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. Rlevse 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

This article has been proposed for deletion twice previously, in January 2006 and April 2006. However, since then, the article has not become more encyclopedic, and as the edit history shows, is prone to POV-pushing. Moreover, I believe this to be a fundamental flaw in the article itself, not just the POV-pushers -- in that, while the article acknowledges difficulty in comparing empires from different ages and in calculating their sizes and populations, it nevertheless tries to do what it acknowledges to be difficult if not impossible. Well, it is impossible to do so objectively, as I think has been demonstrated. Given WP:NPOV as an overall overriding principle, delete (since there is no way for this article to be NPOV). --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Editors have a problem with pushing their POV on the content, that's their problem, not this subject. This subject is still reasonable for an encyclopedia, since people do care about the size of empires. FrozenPurpleCube 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the entire problem is that people do care -- but that there is no one, no one who can, with any kind of accuracy or NPOVness, really come up with a proper list of the largest empires and sort them. (Now, it might be possible to do a list of large empires without regard for which one is largest, but this article is not set out to do that, due to its title.) --Nlu (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this problem as an objection to the article's existence, just a component of its content. I agree, that is a problem. It won't be easy. So far, though, you haven't established a problem with the subject itself. Just one with the editors. That's not a reason to delete. That's a reason to go through Dispute resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that the article is NPOV and these things are immeasurable should be backed up with actual evidence. Can you find references which support this claim? If not then your point of view is your own and is not actually NPOV. Why not find sources to back up your view and include them in the article. --Quirex 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article cannot be NPOV it must be deleted. As of now the article is very POV. There has been no indication of a problem with any editors so your argument is an example of a straw man [1]. Agha Nader 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Except, this article can be NPOV, representing the historical perspective accepted by historians and other informed researchers. If those people disagree, cover the disagreement. NPOV does not say "delete anything which people can't agree completely about", it says: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Is there some reason this page can't include whatever disagreements are troubling this page? Besides, I don't see how there can be POV concerns without there being disputes over content. Are you saying there is no argument over the content and thus there is no POV problem? If so, then this nomination is groundless. FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that there is no way that the article can be NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assertion, but with no substance to back it up. Really, try to articulate the problem. What dispute is there to the contents of this article? What positions have been expressed? Why can't the editors involved reach a consensus? What steps have been taken to resolve the content dispute? You claim there is an intractable problem as to NPOV, but you've completely failed to show what the problem is, or why it warrants deletion instead of some other action. AfD is not for deletion of articles because people disagree over the content of an article on an otherwise valid subject. I honestly don't even see how you can claim the page isn't encyclopedic, let alone such a heinous violation of NPOV. FrozenPurpleCube 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is subject to serious problems because the definition of the term empire itself is subject to POV interpretation. However susceptible the article is to POV edits, that alone is not a criterion for deletion. The majority of the article is well-written and well-sourced and clearly passes inclusion standards. The proper way to handle POV editing is through diligent maintenance of the article and resolving potential disputes on the talk page - or if disputes get out of hand, RfC or even some kind of arbitration in severe cases - but certainly jettisoning the article is not the cure. Arkyan 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is fine. Lord of Light 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing in the nomination points out what the specific POV problem is. Just because something might be difficult to describe or compare does not mean it presents a POV problem. Several of the categories of comparison are quite objectively set out and capable of meeting all content policies. Other sections that might not be can be removed from the article, but do not merit deletion of the whole article. Whether or not a particular "empire" is an empire or ought to be on the list is a content issue and does not detract from the fact that the list is larged composed of entities that qualify as empires. I see no problems with the article in its present form. Agent 86 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem inherent is that for historical empires prior to the 19th century, there is almost no reliable way to calculate their physical or population sizes. Therefore, estimates are required, and the estimates are often speculation, thus leading to multiple "reasonable" intepretations, each of which is POV and which cannot be reconciled in an NPOV manner. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an easy reconciliation. Take any views that are reasonably accepted, or that have been reasonably accepted, within the academic community relating to this subject, and include all of them. If there are disputes, then say: While Professor Stuffy-pants of Humbug University says "blah-blah-blah", the view of Professor Baldy-head of Pretense College disagrees and offers "blabbity-blah-blah" instead. Now Professor Crackbrain of Dunder Tech's view of "blabity-dinosaurs-ufos-blah" might not be as easily included, but that's another question entirely. Otherwise we might as well use your argument to delete almost any article on history. Certainly might require a purge of maps, population estimates and whatnot. The question of NPOV is that Wikipedia not violate it, not that other people not have their own POV. Their interpretations and speculation are their own business, and including them is question of content dispute, not a question of the article's subject. FrozenPurpleCube 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the problem with that argument is that specifically, this article is a list that includes rankings, and without such rankings, it's not a list any more and would be useless anyway. The Mongol Empire, for example, will necessarily have to include some indication of how large that empire was, but it becomes problematic when this list is forced to compare the size of the Mongol Empire to other empires. It can't be done in an NPOV manner. --Nlu (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not? If there can't be any possibly agreement as to the size of the Mongol empire, exactly why has every world history book I've ever seen included a map with its territory on it? You can quibble over precision if you want, I'm sure there's a lot of concerns regarding accuracy but that's a content problem, not a subject one. FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 2 references for this article which are about the article itself. They are secondary sources, they aggregate data from various sources and produce lists of empires and their sizes. This article cites these 2 references. Thus this article is surprisingly attributable. And the topic is obviously notable enough as it has 2 reliable references about itself. As far as I can tell this article simply takes the POV of the referenced work. If a POV does not have sources or references it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Quirex 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are satisfactory and reliable references for the page. However, the GDP comparisons in 1990 US$ perhaps need to have a bit more information at the beginning of the section, in such a way that it states that the GDP given (I assume) is for each empire when it had its largest GDP (and then largest % world GDP in the next part of the section) i.e. that it was the total GDP of the empire in the year year stated, which was the largest (annual) GDP the particular empire had out of all of its years of existence. I would suggest somehow making the article more 'reader friendly', perhaps using tables instead of lists, and (where possible) combining multiple lists into a single table. A final point, though not directly related to the article, is that the link to the "American_Empire" of 1944/1945, doesn't actually state any information about such an empire in those years, and is a debatable empire to include in the lists. Definitely keep the article on grounds of sound knowledge and fulfilling suitable reference criteria, it just requires a small bit of editing. Barno_uk 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it doesn't require just "a small bit of editing." --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show that your POV is actually supported by Reliable Secondary sources? --Quirex
      • My POV is that the article is unencyclopedic, not that any particular version of the page is more reliable than any other. I don't know how I'm going to find secondary sources to support that. --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Every Wikipedia article is prone to POV-pushing. That is not a criteria for deletion. How is this article unencyclopedic? Jagged 85 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless there is a more complete list of largest empire elsewhere, this one should definitely stay. To replace something with nothing is a bad idea. Please challenge the order, not the entire deletion of an article. Benjwong 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, as I pointed out, is that every single challenge is going to be itself POV, since, for example, there is no way to prove the size of the Mongol Empire one way or the other, but the list structure of the article forces there to be one singular size listed for it. (And if that is made a fuzzy size, then the article suddenly loses its purpose, as it can no longer be a sorted list.) --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Who that voted "keep" is in favor of having an article called "List of the Best Empires". Both are subjective and based on POV. Most historians will tell you there is no way of knowing the size of Darius's empire or that of other ancient kings. All this article can do is speculate. Agha Nader 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

*Keep-Every article is prone to POV pushing. What I see on this article is facts based on numbers. Gelston 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Therein lies the problem; the article contains opinions that masquerade as facts based on numbers, and it's impossible to NPOV-ize it due to the structure of the article. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding how you say its impossible given the structure of the article. I did notice things such as quoting figures on the American Empire from 1945 or so, but thats not so much of a big deal. It seems to be comparing Empires based on its stats at their respective peaks. If you feel that some sizes are not able to be proven, and asterick can be placed next to it and notes about it can be made. Gelston 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is no different than using weasel words to mask POV. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite what you mean. You have yet to point out anything, other than saying the entire article is POV, which I, and most of the other people arguing for keep also seem to disagree with you about. The burden of proof is on you it seems. Gelston 07:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out that, in particular, the size of Mongol Empire is problematic, and it's not the only one. Using an * doesn't solve the problem, because it will still be a sorted list, and its placement in the sorted list will require the article to have at least the POV that it is of that particular size. I don't know how more "point[ing] out anything" I need to do. --Nlu (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We already have List of empires. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of empires. Why have two articles? We add max extent and all that jazz to that article. Two is pointless, when you can make it one. Gelston 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merging comes down to whether it is better to have a list ranked by size or alphabetical order. Benjwong 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to your comment Alphabetical would be the best. That might satisfy the POV accusing people somewhat. Gelston 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how one can argue that the article is not becoming "more encyclopedic". Almost everything in the article is now referenced, and the policies concerning how to measure size are well defined. Both of these things were not true before.

Yes, the article acknowledges that it is difficult to compare empires, but it does not call it impossible. The article establishes a standard and goes from there. - Atarr 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in favor of not losing any info. That is the bottom line. Even if it wasn't ranked by size, there is too much research done to be wasted via a delete. Benjwong 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We should not strive for "pure truth" (which is a pointless exercise doomed to fail), but rather verifiability. Was the Mongol Empire 36.6 million square kilometres or was it truly 36.59999 sq-km? It doesn't matter. To note anything other than what one or more sources state is tantamount to original research. That historians disagree on the specific numbers or that it is difficult to measure imperial size is not our concern. Our concern, rather, is to report and summarise that which has been written, irrespective of whether it is/was "truth". -- Black Falcon 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very good information which helps people with comparing empires. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see that this article is prone to the ethno-centric bias of various editors who would like their partical horse to come in first but the information is quite helpful and eventually we will truly get to the point where we are comparing apples to apples.--CltFn 11:48, 20 March 2007 (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.