian) - of course under different government types, in WWII occupations, etc. The Baltics were independent for ~20 years (1920s-1940s), but were eventually re-conquered by the USSR (Russian Empire successor - just as French monarchies/republics/empires/etc. succeeded each other), so their situation is similar to some colony rebelling against the "metropole" during its civil war, only to be retaken later (like the briefly independent states in the 1920s). I agree that this is a somewhat gray area, because ~20 years "peace" independence is clearly different from "independence" during civil war, but still the metropole eventually restored its power and hold it fully for over 40 years. Anyway, the discussion about 1918 or 1990 can be made on the talk page, but I don't agree that the whole list should be removed. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While certainly there was colonisation going on in Europe, for example in England by the Anglo-Saxons and Normans (who themselves where decendant from earlier Viking colonies in Normandy), de-colonisation was not common (Baltic Germans probably being the exception) because these settlers were eventually assimiliated into the indigenous culture, so there was nothing to de-colonise, i.e. Germanic speaking vikings became French speaking Normans became English speaking Englishmen. --Martin (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's why it is listed as non-decolonization, but maybe we should introduce colors in the list to make a clear distinction? Alinor (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added coloring, please see the new version. Alinor (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of inherent difficult POV problems. List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty provides all the usable functionality without POV and OR problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could we stop creating novel scientific topics? An encyclopaedia is supposed to report existing knowledge, not to create original research for the sake of an overzealous consistency.Anonimu (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Except Cyprus and Malta, none of them were colonies in the normal sense. Gibraltar (not mentioned) remains a colony, because Spain claims it. The description of counties subject to a personal union (with a common monarch) or a legal union (with a common government) as colonies is a strange POV. What this article is seeking to achieve is done much better by List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty. That article is tagged for improvement and this article may provide some missing information. In it I note Portugal's dependence on Spain for 70-80 years up to 1640 is omitted and the unification of Aragon and Castile was preceded by a personal union from the 1490s. After merger, delete redirect, if possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this list is not to be looked alone, by itself - it is "appendix" to the Decolonization page. Just as Decolonization of Asia, Decolonization of Oceania, Decolonization of Africa, Decolonization of the Americas. It conforms to the definitions there - so I think any POV/OR disputes should be resolved for decolonization in principle, not in this list. So, I don't see any reason to delete the list - it can be changed (if the definitions on the Decolonization page are changed). Alinor (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As additional note - the List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty is different and could not "replace" this one - the dates are arranged by different principles. The list here is about the date of separation from a particular set of controlling powers (as described in the Decolonization article) - the "last" empires, these of 19th and 20th century. If the article name is so inappropriate I propose a Rename to Modern empires dissolution in Europe or similar. Alinor (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments. First, OR is OR. It doesn't matter if in performing the OR you have copied the process of OR used on other pages. If the analysis is yours and not that of a reliable source, it is still OR. Second, if the critical difference between your page and the existing sovereignty page is the order, then you have a real problem, as your page then, by your own admission, adds nothing but style and includes numerous events that have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism. Finally, context is relevant. In other regions similar definitions produce a few inappropriate entires (e.g. Ethiopia) among long lists of true colonies. That can be fixed by editing the page. In the European context, it produces a 50-entry list that includes two or three actual former colonies, making the page a meaningless collection of mostly irrelevant or POV cases. Just because there is a decolonization list for other regions need not require such a page for Europe if it is irrelevant in a European context. You are right that other decolonization pages need work (who decided that every country, even those never colonized, must be listed?), but that doesn't negate the central problem with this page, that there are only two or three true decolonization events in modern European history, and you don't need a page with a 50-member list to show them. That is why this page cannot be repaired by simple tweaking, as perhaps can the others. "Because such a page exists for other regions" is a poor argument for a page, as is "I don't like the order of the other list". Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the OR - it should be explained (and maybe it is sourced) by the modifications of the Decolonization page. If we discuss it here and take decision based only on this reason - this is like having a page deleted/merged/whatever without having "AfD/Merge/Whatever-template" shown on it (or having it shown on some related page). Anyway, I am not making analysis, I just made a list with dates collected from the History of xxx articles.
Which is an analysis. I challenge you to point out the page that says Great Britain was founded in the reign of Athelstan. In compiling it, you are performing analysis in concluding which events count and which don't.
The difference between the sovereignty-list and this list is not in the order, but in the characterization event - here it is the date of separation from one of the late modern age empires.
And Great Britain separated from an Empire under Athelstan? The list is not what you claim it to be. It is a list of every country in Europe, whether they were a colony, separated from a modern empire, or never did.
The entries like Ethiopia/Nepal/etc. are added (but clearly distinguished) to show the context/perspective of the 'regular' entries. Deleting these would not be an improvement.
The pages are lists of decolonization events. It is unnecessary to list countries that were not colonies in such a list. They add no useful context.
The list currently has the following entries: 3 overseas (green), 26 neighboring (yellow, mostly Ottoman/Austria/Russia), 21 'non-decolonization' (gray). So it is not 50 entries for 3, but for 29, if we are going to be exact.
You overlooked the word 'true' in my description. You have two or three such events. It is POV that the expansion of contiguous states through conquest and merger is equivalent to colonialism. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that Hungary was a colony of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, any more than that Lithuania was a colony of the Polish-Lithuanian union. It is further POV that such events only constitute colonialism when they don't involve Yugoslavia. Thus you have 2 or 3 classic cases of colonialism, 26 cases of imperial fragmentation.
As I understand the biggest disagreement is that "neighboring separation" is implied in the list to be "decolonization". I agree that if accepted as such this will be a very borderline case of decolonization.
This is not the only problem. There are also 21 completely irrelevant members of the list. Why are they included in a list of decolonization? As much as you try to deny it, this is a list of foundation dates for European states, and we already have such a page. Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed to make a new list about the 'separation from one of the late modern age empires', with the appropriate notes/etc. - so that it is not implied that the 26 yellow separations are decolonization. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for Modern empires loss of european territory
Lead: The Empires of the Modern Age have endured dissolution or separation of some of their territories in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Such foreign controlling powers and the processes of separation from them include the breakup of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires (in 19th and 20th century, mostly after World War I); of the British (mostly after World War II); of the Russian Empire and its successor (mostly after the Cold War); and others.
Timeline legend: This is a list of all present sovereign states in Europe, sorted according to their date of separation from a Modern empire, if applicable; colors: separation from overseas foreign controlling power; separation from neighboring foreign controlling power; achieved independence in different way.
Alinor (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge contents into List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty per convincing explanation of Alex Bakharev. The concept of colonization is very controversial: it's not convincing that European countries have been "colonized". --Sulmues (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Move to Colonization in Europe and convert to prose without OR. I think a well sourced, neutral account of this should be included but not in the way it is currently done. Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - terminology is completely weird and probably written from a US-centric point of view which assumes that everyone else must have been a colony and fought a (single major) war to become independent. That's a completely wrong picture of European history, and the terminology hardly applies. In the unlikely case somethings is salvageable for a different list, fine, but "decolonization" should be nowhere in it. Tomas e (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as Sulmues and Tomas e have put it very well. TheGrappler (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decolonization_in_Europe&oldid=1137776308"