Talk:Proposed cession of the Gambia to France
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Backwards notable
[edit]This is a backwards notable article ("I have an idea, if I phrase it right I can make it look like a title for an article, here is the article"). Evidence is that this existed, but not that the idea itself was notable. This article should probably be merged into another historical article on the general subject. Just a thought. KDS4444 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- @KDS4444: I disagree. The idea was notable (as can be seen from a Google search on the topic) and had particular relevance to the Gambia as it was a focus of the political activism of both native inhabitants and white British merchants in the area for about 30 years. Besides there being more to add to the existing elements of the article, there is evidence that the possibility of the cession was raised again in 1904 with the Anglo-French Convention. However, I don't edit Wikipedia to launch into pointless arguments. I'm happy for someone to merge this into an existing article, such as History of the Gambia or Gambia Colony and Protectorate (or both, to an extent), as long as it does not outweigh the rest of the article. Also, would be more than happy to see you editing and contributing to more Gambia-related articles, as opposed to being awkward on talk pages. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors are not usually encouraged to become specialists in order to offer commentary on the notability of a subject, nor are they usually proscribed from doing so if another editor decides they have not shown sufficient evidence of familiarity with the subject to be able to comment on its notability in Wikipedia terms. A Google search for this subject initially turns up 10 results— by changing the wording I can get this up to a bit over 400, which is still rather disappointing. I am able to see that the idea was of public concern in the 19th century, and that it was written about in two particular British political pamphlets of the time, which do argue to the notability of the concept. My issue is with the turning of an idea into an article without there being broader substantive discussion of it— one could argue, for example that 1874 Colonial Office reception of a letter from Labellaire urging British intervention in New Guinea is also a notable event: there are historical sources discussing it, and the positive reception of the letter had important consequences for the local Colonial Secretary; as Britain was at this point a global military and economic power, all the more reason for there to be a Wikipedia article on it. Or maybe not. We do have articles on the partition of India and the partition of Poland and of Quebec as well as the Partition of Africa, all of which are much broader subject areas that look like they could contain the basic content of a proposed cession of one territory to one or another world power. There is as yet no article on the partition of West Africa, which might also be able to go it alone. The proposed cession of this one part of this one region of the African continent looks much too specific and doesn't seem to have had enough fallout in terms of discussion in reliable sources to make it not worth merging into a broader topic, and I have rather strong feelings about the proliferation of articles on historical or conceptual minutiae under the premise "because we can." That was my concern here, even though I have never written any books about the Gambia and have only read 3 or 4 on African history, most of those a long time ago. If we all had to be experts in order to evaluate the notability of a subject area, Wikipedia would have collapsed of its own weight years ago. That is the point I was trying to get across with my comment here. KDS4444 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @KDS4444: I can accept that. See the relevant part of what I wrote: "I don't edit Wikipedia to launch into pointless arguments. I'm happy for someone to merge this into an existing article, such as History of the Gambia or Gambia Colony and Protectorate (or both, to an extent), as long as it does not outweigh the rest of the article. Also, would be more than happy to see you editing and contributing to more Gambia-related articles, as opposed to being awkward on talk pages." --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors are not usually encouraged to become specialists in order to offer commentary on the notability of a subject, nor are they usually proscribed from doing so if another editor decides they have not shown sufficient evidence of familiarity with the subject to be able to comment on its notability in Wikipedia terms. A Google search for this subject initially turns up 10 results— by changing the wording I can get this up to a bit over 400, which is still rather disappointing. I am able to see that the idea was of public concern in the 19th century, and that it was written about in two particular British political pamphlets of the time, which do argue to the notability of the concept. My issue is with the turning of an idea into an article without there being broader substantive discussion of it— one could argue, for example that 1874 Colonial Office reception of a letter from Labellaire urging British intervention in New Guinea is also a notable event: there are historical sources discussing it, and the positive reception of the letter had important consequences for the local Colonial Secretary; as Britain was at this point a global military and economic power, all the more reason for there to be a Wikipedia article on it. Or maybe not. We do have articles on the partition of India and the partition of Poland and of Quebec as well as the Partition of Africa, all of which are much broader subject areas that look like they could contain the basic content of a proposed cession of one territory to one or another world power. There is as yet no article on the partition of West Africa, which might also be able to go it alone. The proposed cession of this one part of this one region of the African continent looks much too specific and doesn't seem to have had enough fallout in terms of discussion in reliable sources to make it not worth merging into a broader topic, and I have rather strong feelings about the proliferation of articles on historical or conceptual minutiae under the premise "because we can." That was my concern here, even though I have never written any books about the Gambia and have only read 3 or 4 on African history, most of those a long time ago. If we all had to be experts in order to evaluate the notability of a subject area, Wikipedia would have collapsed of its own weight years ago. That is the point I was trying to get across with my comment here. KDS4444 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)