Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest empires (6th nomination)

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. Whether this information can/should be merged to another list can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List appears to effectively be a WP:SYNTH content fork of List of empires - criteria for selection are in violation of WP:LISTV#INC and the whole page is fraught with edit wars over what constitutes an empire as a result. Recent suggestions of changing the page to list of largest historical polities seem motivated by unwillingness to use RS definitions of an Empire. Strongly suggest deletion with the option of recreation if it's done with some resemblance of adherence to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given that Wikipedia can do sortable tables, this seems entirely redundant. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Housekeeping comment The original second nomination for this page had a typo in the title and as such wasn't extant. This is, in fact the sixth nomination for this article, notwithstanding the name. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the assist on the move. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The problems with the page are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and the assertion that there is an unwillingness to use RS definitions of an Empire is patently untrue; the page uses a definition by Rein Taagepera, namely any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign.^[1] I noted this on the talk page right before this AfD was started, and amended the lead to make this clear right after (which resulted in an edit conflict with the AfD notice). TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me why you have insisted on only using this one source for definitions. When I suggested you use the definition found on Empire as a basis your response was to propose changing the page to a list of polities, side-stepping the empire definition question entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak for anyone else, I consider that to be a very practical and pragmatic definition. The reason I suggested renaming the list is that I don't think the word "empire" is important in and of itself, and in practice the list already is of polities. There would be little to no change in scope, and we wouldn't have to argue about the definition of "empire". TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised concerns over what I believe may be an attempt at WP: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Also, that the table as it is, may as well be a Frankenstein, based on a fringe theory.--Ppteles (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I might find the argument that the problems with this page are surmountable more convincing if it hadn't been made 12 years ago in the previous delete discussions. In fact there have been five such discussion before this one, the last in 2010, and in each one of them "we can improve this article" was considered a winning argument - yet it never did improve. There are still the same OR issues that always existed with this page.FOARP (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of empires per what Guy said. The only new information in this list is the size of the empire, which could easily be added to (and would complement) the existing list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While, as nominator, I support deleting the article, I would not object to a merge and redirect solution as you described here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of empires after substantially restructuring the tables. As it is, it is basically an article talking about Taagepera's work, with some other well-picked sources added to it, not to make too much of a damage. I have also raised concerns over what I believe may be an attempt at WP: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. That the table as it is, may as well be a Frankenstein, based on a fringe theory.Ppteles (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure content fork of List of empires, based on dubious methodology (what makes this guy the sole authority on such things?), and coupled with a bit of text that's cherry-picking questionable sources in the extreme (anyone want to invent a time machine and inform Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or the Spanish Hapsburgs that "The very notion of a globally dominant power is a recent historical development"?). Unsalvageable and even if it were salvageable, no benefit in salvaging. ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's ridiculous to argue that this is a content fork when list of empires has nothing in its content about their size. If there are problems with defining what an empire is, the List of empires page will have exactly the same problem so merging won't solve it. All lists, either implicitly or explicitly, must have a criterion for inclusion, and this lists' criterion at least has the benefit of being referenced to a source. Sure, other sources may use different definitions but the one we have seems perfectly servicable for the purposes of constructing a list. It's certainly notable, gbooks has a huge number of hits for the phrase "largest empire". Likewise on scholar, and Taagepera directly addresses the subject of the article in this paper from Social Science Research. SpinningSpark 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it seems Taagepera used rather obscure sources and material to perform his calculations, which in some cases one can demonstrate to be wrong. It is nothing but odd that he'd prefer to use an Atlas, when he had other sources available to him already in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. I don't understand how he uses an Atlas and then talks about systematized measurements.Ppteles (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in this paper from Social Science Research you mentioned says on page 114, "Among the historical atlases used, it was found that the three-volume Grosser Historische Weltatlas edited by Engel (1953- 1970) was the most versatile and inclusive.". This German atlas contains images such as this one. This article is solely based on a man who measured maps using those images.Ppteles (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Taagepera is a poor source, that is a fixable problem, but I'm not buying that for the moment. Your criticisms of him look like your own OR to me. Both the paper I linked and the source in the article seem to be reasonably heavily cited by other scholars, and that's the mark of reliability. If he's unreliable, let's see the evidence by way of scholarly criticism of him. In any event, this does not amount to a case for deletion. And merging won't fix poor sourcing. SpinningSpark 22:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Your criticisms of him look like your own OR to me."? I agree, but I think it could be merged with List of Largest empires. Ppteles (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR means original research ...and the article patently isn't based entirely on Taagepera. Several other sources are used. SpinningSpark 23:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing original research, what I am doing is demonstrating that Taagepera is a bad source. On the table you notice that very little sources are in fact used, and when used, seem to me like some kind of Frankenstein. Taagepera is clearly the main source, especially for the figures. Ppteles (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry a previous edition showed two wrong images, I messed up for which I apologize, this is the image from the source he considers 'the most versatile and inclusive'. Another example here.Did he really use such images to make such calculations? If so, this is clearly unreliable.Ppteles (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Broaden to include all polities. A list, like any other wikipedia article, needs to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Many lists fail the test of notability. Specifically such articles are just collections of related items with no evidence that the collection itself meets the General notability guideline. That is not the case for this article. There are two peer reviewed journal articles that specifically analyze the sizes of empires across time, and two journal article that analyzes the sizes of polities across time. These journal articles have been cited by others. So a list of empires (or polities) and their area and date does meet the notability criteria. One issue some have raised is the inclusion criteria for polities that that were "empires". This article could adopt (through consensus) such an inclusion criteria. I personally think an even better approach is to broaden the scope of the article to include all polities. There are relatively few additional entries that would need to be made, basically a small handful of modern states. The thrust of the research in the four peer reviewed journal articles do not focus on the distinction between "empire" and "polities." Two of the four mention "empires" simply because in the time period researched, most large polities were empires.-- Work permit (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, uhm, sorry but why is Australia included? it is not a "sovereign political entity" (no matter what ozzie republicans may tell you:), does this reflect the (not very good) WP:OR of this list? also why is this needed to be separate from List of empires, where a couple of extra columns could be added? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the source cited on the page "Counted independent when joining the UN". TompaDompa (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which shows the arbitrariness of using that source. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of arbitrariness is the use of some kind of arbitrary, unmentioned, 'consensual threshold' for empires to be included on the list. This threshold was decided by the editors, with nothing more than an 'opinion' and considerations on the degree of 'messiness'. Clear OR. Ppteles (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of empires by the simple expedient of adding a "largest extent" column. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to list of empires as suggested above, with the caveat that that page needs a lot of work as well. Specifically, the terms for inclusion in the list need to be specified clearly - they aren't. At the moment it appears to be a list of every polity that was ever called an empire but this is not explicit. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is off-topic but I just want to reiterate that there are good criteria for inclusion on the basis of a reliably sourced definition of an empire at the Empire page. I would suggest this would be a good place to start. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment - if this is to be kept, it should be renamed to List of empires by largest extent or something similar. "Largest empires" is a subjective definition (what condition makes an empire "large"?) unless all nations meeting the definition of an empire are included, in which case it's a redundant list to List of empires. I much prefer merging as stated above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is an artefact of the list having previously listed empires by population and economy as well (I removed both due to sourcing issues as part of a major cleanup effort in 2016). TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine those demographics would be difficult to source reliably and consistently. Nevertheless, if sourcing weren't a concern, those are more statistics that could be included as sortable items in the central list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional additional comment A change like proposed on talk to List of largest polities would not resolve the key problems with this article which have to do with systemic WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTV#INC - changing which arbitrary criteria define the list would not make the list less arbitrary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not when to propose a deletion nomination.

1. If the article is poorly sourced, poorly worded, misleading, or otherwise problematic, then be bold and fix it yourself.
2. If the article can very easily be condensed to a subsection of another article, and you can justifiably argue that having this article makes it difficult for readers to find information that they would have an easier time finding on another article, then merge it.
3. It was argued that this is a content fork of List of Empires, but it's very obvious that it isn't one.
4. This page provides information that "List of empires" page does not contain any information on (such as geographic size), so merging it would add unnecessary clutter. This page should (if it is not already) be linked as a "See also" or "Main article" link and remain a standalone article.
5. There's reasons to delete articles, and so far not one of them was substantially cited. This proposal should be speedily closed; not only does it not add anything that the other five unsuccessful nominations didn't have, it doesn't have any merits of its own. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cut out the wikilawyering. Merge is a common outcome of deletion discussions; if anything, a merge deriving from such a discussion is likely to be more well-founded and -discussed than one following a merge discussion, due to more participants. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wikilawyering to point out that their rationale for deleting the article didn't include any of the reasons to delete an article. That's just common sense. Yes, merging is a common outcome (though it should've been proposed as one), but per the reasons already described I don't support a merge into List of Empires. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon, you've pointed to the number of times this has been proposed for deletion in the past. Doesn't that cut both ways? Especially when exactly the same things have been complained about every time and the reason for keeping each time was essentially "don't worry, we'll fix it", but then nothing was fixed because actually this page appears beyond saving? The entire basis of the list is OR. The proposed merge saves what's useful about this page whilst disposing of the OR problem. FOARP (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention below, that would be a fair point if I stated nothing more than the number of times this was proposed; this proposal does not add anything of merit to make it stand out from the other unsuccessful nominations. So no, the assumption that the number of proposals resulting in a consensus to keep somehow serves as evidence for why it should be deleted/merged is entirely unsubstantiated. You note that every time the reason to keep is "don't worry, we'll fix it" but then nothing happens. That is not the burden of those that make the argument that an article being in poor shape is not a reason to scrap everything. If you find an article to have so many issues that it might as well be removed, your immediate response should be to attempt to fix any one of them, and only trigger WP:TNT when you've truly exhausted all other options. Furthermore, the article's poor shape isn't even the root of this proposal, as not a single problem with the article was cited, other than "it's a content fork" (which isn't even true). In my opinion, the biggest problem with the article is the inherent subjectivity of what states constitute an empire and therefore which states should be included. Do we consider the US an empire? Do we consider Canada to be an empire? Do we consider India to be an empire? Because there's no truly objective standard, the consensus seems to be an all inclusive list of the largest states in history. For that reason, this article should be renamed to "List of largest states." Because of that, merging it into "List of empires" is a terrible idea, as the ambiguity about what to include and exclude is the core of the problem, and the main reason why the inclusion of certain states appears to be original research based on subjective standards. Merging only amplifies the problem, and deletion is clearly off the table as there's not even the appearance of a rationale to delete. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Faulty premise, as the article is not a content fork. The List of empires contains no information on the area controlled by these empires, or any real comparison between them. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• adding a couple of columns with that info (area covered, year or biggest extent and so on) would fix that. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be for an editorial discussion on article talk pages, not a deletion discussion where the point is irrelevant. SpinningSpark 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Though I'm sure Coolabahapple is saying this with the intention of supporting a merge, with regard to deletion this effectively says "Though it isn't a content fork, it potentially could become a content fork if we changed it to be a content fork" which makes that point null. On the topic of merging, I'm against a merge because it would be better to discuss renaming (with a redirect) the page to "List of largest states" (instead of needing to endlessly arguing about whether or not countries like the US constitute and empire because of the large size and population and imperialist policies or if we should only include monarchies or if Canada counts for being bigger than the US by land or if they don't count for being smaller in population or if India counts for being a large country with a large population but not actually having an imperial system). In my opinion, the very inclusion of the name "empir "~in the title of this article adds too much subjectivity, but merging it into "List of Empires" would only worsen that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨

• Brendon, if we're going to go full-on Wikilawyer here, the rules require you to assume good faith. This means not assuming that Coolabahapple is proposing to create a content fork just for the hell of it, but instead making a useful, good-faith observation that this material is easily covered on List of empires and hence we should merge.FOARP (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (In response to both of your replies including the one that noted the number of deletion proposals) That would be a fair point if I stated nothing more than the number of times this was proposed; this proposal does not add anything of merit to make it stand out from the other unsuccessful nominations. Furthermore, I didn't even imply that Coolabahapple is proposing to create a content fork. I noted that this nomination's rationale is that this page is supposedly a content fork, so I'm not swayed by a point that you could turn it into one if you wanted to (which would be an argument for deletion). However, I also very explicitly - and more than once - noted that he most likely proposed a merge, which is why the bulk of my reply was on why I am against a merge. With all due respect, every point you raised in that reply was substantially responded to in the very post it was replying to. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list-article's sortable table focusing on sizes of the biggest empires is great, and it is not information that is covered in the List of empires article, and it would not be easy/appropriate to merge the size info to the other. Note the other has multiple tables which seem good as they are, focusing on other matters; it would not be feasible to expand them all to cover size for all of them (perhaps reliable size estimates are not available for all) and to merge all of them into one table to make it sortable by size. Suppose the size info were amazingly merged, then it would immediately be appropriate for editors there to split out the size information to a separate list-article as a matter of decent editing. The fact that this is the 6th AFD about this topic suggests that consensus for Wikipedia covering this topic has already been established. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I understand the idea of including polities but per WP:COMMONNAME more people will be searching for empires. I see no policy-based reason to warrant deletion. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear content fork of List of empires which operates with no regard for policies surrounding WP:OR - and it has been nominated for this over the years several times with promises to fix that never amount to anything. More OR, more WP:SYNTH, more arbitrary criteria and arbitrary definitions. It's frankly a mess. Why is this blemish worth saving? Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly claim this is a content fork but most people in this discussion are not agreeing with you. That's because you are failing to identify what content has actually been forked. SpinningSpark 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It redlinked because I made a capitalization mistake. That has been corrected. It's a secondary empire list forked off to A) add an extra metric and B) add arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly the consensus appears to be merge and redirect to List of empires which, although I prefer deletion, I've already said would satisfy me almost as much. It's the keep !votes who seem to have failed to convince the majority here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of empires. This list is useful and includes information on size not available in the list of empires, and appears to be well-sourced so I understand why people would consider it to be a good idea to keep it for the time being. I don't really take part in much discussion over here on Wikipedia, and I'm not too experienced with tables at all, but could we merge the list into the list of empires, adding information about size to an additional column? We would need to improve the list of empires too.Ntmamgtw (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding another column to the list of empires is very easy to do. It's also obvious: we should probably add that column anyway regardless of the outcome here, it's relevant information to that list. It's just a bit tedious because of the way that table markup works (you can't just copy and paste it, you have to edit each cell individually) but hard it is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of empires. Adding the additional column (for size) to the table there seems like a no-brainer. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think size is a no-brainer, I think it probably kind of controversial. There aren't generally agreed upon sizes for many/most I would think. Merging would introduce controversy, issues of sourcing, possible negative tagging, into the List of empires article, which is not needed there. I think it is good as a separate arena within which sizists can gladiate. --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You argued, above, to keep. But, you say there's sourcing problems. If the sourcing is not good enough to merge, then how could it be good enough to keep? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I frankly don't believe the area measures. Unlike some of the exact dates of start and end of some empires, these are not factual characteristics known by the emperors or anyone else. I wonder which of those point estimates should be plus or minus 100 percent, or plus or minus 5 percent, or which have lop-sided likelihood ranges (e.g. the actual size could be 50% lower or 200% higher)? Is the size supposed to be the very maximum size of a given empire, which might be extremely temporary, or should it be some kind of average or "usual" size for the empire during its main period of duration (whatever definition is used for each empire should be explained in another column). Also I would not believe population guesses, or guesses of the financial wealth or value or GDP, or guesses on the numbers of soldiers of the empires, but why not add columns for those size measures too? I think it is fine to have a basic list-article on empires, and a separate one on controversial estimates about them, with a proper academic-type introduction on the difficulty of coming to any estimates. And probably there should be additional columns of estimates about confidence intervals on the size measures. And columns linking to sourcing and/or classifying the types of sourcing, so that a reader can see which estimates might be more or less comparable. An encyclopedic article about sizes should tackle the measurement/estimate issues head-on, while that is not part of a basic encyclopedic article about empires. --Doncram (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically: People, you cannot think the sizes are factual facts. But there can exist plenty of sourcing, academic debating on estimates, which justifies an article on size estimates. Like there is endless controversy in estimates of casualties in battles and wars, which does not belong in a simple list-article of battles. --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2018 (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.