Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

The portuguese empire size

Banned WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive#20 August 2020. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be extremly important to restart the discussions regarding the size of the Portuguese empire here on this page. Taeegepera is wrong in his statment that "effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822“. His paper references two sources in a table (page 502) but does not provide information on what one of those sources are. There is however plenty of sources that dismiss his statment and prove that the portuguese empire wasn't only 5.5 million km2. I'm using a compilation of sources used by other users in the talk page, I'm putting them all together in order to make things easier. Specially to TompaDompa I urge him to look at every source. Bethell Leslie Bethell edited a series of books on Brazil, including a book titled "Colonial Brazil". This book contains a translated article titled Instrufies imditas de D. Luis da Cunha a Marco Antonio de A^evedo Coutinho (ed. Pedro de Azevedo and Antonio Baiao, Academia das Sciencias de Lisboa, Coi'mbra, 1930), 218 On page 251 of the book, a map showing the northern and western defensive systems of Amazonia and the Mato Grosso state together with a map of Brazil after the Treaty of Madrid (1750) is shown. The map shows 11 forts along a number of rivers and at the borders of the territory. There are many sources which cite a larger area. For example, ""During the colonial period, from 1500 to 1822, all of Brazil, including Rio, was part of the Portuguese Empire" (section written by Rosana Narbosa Nunes) Melvin Eugene Page; Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: An International, Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 501. ISBN 9781576073353.< This source would seem to be discussing the political boundary, since without a doubt in 1500 Portugal only occupied a small portion of Brazil. Brezinsky A page of Zbigniew Brezinsky on pages 22-23, where there is a table with a list of the largest empires. It cites the Portuguese Empire (1815) 10,400,000 km. Brzezinski is just as reliable as Taagepera. None of them are historians. And Brzezinski also 'mentions history' in his book, same as Taagepera. He may have written about history, but so has Brzenzinski. Neither one of them is a historian and both seem to dwell on similar topics - geopolitics. So I think either source is reliable or unreliable. If one is reliable, so is the other, if one is unreliable, so is the other. Also there is no mystery as to how Bzezinski arrived at his figure (he included Brazil as a whole) so we do not need to ask how it was arrived at. Harris On page 11 of his book on the 'Cabanagem' insurrection, Mark Harris provides a map of South America in 1799 outlining the borders of Colonial Brazil in this year. Albuquerque An atlas, which was the official book of the Brazilian Education ministry in 1977, shows economic activity across Brazil in the early colonial, late colonial, and pre republican time. Page 24 relates to the earlier colonial times, page 28 refers to late colonial times. These pages show forestry, cane sugar harvesting, ranching, mining, and the harvesting of plants for herbal remedies (in the Amazon region). Page 32 show these activities during the Brazilian empire time, where the primary economic acitivity in the Amazon region is rubber harvesting. On page 18 there is a mpa highlighting the 'bandeiras' which were organized militias of settlers who set out to expand territory and conquer it for the Portuguese Crown. Most of them left from the São Paulo region. There is an arrow showing how this expansion was also made towards the Amazon. On page 18 there is a map highlighting the forts built and Aldeias settled by the Portuguese along the Amazon river. This argues that the Portuguese did have an economic and military presence beyond the coastal half of Brazil Mitchell Describes the Brazilian territory in 1844 (unfortunately past the date in which Portugal controlled the country), but says the following which is appropriately sourced, page 281, "Brazil is a very extensive region [...] after being long held as a Portuguese colony, has of late, by peculiar circumstances, been formed into a separate empire.[...] In the interior, this Empire borders on every side upon the former provinces of Spain.[...] The dimensions of this immense range of territory may be taken from about 4º N to 23º S lat. and from about 35º to 73º W lon. This will give about 2500 miles of extreme length, and about the same in extreme breadth. The area of the whole has been estimated at upwards 3,000,000 square miles (note: 3,000,000 square miles give circa 7,800,000 km^2, much closer to the actual value, and completely wrecks the assertion by Taagepera that Brazil "doubled its territory size' by 1900" Murray, Wallace and Jameson In their work 'The Encyclopædia Of Geography: Comprising A Complete Description Of The Earth, Physical, Statistical, Civil, And Political', Volume 3, published in 1837, only just 12-15 years after Brazil became independent, Murray, Wallace and Jameson, say the same as Mitchell (from which we can conclude Mitchell based himself on them), quoting (page 223)"Brazil is a very extensive region [...] after being long held as a Portuguese colony, has of late, by peculiar circumstances, been formed into a separate empire.[...] In the interior, this Empire borders on every side upon the former provinces of Spain.[...] The dimensions of this immense range of territory may be taken from about 4º N to 23º S lat. and from about 35º to 73º W lon. This will give about 2500 miles of extreme length, and about the same in extreme breadth. The area of the whole has been estimated at upwards 3,000,000 square miles", also, on page 222 (fig. 965) a map is provided. This 1837 encyclopedia discredits Taagepera's values for Portugal and Brazil Barman Quoting, from page 12: "Portuguese America, as defined by the treaty of San Ildefonso, signed with Spain in 1777, encompassed territories of nearly 3 million square miles" Pádua Quoting, from page 93: "Unlike the United States, Brazil did not need to expand by way of treaty negotiations or military conquests to obtain an enormous expanse of Territory. The country received as its political inheritance, at least technically speaking, all of Portuguese America, a territory that already encompassed a space that was nearly the country's current size". Gordon Pinkerton Published in 1807 therefore at a time when the Brazilian territory was still a part of Portugal, and I quote from page 707, "The dominions of South America, held by the small kingdom of Portugal, extend from the frontier at the French Guiana, lat. 1º 30' to port St. Pedro, S. lat 32º, being 33 degrees and a half, or 2000 g. miles: and the breadth, from Cape St. Roque to the furthest Portuguese settlement on the river of Amazons, called Sapatinga, equals, if it do not exceed, that extent*" and the footnote reads: "Da Cunha computes the length of Portuguese possessions, from the river of Pinzon in the North, to the river of San Pedro S at five hundred Portuguese leagues, that is two thousand B. miles, but as there are eighteen Portuguese leagues to the degree, each is not equal, like the Spanish, to four B. miles. He computes the breadth as of the same extent from Cape St Roque to the most western missions" Usually historians prefer contemporary sources to use as primary sources to settle disputes. In this case we have an encyclopedia describing the size of South America that was 'held' by the Kingdom of Portugal. It proceeds to describing the various states, including the State of Grão-Pará and Maranhão. Bridges In his light reading book 'Man Facts: Fascinating Things Every Bloke Should Know', which provides lists on a huge range of topics, in the History section, Bridges gives the value 10.4 million km^2 for Portugal. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mura_people (wikipedia) I know wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia, but there was a war between Portuguese settlers and this people in the 18th century. It is difficult to not accept Portuguese control in this area when faced with facts like these. Furthermore, The Amazon basin was not unorganized territory. Like said before the Brazilian territory that today is part of the Amazon basin was previously the State of Grão-Pará and Maranhão, and was a self-run polity with capital in the city of Belém. The society was organized: there were missions (Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans), that spread around the Amazon basin and created what is still today called the 'Aldeias' where Portuguese missionaries lived together with Christianized natives. The Portuguese military also built many forts along the river to secure those areas and founded several cities. Funilly enough, most of this cities actually correspond to the names of Portuguese cities (Santarém, Obidos, Alenquer, etc.), the only area of Brazil where it is so. Here is some examples of cities in the Amazon basin which were founded in colonial Brazil: Barcelos,_Amazonas (founded 1758) Santarém,_Pará (founded 1661) Alenquer,_Pará (founded 1758) Borba,_Amazonas (founded 1728) São_Paulo_de_Olivença (founded 1689) São_Gabriel_da_Cachoeira (founded 1668) Ant here is a list of forts built around the Border of colonial Brazil as defined by the Treaty of Santo Ildefonso, and described in the book Colonial Brazil by Leslie Bethell, Bethell, Leslie (1987). Colonial Brazil (PDF). Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521341271.</ref>: Fort_Macapá Fort_Gurupá Fort_Tapajós Fort_Óbidos Fort_São_José_do_Rio_Negro Fort_São_Joaquim Fort_São_José_das_Marabitanas Fort_São_Gabriel_da_Cachoeira Fort_São_Francisco_Xavier_de_Itabatinga Fort_Bragança Fort_Príncipe_da_Beira So as you can see, this is clearly not undefined territory. The ihnabitants of this area were subjects of the Crown of Portugal, and later of the Crown of Brazil, and are today part of the Federation of Brazilian States. It is not true that the Amazon was unhinhabited in 1822, or that this area was only colonized during the rubber boom. Furthermore I'd like to clarify that there was already an economy in this region in colonial times. As you can see in the historical Atlas which was the official book of the Brazilian Education ministry in 1977 Albuquerque, Manuel Maurício de (1977). Atlas histórico-escolar do Ministério da Educação (in Portuguese) (PDF). Rio de Janeiro: Ministério da Educação do Brasil (Brazilian Education Ministry). p. 161., page 24 of this book. Map on page 24 refers to the main source of income of these regions in the 18th century whereas the other one refers to the major source in the 19th century during the period of the Brazilian Empire(1822-1889). And yes the pink in the former refers to 'drugs', plants that were used by botanist to produce remedies, etc. and in the latter it refers to rubber. On page 20 you have another map showing the main source of income in the 17th century also highlighting the Amazon basin. On page 18 you have a mpa highlighting the 'bandeiras' which were organized militias of settlers who set out to expand territory and conquer it for the Portuguese Crown. Most of the left from the São Paulo region. There is an arrow showing how this expansion was also made towards the Amazon. On page 18 you have a map highlighting the forts built and Aldeias settled by the Portuguese along the Amazon river. It is in fact more comprehensive that Bethell. And then we have the official documents from the treaties: The first source: "...this first edition of the famous Treaty of Madrid is rare and sought after. All the essential documents for the study of the question of Brazil's frontiers are assembled in one volume."(Moraes):https://archive.org/details/tratadodelimites00port/page/n6/mode/1up The second source: "Manuscript copy of the Treaty of Madrid between John V of Portugal and Ferdinand VI of Spain, signed on January 13, 1750, which sought to establish new borders between the South American possessions of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires, granting much of modern-day Brazil to Portugal. Presumably a copy of only the Portuguese text of the treaty which was printed by Joseph da Costa Coimbra in Lisbon in 1750 which had both the Spanish and Portuguese texts of the treaty":https://archive.org/details/tratadodelimites00port_0/page/n5/mode/1up The third source:(google translated) "This book shows a background on the problem of the boundaries between Spanish America and Portuguese America. The problem already begins in Tordesillas, the landmarks were set based on knowledge of geography and astronomy that was not very precise (the terms of the treatment were vague and indefinite, as the lands were yet to be discovered). Some problem that happened during the Iberian Union (1580 to 1640): treaty treated dead letter, poisoned, with a confusion, a Spain became as much of the eastern part, as of the lands in the western part of the meridian of Tordesillas. From 1640, Portugal and Spain went through violent wars, which can be resolved in 1750, in Madrid, where the limits were definitively registered, by the principle of possible use. With the performance of diplomat Alexandre de Gusmão, a trusted man of the Marquis of Pombal, the territory of Portuguese America has been expanded 3 times since the original size established in Tordesillas, defining the geographical contours of Brazil today":https://archive.org/details/AlexandreDeGusmaoEOTratadoDe1750/page/n2/mode/1up What should be done in this case, in my opinion would be: Either remove the value of 5.5 million km2 completely or replace it with the value of 10.4 million km2. it is strange that the value of 5.5 million km2 still prevails here. This shows that something is not right and this page is managed by a handful of users. BestaMontalegre (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC) References

For the benefit of anyone reading this in the future, I'll briefly (well, as briefly as I can) summarise my points.

At its core, this is a sourcing issue. The stable version of the article uses this source, a peer-reviewed scientific article by Rein Taagepera specifically about the territorial extents of historical empires that gives a figure of 5.5 million km² in 1820. Some other sources have been suggested as alternatives, none of which are peer-reviewed, many of which do not provide usable figures for the area (i.e. explicit figures for the area in a specified year), and some of which explicitly refer to the de jure territorial extent as opposed to the de facto one.

That the entirety of Brazil was claimed by Portugal and internationally recognized as part of it is not in contention, but it is irrelevant (and consequently the Treaty of Madrid (13 January 1750) and others are as well). Neither territorial claims nor international recognition is the criterion used for determining the area here, effective control is. There are good reasons for this – territorial claims can include areas that are not parts of the political entities that claim them in a way that corresponds to what we think of as being part of a country/empire/polity (an extreme example of this is that the Aerican Empire claims half of Pluto, but another less extreme modern-day example is that both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China claim both Mainland China and the island of Taiwan), and international recognition is a concept that is completely anachronistic for a large portion of the entries on the list (such as the Mongol Empire and the Roman Empire). And of course, effective control is the the criterion used by a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities (in other words, we're following the WP:BESTSOURCES with regards to which criterion to use).

There have been attempts, using circumstantial evidence, to prove that the entirety of Brazil was effectively controlled by Portugal in the early 1800s (which would mean that the long-used figure of 5.5 million km² is wrong, since it is explicitly based on approximately half of modern-day Brazil being under effective Portuguese control in 1820). I do not find these arguments particularly persuasive. The arguments rely mostly on the existence of cities and forts in the Amazon basin, which does not prove that the entire Amazon basin was effectively controlled – it's quite a leap (and indeed, WP:OR) to assume that all the territory between the cities and forts was effectively controlled. They also rely, to a lesser extent, on the existence of economic activity in the Amazon basin. This of course demonstrates that the Amazon basin was not entirely unexplored, but it does not prove that the Portuguese had effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil. Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources. There are other sources that support the notion of the area claimed being significantly different from the area effectively controlled, such as this one which says [I]n 1800 Europe and its possessions, including former colonies, claimed title to about 55 percent of the earth's land surface: Europe, North and South America, most of India, and small sections along the coast of Africa. But much of this was merely claimed; effective control existed over a little less than 35 percent, most of which consisted of Europe itself.

The source that has most often been proposed as an alternative to the one by Taagepera is the book Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power by Zbigniew Brzezinski. However, Brzezinski's work is a book about 21st century geopolitics that also happens to have a table of historical empires' greatest extents, while citing no sources and providing no information about how the figures were arrived at. The table is about a completely different subject than the rest of the book and as far as I have been able to tell, the table isn't commented on in the text and the subject of historical polities' territorial extents is not mentioned anywhere else in the book. That is about as clear as it gets with regards to WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. If one is unable to tell from that that Taagepera's work—a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology—is by far more WP:RELIABLE for the subject of the territorial extents of historical polities, I don't know what to say. The difference in reliability is so great that even citing both would become a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

In summary, we have a limited number of valid options here:

1. Keep the figure of 5.5 million km², as it is sourced to a peer-reviewed source specifically about the territorial extents of historical empires.
2. Remove the entry altogether, if WP:CONSENSUS determines that the article is better without it per WP:VNOTSUFF.
3. If an equal-quality source (which basically means a peer-reviewed source specifically about this topic) which provides a different figure can be located, we can add it in addition to the 5.5 million km² one and present a range of estimates (this is currently done for multiple entries on the list, such as the Maurya Empire).
4. If a higher-quality source (which basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective) or an abundance of independent equal-quality sources can be located (such that Taagepera's view would constitute such a small minority that presenting it would be WP:UNDUE), we can replace the 5.5 million km² figure with the one found in the higher-quality source/abundance of independent equal-quality sources.

What's not valid is replacing the 5.5 million km² figure with another figure based on a lower-quality source (because that violates WP:BESTSOURCES) or adding a range of estimates that are based on sources of unequal quality (because that creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE). With the sources that have been presented so far, the only options available to us right now are the first two. I favour the first one – keeping the 5.5 million km² figure. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes to the area of the Portuguese Empire to 11.4 million square kilometers

The editor who made this edit has since been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho. TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hugo Refachinho: The changes you made to the area of the Portuguese Empire are not supported by the sources you cited in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research. You also removed information that actually does comply with those policies, as it was sourced to just about the highest-quality source we can get – a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. For these reasons and others, I restored the earlier version and asked you to discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. Instead, you reinstated your changes (though to be fair there were some minor differences from the changes you had made earlier). Please engage in discussion here instead of WP:Edit warring. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Comments as "another figure based on a lower-quality source " thats your point of view. Where are Charles Boxer and all the Historians whit Phds that published works that I already wrote here? Justify why Taagepera's perspective is a higher-quality source and the other that I mention are not. One writer in the world againts all the others, maybe that me that i dont red them well.Please read all the references, because there is a big ignorance in history and where the Portuguese where in the World and for how long. Hugo Refachinho (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC) As I said before, Taagepera's work is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. The sources you've cited do not match that description. You also didn't cite Boxer – you cited his bibliography. What source are you referring to, and what does it say, exactly? Where does the 11.4 million km2 figure come from? TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Hugo Refachinho: You've kept editing the article, but you didn't answer my questions: What source are you referring to, and what does it say, exactly? Where does the 11.4 million km2 figure come from? TompaDompa (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC) This is in fact highly dubious. Even assuming that they had complete control over modern-day Portugal, Brazil, Uruguay, Angola, and Mozambique in 1815 (and it's uncontroversial that they didn't with regards to the last two), that only adds up to 10.8 million km2. TompaDompa (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR analysis of sources in the article

The editor who made this edit has since been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved this addition to the article by Hugo Refachinho to the talk page. The reason is that it is a gross and blatant WP:OR violation – this analysis/evaluation of the sources was made by the editor who added it. In the document the author leaves several doubts whit question marks : (pag.28) in areas like Brazil, the author doubts the area in m2 "5.5?" , without citing the sources where the conclusion and math was reached that the area controlled by settlers "would be more or less half of Brazil : "independence from Portugal; about one half of the present area effectively controlled bysettlers" (pag. 27) Error about Portugal _ "1500 .13? E _ Overseas expansion begins" _The real overseas expansion of Portugal begun in 1415, in 1500 Portugal already was in India Africa and SouthAmerica. (pag. 29) About expansion and area inland the author has doubts whit question marks " 1780 _4.0? LK,E_Penetration inland" The real Brazil , Africa, and Asia, explorations inland where made in late 16th and beginning of the 17th century. "1900 8.51 Full control of present territory " ( the author presentes no references) In the case of Russia and the Mongol dynasty, the author does not explain the criterion of the calculated area assuming that in the Siberian steppes all areas were completely controlled by settlers or militarily. I don't doubt that the intentions were good, but this is becoming a WP:CIR problem. For one thing, the maintenance tags are completely nonsensical – they follow direct quotes from the source yet claim that it fails WP:Verification (it is technically correct that the cited source did not verify this content, but that is only because they accidentally cited this source instead of this source). For another, it demonstrates a rather concerning lack of understanding of how sources are used on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC) References

Comment by Ygglow

A consensus must be made on this subject, there's a clear dispute on the matter of whose sources are legit, on one side we have one peer-reviewed article from Rein Taagepera and in the other side we have a novel from portuguese historians João Paulo Oliveira e Costa , José Damião Rodrigues and Pedro Aires Oliveira , another novel from historians and geographers Filipe Themudo Barata , Walter Rossa , Renata Malcher Araujo , José Manuel Fernandes , the organization Serviço Internacional da Fundação , another historian José Mattoso , Mafalda Soares da Cunha (university teacher and member of Comissão para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos which is an organization that studies that era of discoveries. Joining this two novels is this article from the minister of agriculture,industry and commerce written in 1920 which makes an extensive analysis on the evolution of the historical brazilian territory (pre-independence) where you can clearly see the portuguese empire's extension in that region.

So I ask the community here as to how we deal when two peer-reviewed sources contradict eachother? To me it looks like some sources are being ignored because they are not in english. This is an english wikipedia so I understand the "logic" in putting english sources above portuguese/brazilian sources but someone has to come here and organize this.

And I hope we don't start going on a tangent on users that are doing sockpuppetry or any type of activity that goes against the guidelines of wikipedia because I was wrongfully accused before and I hope this does not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygglow (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ygglow and Hugo Refachinho: What do those sources say, exactly? Where does the 11.4 million km² figure come from? TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There are no figures , but the size was bigger than the Brazilian Empire.The brazilian empire inherited all its territories from portugal including Cisplatina (Uruguay) which wpuld eventually gain independece from the Brazilian empire. The only way to solve this is to make the figure an estimate.Look at the size of the third portuguese empire, it's the size of the portuguese african colonies + some other asian ones like goa,diu,macau timor leste ,etc. The best alternative is to use the estimate between the size of the brazilian empire and the added size of the third portuguese empire so between 8.337 million km2 and 10.547 million km2. The empire was in ever constant growth but it peaked right before the independence of brazil.

The same problem occurs with the spanish empire which "held" territory in north america almost touching alaska but some of it may or may not be recognized or accounted for in the figure. Ygglow (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What you are describing is WP:Original research. I'm restoring the 5.5 million km² figure. TompaDompa (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You just don't know when to quit. TompaDompa come on, if we have proof that Portugal had effective control over Half of Brazil at the time of it's independence why trust the work of Taagepera but not Brzezinski? We should change the 5.5 km2 to the 10.4km2 of Brzenzinski if we have clear proof that Brazil was actually part of Portugal. We have proof right in front of you, what is wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.247.82 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have explained why Brzezinski is not a reliable source for this particular piece of information per WP:RSCONTEXT above. Read the paragraph that begins The source that has most often [...]. TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's pretend you're right and Brzezinski is not a reliable source. Are you ok with the fact that this page is spreading a false information? We have several sources that support Brzezinski estimate (and we have 0 that support Taagepera, other than his work itself), because of this reason, Brzezinski source should be the selected one at least for the portuguese empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.247.82 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What you mean to say is that there are sources that by your reckoning support Brzezinski's estimate (because you're making assumptions about how Brzezinski arrived at that figure – Brzezinski makes no attempts to explain that). It's also not entirely accurate to say that we have no other sources that support Taagepera (by the same logic) – as I have noted above, there is also this source, which says [I]n 1800 Europe and its possessions, including former colonies, claimed title to about 55 percent of the earth's land surface: Europe, North and South America, most of India, and small sections along the coast of Africa. But much of this was merely claimed; effective control existed over a little less than 35 percent, most of which consisted of Europe itself. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Brzezinski did not show how he came to the figures of any empire because it was not his focus. But by common sense, he obviously included Brazil, parts of Angola and Mozambique and some colonies in Asia. And for the article that supposedly supports what Taagepera says, it actually contradicts the size of many empires on the list such as English, Spanish and French, (And of course the mongolian which obivously hadn't an effective control in siberian steppes) which according to that sentence these empires would have to reduce their size considerably. But even so, that phrase cannot be an example of the Portuguese empire as has already been shown here Portugal had effective control over half of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.247.82 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Brzezinski did not show how he came to the figures of any empire because it was not his focus. Precisely. That's why Brzezinski is not a WP:RELIABLE source for this information per WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There are cases and cases. In this case the one who who didn't show how he reached his figure is right. I don't get you, isn't wikipedia supposed to be a factual source? There is clearly proof that Taagepera is wrong. Therefore as much reliable his source is, that stament ("effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822") is not right. If you don't want to reeplace with the 10.4km2 we should at least delete the 5.5m km2 figure. But tthat's not up to you to decide, there is no single user here that suports your opinion. 109.48.247.82 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, removing the entry entirely is an option. In fact, I mentioned it as one of the limited number of valid options above (Remove the entry altogether, if WP:CONSENSUS determines that the article is better without it per WP:VNOTSUFF.). You and I disagree about whether that is what we should do. As I've said before, if more people join the discussion maybe some kind of WP:CONSENSUS will emerge. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We have 2 more other people trying to reach a consensus with you. You keep saying more people, but this is all reaching a consensus with and only you. 109.48.247.82 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen those two editors weighing in on the issue of keeping the 5.5 million km² figure versus removing the entry altogether, but I welcome their input. TompaDompa (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the IP has been blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive#24 August 2020. I have added strikethrough markup to their comments. TompaDompa (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your reference has been contradicted by multiple ones, what we have right now is conflicting sources : http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CONFLICTING&redirect=no but you are putting one source above many others.

Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the current sources.

Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect.

Do not cite (the lack of) official announcements by the subject of the article or people related to it as a reason why a source is unreliable.

Ygglow (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygglow (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As the essay WP:CONFLICTING says, This happens, when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts. Do you have a source of equal quality to Taagepera's article that provides a different figure for the peak area of the Portuguese Empire (along with the year)? If so, we'll add that. I suggested this above (If an equal-quality source (which basically means a peer-reviewed source specifically about this topic) which provides a different figure can be located, we can add it in addition to the 5.5 million km² one and present a range of estimates (this is currently done for multiple entries on the list, such as the Maurya Empire).). TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That source literally has a (?) in front of the figure, and even if it's peer-reviewed where are the notes that detail methodology behind the article on that particular value?

Ygglow (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

The source says:

Portugal

Date	Area	Source	Notes
1820	5.5	LK,E	Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique
1822	.5		Brazil independent

There is no question mark next to the 5.5 million km² figure. The methodological notes say Most areas are measured on historical maps—see sources at the end of the Appendix. The atlas in question here is Großer historischer Weltatlas. T. 3, Neuzeit by Engel. I actually looked that atlas up, and it did indeed assign roughly half of Brazil to Portugal in the relevant time period, while leaving the other half blank. That's on page 30, if you have access to a copy and want to check it out for yourself. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So Rein's sources come from an atlas made in 1981 by Josef Engel, Walter Ernst Zeeden, Ulrich Noack, Theodor Schieder and Fritz Wagner. If you have that atlas, could you please tell me where they got this information on the figure? I want to trace the breadcrumbs all the way back to its original source because as it stands, there's 1 source against a couple of others and this source does not seem to substantiate itself with contemporary sources (of the late 1700s/early 1800s).

Ygglow (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

I don't have it, I found it at a library once. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest, though. TompaDompa (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to repeat myself, the figure about the size of the portuguese empire in this article (list of largest empires) is sourced by an article from Rein Taagepera, who got that information from an atlas written in 1981 by a couple of german writters. The obvious question here is "where did these german writters got the portuguese data from? Was it original research on their part or did they get it from another source, eventually you will trace it back to the original source.

15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

Well, you're free to try to track it down. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it would be of interest to you since you're the one using Rein's sources even though you did not analyze what his own sources were and you seem to almost feel like they are irrefutable.

Ygglow (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

TompaDompa, what is your opinion on this wikipedia articles ? 1-http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Treaty_of_Madrid_(13_January_1750) 2-http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/First_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso

Ygglow (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but I'll refer to what I said earlier: That the entirety of Brazil was claimed by Portugal and internationally recognized as part of it is not in contention, but it is irrelevant (and consequently the Treaty of Madrid (13 January 1750) and others are as well). Neither territorial claims nor international recognition is the criterion used for determining the area here, effective control is. TompaDompa (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, and why are you using Rein Taagepera's own interpretation of what the size of an empire is : an empire as any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives  ? How many of the empires that are on the list have extensive areas of the world claimed but not effectively held with military or taxation structures but are still represented in the list with their claimed land size? In any case the portuguese did explore and created cities in regions in the interior of Brazil, take the cities of Parintins in 1796, by José Pedro Cordovil , Itacoatiara in 1759 , Tefé in 1759 by the commandant Joaquim de Mello da Povoas , Manaus on the 1600s.

All of the dates are public knowledge. Does Rein's work take this into account?

01:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

As I said above, There are good reasons for this – territorial claims can include areas that are not parts of the political entities that claim them in a way that corresponds to what we think of as being part of a country/empire/polity (an extreme example of this is that the Aerican Empire claims half of Pluto, but another less extreme modern-day example is that both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China claim both Mainland China and the island of Taiwan), and international recognition is a concept that is completely anachronistic for a large portion of the entries on the list (such as the Mongol Empire and the Roman Empire). And of course, effective control is the the criterion used by a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities (in other words, we're following the WP:BESTSOURCES with regards to which criterion to use). TompaDompa (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparing the first global empire with a micro nation founded in 1987 that as never been recognized by any other sovereign state as existing must be a bad joke. 109.48.217.186 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it's an extreme example. There are however plenty of examples of two different countries/empires/polities claiming the same area, as in my PRC/ROC example. TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for WP:BLOCKEVASION, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive#02 September 2020. TompaDompa (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, taking in account Rein's definition of an empire's size that you support :"an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives" ,the territory in the maps that were shown to you such as this one are maps that were made in the treaties of Madrid and Ildefonso and they were based on the westward expansion made by Bandeirantes , aren't Bandeirantes counted as military presence? I have also pointed out that many cities were formed in the regions of the Amazonas and they were definitely taxed by the authorities...

--Ygglow (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

I'll refer to what I said earlier:

There have been attempts, using circumstantial evidence, to prove that the entirety of Brazil was effectively controlled by Portugal in the early 1800s (which would mean that the long-used figure of 5.5 million km² is wrong, since it is explicitly based on approximately half of modern-day Brazil being under effective Portuguese control in 1820). I do not find these arguments particularly persuasive. The arguments rely mostly on the existence of cities and forts in the Amazon basin, which does not prove that the entire Amazon basin was effectively controlled – it's quite a leap (and indeed, WP:OR) to assume that all the territory between the cities and forts was effectively controlled. They also rely, to a lesser extent, on the existence of economic activity in the Amazon basin. This of course demonstrates that the Amazon basin was not entirely unexplored, but it does not prove that the Portuguese had effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil. Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources. There are other sources that support the notion of the area claimed being significantly different from the area effectively controlled, such as this one which says [I]n 1800 Europe and its possessions, including former colonies, claimed title to about 55 percent of the earth's land surface: Europe, North and South America, most of India, and small sections along the coast of Africa. But much of this was merely claimed; effective control existed over a little less than 35 percent, most of which consisted of Europe itself.

But really, the bottom line is this: You have not presented any WP:RELIABLE source which provides usable figures for the area (i.e. explicit figures for the area in a specified year). TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no figures for a specific year because no cartography was made before the independence of brazil that indicated a figure of the size of the territory in control. You want to make a list of the largest empires but you have to understand that this values are all estimates and you can make an estimate on the size of the Second Portuguese Empire by adding the size of the Brazilian Empire with the size of the Third Portuguese Empire, making a range (for example Xkm2-Ykm2)

And to further add, we should start a discussion of the level of Rein's article's legitimacy at least when it comes to the Portuguese Empires size, I am not disputing the reliability of his work on other parts but in this specific area this needs to be adressed because some people might not take your list seriously if you decide that for the portuguese empire's size, sources from an Estonian historian are given more interest than from contemporary(pre-brazilian independence) and modern portuguese historians.

I think it would be of interest to everybody if we could get Rein's input on the situation.

Ygglow (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow

Indeed all area figures are estimates, but they are (and must be) estimates made by WP:RELIABLE sources. We can't add an area figure based on an estimate that we have made ourselves, because that violates Wikipedia's core content policy WP:No original research. As for why sources from modern historians are given more interest than contemporary sources, I'll refer you to WP:PRIMARY. With regards to other modern sources, the explanation is that the source currently in use is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities that provides explicit figures for the area in a specified year – if other sources exist that match that description, those should be added as well. I've made attempts to locate other such sources, but so far without success. TompaDompa (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But the problem is that this list's legitimacy hangs on reliability of Rein's article and his interpretation of what an empire is and how its land size should be measured when there are countless ways to interpret an empire's size from various different historians and cartographers. Why does he think that we shouldn't count an empire's claims on a particular area part of its empire when it's clearly recognized by the world community and its neighbours through the form of treaties? I understand that some empires in the list are so primitive that treaties and recognition from other nations does not exist but we can perfectly accept that reality, for example the mongol empire was mostly nomadic and we cannot seriously recognize that the mongols held all this territory territory at the same time and with the same level of effective control. I urge you to instead of using Rein's singular interpretation, you find more sources from other historians, cartographers and political scientists to cement this notion that an empire's land size is measured by how much effective control(only through military and taxation influence on a territory).

Ygglow (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But the problem is that this list's legitimacy hangs on reliability of Rein's article and his interpretation of what an empire is and how its land size should be measured when there are countless ways to interpret an empire's size from various different historians and cartographers. It's a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. That's about as WP:RELIABLE as it gets. The source does not become less reliable because you disagree with the criteria it uses.

I understand that some empires in the list are so primitive that treaties and recognition from other nations does not exist It's not about some empires being primitive, it's about international recognition being a fairly recent concept. In order to not compare apples to oranges, we need to use the same definitions and criteria for all the entries on the list.

I urge you to instead of using Rein's singular interpretation, you find more sources from other historians, cartographers and political scientists [...] I have, as a matter of fact, tried. I have tried to find scholarly sources that disagree with Taagepera about the extent of the Portuguese Empire, but so far without success. I have tried to find scholarly sources that disagree with Taagepera about how to define and assess the size of an empire, but so far without success. What I have found is a large number of sources that cite Taagepera and use his figures, which arguably indicates agreement with the basic premises of his research (because they wouldn't use his figures if they thought the methods that were used to arrive at them were bunk). Every now and then, I come up with a new constellation of keywords to search for additional sources with (and although I have so far been unable to find sources that are useful for this particular purpose, it has not been a complete waste of time as I have found a fairly large number of sources that have been useful for improving the article in other ways [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). If you think more sources are needed, feel free to conduct searches of your own. Perhaps you'll be able to find something I have not. TompaDompa (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a peer-reviewed scientific article, true. However, you can make a list of largest empires with any given interpretation of what the land size of an empire is. Therefore, you can make one for empires with "effective control" on their territories and one with empires where with the "claimed" and "possible effective control" territories . Also Rein did not do research on the portuguese empire's values, he used another source, which you and I have mentioned before, the Großer historischer Weltatlas. T. 3, Neuzeit We don't even know where did the german historians/cartographers get the maps and values for the portuguese empire.

So what do you think of my idea, I don't think that it is redudant to make 2 lists for two different interpretations. Ygglow (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on what source(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and come to think of it, I did find a source by a political scientist that reinforces the notion that effective control is what matters, namely the book Empires by Michael W. Doyle, which defines empire as "effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society". TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

´ And does that definition corroborate Rein's? It does not say that effective control means military presence or taxation applications

2001:8A0:E015:F000:1D32:B07F:E09B:B243 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I could point you to this source, which discusses military and taxation as the factors determining the size, but that would kind of be missing the point. The point here is that the current criteria are based on a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. The arguments that we should use different criteria have all been based on nothing more than personal preference. Where are the WP:RELIABLE sources that that say a different set of criteria should be used? I have yet to see them cited. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not an historian, cartographer or a political scientist and I have no time to be looking for sources on the matter as of right now, so it is fustrating to me that we cannot get WP:RELIABLE sources for a particular criteria. It's just nonsensical that the Brazilian Empire is bigger on this list than the Second portuguese empire because during the Brazilian Empire's period, there was an effort to do a good cartography and administration of the land while the Portuguese had effectively claimed territory there which was recognized by the spanish and the international community. We are just disputing technicalities here and this is pretty common in wikipedia for sure but I believe that we should have two lists for two criterias. I am confident I can find a WP:RELIABLE for the criteria of "internationally recognized claimed" territory being counted as part of an empire. This adventure on wikipedia has been cute, I learnt about the rules of wikipedia and how to sign my name :D Ygglow (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

New

We should discuss which definition of an empire we should apply and whether or not Rein Taagepera's one should be the only one used for this article since the definitions mutually exclude eachother.

Michael W. Doyle has defined empire as "effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society".

Tom Nairn and Paul James define empires as polities that "extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value".

Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign"

Alot of the empires on this article have land size attributed to them from this particular source however the article published by Rein is mostly not original work, it's a compilation of information from other sources, and the validity of this sources have not been sucessfully ascertained by the person who has built most of the this wikipedia article.

We should discuss, also, whether or not the information in the article or the article itself is an object of importance or a source of possible misinformation for the community as it stands because it seems to follow a tendentious path of use of a particular one source.

Ygglow (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How do the definitions mutually exclude eachother? They differ, sure, but how does Doyle's definition exclude Taagepera's (or vice versa)?

the article published by Rein is mostly not original work, it's a compilation of information from other sources – What you're describing here is that this is a WP:SECONDARY source. That is in fact precisely what we want to base Wikipedia articles on. You go on to say that the validity of this sources have not been sucessfully ascertained by the person who has built most of the this wikipedia article, but Wikipedia's editors are not supposed to do that; WP:PRIMARY explicitly says Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

I don't quite understand what you mean by We should discuss, also, whether or not the information in the article or the article itself is an object of importance or a source of possible misinformation for the community as it stands because it seems to follow a tendentious path of use of a particular one source. Would you care to elaborate? TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The definitions differ on what an empire is and because of that, on what the land size of an empire is aswell. What we are doing here is just taking Rein's definition as the most legitimate because it possibly fits the narrative that a author of this wikipedia article tries to push. We do not know if the sources that Rein's article is based on are primary sources, they might also be secondary sources. Also, WP:NOTGOODSOURCE and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. When it comes to the Second Portuguese Empire's size subject, Rein's article only mentions a number "5.5" followed by references to 2 works, one is "ENGEL, J., ED. (1953–1962) Grosser historischer Weltatlas.Vol. I (1953) up to AD 565; Vol. II (1958) 600–1527; Vol. III (1962) from 1477 on. München: Bayerische Schulbuch-Verlag." and the other I cannot tell from the references list. It would be better to seek this other source and see how it relates to the second portuguese empire land size. Rein's work is peer-reviewed and I understand the policy in WP:PRIMARY :Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. however we could perhaps use this primary source (or secondary source, as we do not know where it falls right now) as it was also peer-reviewed and is reliable.

What I wrote in this phrase We should discuss, also, whether or not the information in the article or the article itself is an object of importance or a source of possible misinformation for the community as it stands because it seems to follow a tendentious path of use of a particular one source is readable no? The article's legitimacy is based all on one source when there are other sources that differ in definition. Some authors frenetically want the article to exist but we should really question how you can make a list when there's secondary and primary sources that routinely provide different information on the matter of land size of a particular empire.

Ygglow (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You say that The definitions differ on what an empire is and because of that, on what the land size of an empire is aswell, but the second part doesn't actually necessarily follow from the first part. What definition we use for "empire" determines which political entities we include on this list, not what size we attribute to them.

What we are doing here is just taking Rein's definition as the most legitimate because it possibly fits the narrative that a author of this wikipedia article tries to push – I would really like you to clarify what you mean by that, exactly.

I believe that the other source is Atlas zur Weltgeschichte by Karl Leonhardt. I'm not sure how we would use atlases in a way that is compliant with WP:OR here.

Are you suggesting that the article be nominated for deletion? If you are, please note that it has been six times in the past, most recently in 2018, and the result has been to keep the article each time. I really don't see why there's secondary and primary sources that routinely provide different information on the matter of land size of a particular empire would be a reason to scrap the list – when the sources are not of equal quality we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, and when they are we present a range. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean the Atlas zur Weltgeschichte by Karl Leonhardt, I mean the ENGEL, J., ED. (1953–1962) Grosser historischer Weltatlas.Vol. I (1953) up to AD 565; Vol. II (1958) 600–1527; Vol. III (1962) from 1477 on. München: Bayerische Schulbuch-Verlag.

All the list should follow one source, since the different sources use different methodology to calculate the land size. IF you can find one that does it for every empire, that would be interesting.

Ygglow (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that basically what Taagepera is, one source that uses the same methodology for all the major empires? TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Are they all from Rein Taagapera?

Ygglow (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not all of them (not the Empire of Japan, for instance), but the majority. Taagepera published several articles on this topic: [11][12][13][14]. TompaDompa (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Mark Boron

Self-admitted WP:MEATPUPPET, see diff. TompaDompa (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir TompaDompa I hope to help in the conclusion of the Portuguese Empire :-) The ancient sources and everything written by the Portuguese ancestors, must be taken into account, because there is no more reliable source than that for the history of the Portuguese Empire. The history is made by maps and ancient documents that were left by the ancestors. The English source is only reliable for the British Empire, because you do not have access to Portuguese and historic documents, is normal, so we are here to help you :-) so you have to respect the sources of other countries, in this case the Portuguese sources. Therefore, I, as a historian and geographer, suggest that you change this immediately. You have to take into account the sources of other countries, you cannot think that you are the owner of reason, with all due respect, but that is not correct. English and Portuguese are longtime friends, so respect the sources in Portugal, would you like us not to respect your sources? No, so I think we're clear. So, please, make a more fair change, We want to improve your content so that it becomes more reliable, that's why we are here, to help you :-) Regards, Hope this helps :-) (Mark Boron (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)); The ancient sources and everything written by the Portuguese ancestors, must be taken into account, because there is no more reliable source than that for the history of the Portuguese Empire. That's actually incorrect when it comes to how sources are used on Wikipedia, though it would have been correct if we were writing e.g. an academic paper or an essay for university. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such relies primarily on WP:SECONDARY sources. This is in contrast to academics, who mostly use WP:PRIMARY sources (at least when possible). Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. In other words, WP:PRIMARY sources are not the ideal sources to use for Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY sources are. Moreover, All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. What you're arguing here is, in essence, that Wikipedia should be a WP:SECONDARY source. But Wikipedia is not a secondary source, nor is it meant to be – it is a WP:TERTIARY source. To quote WP:PRIMARY, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, it means we do not make our own assessments of what the area was based on maps or other sources, but rather the figure itself must be explicitly stated by the source. TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Ok Sir TompaDompa, Thanks for clarifying what kind of fonts you prefer, Of course I understand, I respect your options, and I know you took those options because you were unaware of these facts that I am going to tell you now, but let's go by parts, first this question that Portugal only goted half of Brazil is incorrect, and it is the first thing that you have to change.Here is the list of the formation of the states of Brazil and dates, until independence "link": http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Provinces_of_Brazil And then here is the list of Portuguese governors from those same states of Brazil until independence "link":http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Categoria:Governadores_das_Províncias_do_Brasil_(Colônia) And then there are the Emperors / Governors general of Brazil "link":http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lista_de_governadores_do_Brasil_colonial Until the United Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves, in which Rio de Janeiro on Brazil became the capital of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire and of course Capital of Brazil"link": http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reino_Unido_de_Portugal,_Brasil_e_Algarves In fact, Portugal only did not have the “State of Acre” in the United Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves, so the data are as follows: Current size of Brazil - 8,515,767,049 km² Size of Brazil, less the State of Acre, and less the country Uruguay - 8 351 643,311 km² Size of Brazil with the current Cisplatin of Uruguay with Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves - 8 527 858.311 km² Size of the State of Acre - 164 123,738 km² link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acre Size of the country Uruguay - 176,215 km² link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Uruguai Size of The country Brazil - 8,515,767,049 km² http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brasil In fact, even with the conquests of the Empire of Brazil with the Portuguese King and later his son, the value of Colonial Brazil, it remains within those values ​​- 8 527 858,311 km² or 8 351 643,311 km² because the Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves had Uruguay , but there was no State of Acre, after of independence there were states that were divided into the same states, some increased 300 km and another 200 km, so the values ​​are within this, this is the greatest proof of effective control, when a country has an emperor, state governors and general governors, and it also formed these same states, there is no doubt about it, so please have to change that, which is a simple thing, then in relation to the rest of the empire we will talk later and I will give you everything you need. Regards (Mark Boron (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)); It's not my preference about different kinds of sources – this is Wikipedia policy. Please read and understand WP:No original research. I said above that There have been attempts, using circumstantial evidence, to prove that the entirety of Brazil was effectively controlled by Portugal in the early 1800s, which is what you are also doing now. Doing that is a violation of WP:NOR, which says Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. In particular, it's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. […] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Your argument that this is the greatest proof of effective control, when a country has an emperor, state governors and general governors, and it also formed these same states, there is no doubt about it is a textbook example of this kind of WP:SYNTH violation – has any WP:RELIABLE source made the argument that this particular set of conditions being met demonstrates that the Portuguese Empire had effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil in the relevant time period? If so, then please cite it. If not, your assessment that this is the case is irrelevant. As I said earlier, Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources. I'd like to reiterate and emphasize that last point: leave the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis to published, WP:RELIABLE sources. That includes area calculations, mind you. I'll leave you with a simple yes-or-no question: do you have any WP:RELIABLE source which provides explicit figures for the area of the Portuguese Empire in a specified year? TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Hi TompaDompa Yes, I can search for more sources I found this, found one from the year 1815 : https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/biggest-empires-in-history-at-its-peak-one-nation-controlled-23-of-worlds-population-4786111.html Source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-empires-in-human-history-by-land-area.html (Mark Boron (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)); I said WP:RELIABLE. That's not even remotely reliable, and not just because of the telltale signs of getting the figures from this very article (or rather, an earlier version of it – here is what this article looked like on May 12, 2017 when the worldatlas article was published). TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC) see this is the same source you used for this author who likes Rein Taagepera so much. https://web.archive.org/web/20200707203055/https://escholarship.org/content/qt3cn68807/qt3cn68807.pdf These are studies by Internet Archive link 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20071013221640/http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/earthrul.html link 2 Bibliography: https://web.archive.org/web/20071021150702/http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/Bibliography.html now don't tell me it's older or newer, the data is correct you can even see the sources utor used on link 2 on Bibliography. Regards. (Mark Boron (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) Indeed, that would have been an ideal source if it were peer-reviewed. But it's not. It's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source, and as such not WP:RELIABLE. The Internet Archive is not a publisher of research, but a website which provides services such as the Wayback Machine, which is used to archive websites. You can find the live (i.e. non-archived) version here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Ok I understand but the author used all these sources to arrive at these numbers, is in the bibliography (Mark Boron (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) The bibliography you linked to is the bibliography used for their regnal chronologies. A partial bibliography for the area estimates is listed at the bottom of this page. But none of this changes the fact that the source itself is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not WP:RELIABLE. TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) I will continue to research, here is another study. link 1 - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-history-of-the-world-in-one-video/ link 2 - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/histomap/ this is most relevant study by New World Encyclopedia - facts: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Portuguese_Empire and of course many source below and references, you can see in these sources they all talk about the Portuguese empire and are good authors and sources. References: Birmingham, David. 2006. Empire in Africa: Angola and its Neighbors. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. ISBN 9780896802483. Boxer, C.R. 1969. Four Centuries of Portuguese Expansion, 1415-1825; a Succinct Survey. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Boxer, C.R. 1991. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415-1825. Aspects of Portugal. Manchester, UK: Carcanet in association with the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. ISBN 9780856359620. Brockey, Liam Matthew. 2008. Portuguese Colonial Cities in the Early Modern World. Empires and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. ISBN 9780754663133. Cole, Juan Ricardo. 2002. Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi'ite Islam. London, UK: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9781860647611. Disney, A.R. 2009. A History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521843188. McAlister, Lyle N. 1984. Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700. Europe and the world in the Age of Expansion, v. 3. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816612161. Neill, Stephen, and Owen Chadwick. 1990. A History of Christian Missions. The Penguin history of the church, v. 6. London, UK: Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140137637. Newitt, M.D.D. 2005. A History of Portuguese Overseas Expansion, 1400-1668. New York, NY. ISBN 9780415239806. External links All links retrieved June 13, 2019. Portuguese Empire Timeline. Japanese Screen Painting of the Portuguese in the Indies Dutch Portuguese Colonial History Dutch Portuguese Colonial History: history of the Portuguese and the Dutch in Ceylon, India, Malacca, Bengal, Formosa, Africa, Brazil. Language Heritage, lists of remains, maps. The Portuguese and the East (in Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese and Thai) with English introduction. Credits New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here: Portuguese Empire history The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia. Resume: All the sources I consulted in English point to the value 10.0 or 10.4 million km2 year 1815 to 1820 and 6.98% in between 6.00% of the Earth's land area. other article: https://www.nuttyhistory.com/biggest-empires.html?fbclid=IwAR3V4HXIo3wLhzdfdItMxDL069ah63wxgx4fKEv1S3NvhrgblDp2z7ajh6k references: https://www.nuttyhistory.com/references.html (Mark Boron (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) None of those sources are WP:RELIABLE. This is the second time you have cited a WP:CIRCULAR source – just like worldatlas, New World Encyclopedia gets its information from Wikipedia. I suggest you read Wikipedia's guideline WP:Identifying reliable sources. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Okay Thanks, in these two sources correctly you're right, of course. The History of Portugal is made up of old documents and maps, and that Portugal has, we have all the evidence. If so many old writers, even foreigners, talk about specific data about the history of Portugal, why not trust them? if there are several people who did their accounts based on reliable sources, why don't you change? It is difficult to find foreign sources due to lack of interest on Portuguese Empire, but we have to work with what we have. Please, with all due respect, I ask you to find an alternative. Regards (Mark Boron (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) It is difficult to find foreign sources due to lack of interest on Portuguese Empire, but we have to work with what we have. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be under the impression that the sources used on the English-language Wikipedia have to be in English. This is not the case, see WP:NONENG. In fact, this article already uses two sources in languages other than English: one in Portuguese and one in German. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) As much as you and other people want to glorify this story that Portugal owned half of Brazil, nobody in Portugal or Brazil believes in this story. The first to build the states of Brazil was Portugal, the governors were Portuguese, and the Kings were Portuguese. Even when Brazil became independent from Portugal, who ruled until the end of the Monarchy was the son of the Portuguese King, and who started the Empire of Brazil was a Portuguese King. if you believe in this source see this map in that source, of what Brazil was like in 1822 "Portuguese Domain" (Independence year 1820 to 1824) link: https://brasil500anos.ibge.gov.br in fact, this source is not reliable, because the true history of Portugal is in Portugal with documents and historical facts, older and more reliable than these. now does a government ignore the history of Portugal, just because don't like it and make up stories? You can ignore it but the evidence is well documented and well kept in Portugal. (Mark Boron (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) It's not a question of ownership, but one of effective control. I'm not sure what you think that link proves. What's needed here is a WP:RELIABLE source which provides explicit figures for the area of the Portuguese Empire in a specified year. TompaDompa (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) when we talk about colonies we talk about conquest, when we talk about effective control we talk about country administration, now Portugal had already conquered those countries for many years, then Rio de Janeiro was once the capital of the Empire, each state in each country had a Portuguese ruler, and it was Portugal that formed these same states with a main emperor who was the King, so if it goes around, non empire on the list had effective control "were colonies". nor were they considered countries perhaps the British empire did the same as the Portuguese, now the other empires did not do that. The effective control that these countries had was constant wars. the sources I gave you may be reliable or not it depends from perspective, but they may have measured the empire well. if you want to put it in your content you can do it, because there is no source to measure an empire correctly none is 100% reliable, so the measurement of an empire is never the real thing, it just depends on your willingness to put the data that we think is correct. but I can look for more to add its content, Thanks Regards. (Mark Boron (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) This is all your assessment. But Wikipedia doesn't go by the assessments of its editors, it goes by what WP:RELIABLE sources say. On a related note, stop misrepresenting sources the way you did here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Ok friend already understand, I will search more data to see if you think it's reliable, I want to come to a good sense, to be able to solve this situation. (Mark Boron (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)) I found a book that has the Portuguese Empire measured link: https://books.google.pt/books?id=y86pDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA322&dq=Empire+Portuguese+square+kilometers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkwubXk9PrAhVQUhoKHUzFCYIQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg%2020 name of Book: Picturepedia: An Encyclopedia on Every Page, And I send Another book "most reliable source" this has information from the Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves "measured": Name: Society and Education in Brazil authors: By Robert J. Havighurst - Professor of Educator of University of Chicago, J. Roberto Moreira, Late Director of The National Department of Education, and Ministry of Education, Brazil "Page" "Political Boundaries" https://books.google.pt/books?id=u65BLiP8qXEC&pg=PA60&dq=Empire+Portuguese+square+kilometers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvj4T_ltPrAhXyx4UKHehjAREQ6AEwBXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Empire%20Portuguese%20square%20kilometers&f Publisher: University of Pittsburgh Press Series info: Pitt Latin American Studies ISBN: 9780822952077 Binding: Trade Paperback Publication date: 07/15/1969 Series info: Pitt Latin American Studies Language: English Pages: 282 Height: .60IN Width: 6.00IN Series: Pitt Latin American Series Number of Units: 1 Author: Robert J. Havighurst Author: J. Roberto Moreira Author: Robert J.Havighurst Subject: World History-South America (Mark Boron (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) Picturepedia is not a WP:RELIABLE source for the territorial extent of the Portuguese Empire. Look, this is kind of becoming a WP:COMPETENCE problem. You say that you are a historian and geographer, but you demonstrate a lack of understanding of which sources are reliable and which are not. Please read and understand WP:Identifying reliable sources. The second source you cited explicitly says Although more than 8½ million square kilometers were included within the political boundaries, only a small portion of the territory was effectively organized. That actually supports the current figure, because it corroborates Taagepera's assertion that effective control did not extend to the entirety of modern-day Brazil in the early 1800s. The political boundaries are not what this list deals with, effective control is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Ok, the first one I accepted, the second I read the rest, the population is small but they protect the country so they have total control, says that they have effective control, but only a small part of the territory is organized, it does not speak of effective control or not , with this second test if you do not validate it is because they are not willing to put the information, it portrays the populations and happened to speak of the borders. (Mark Boron (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) Except it doesn't say that they had effective control. And even if it did, that wouldn't allow us to change the area figure in the list; we need sources that provide explicit figures for the area of the Portuguese Empire (not just the Brazilian part) in a specified year. And even if this source did provide that, the source currently used is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Replacing that figure with one from a source that does not match that description would violate WP:BESTSOURCES, and citing both would become a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC) it is not easy to find something reliable for the Poetuguese empire written in English I tell you I did a long research (Mark Boron (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) but ok i will continue to search friend Mark Boron (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC) I know that it's not easy; I've tried too, as I said above in response to another editor. It doesn't have to be written in English, however. See WP:NONENG. TompaDompa (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC) No problem, I'm glad that Wikipedia wants reliable information, I will continue to search (Mark Boron (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) this is really difficult because each book presents different results for each empire, but I will go to search more (Mark Boron (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) List of Largest Empires by Gordon https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_largest_empires The Control effective in my opinion not exit, one great exemple the Brtish Empire in Australia only a small part is inhabited the rest is a vast deserted area of ​​forest, Canada only has 100 million people living there and a vast deserted area, and 2 large country in the world. For this is subjective (Mark Boron (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) Again, you've cited a WP:CIRCULAR source. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Yes, but some authors say one thing other authors say something else, so I don't know who to believe (Mark Boron (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)) That's why we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, which in this case is the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC) It’s exactly what I'm looking for, but it has not been easy, exist more studies of Empires more than 2000 or 3000 ago, than of Modern Empires. I know a lot about history and facts, but now about studies of territorial extension is a new topic. but I think I will find something. I have a study here that you can consider: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/empires_booklet.pdf Authors: Jesse Ausubel Director The Rockefeller University, New York City Cesare Marchetti Senior Research Scholar International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria is a more reliable study than the author "Rein Taagepera" because this author "Rein Taagepera" is heavily criticized in several books that I read. and it is more reliable because they have the greatest empires of humanity, while the author "Rein Taagepera" is a study with less precision because it only refers to some empires and others are ignored. (Mark Boron (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)) in addition there are facts that in the history of Portugal of effective control mainly in Brazil, but since you believes in this author so much I suggest changing the name of the list to "Empires for effective control by the author Rein Taagepera" and make a list of the largest empires of humanity by territorial extension. because it doesn't seem to me that other countries agree with this man's theory of conspiracy. Besides that, the only country most penalized is Portugal, that list tarnishes the image of my country to the maximum, it went from 10.4 to 5.5, and still says that Portugal only had dominion over half of the territory of Brazil, I don't think you like it of the Portuguese. Never in wikipedia nobody said so badly about Portugal as in this list. see if you solves this problem. the second solution to the problem would be to leave the data as it is, make a single table for the Portuguese empire, and join the values ​​2.1 + 0.6 + 5.5 in a single empire and take out [a] that Portugal only had effective control of half of the territory of Brazil, but you forget the territories of the time in India, Africa and Timor-Leste etc etc so it was not only Brazil in the Empire Portuguese, at the time also forget that Brazil stopped being a colony and became the Kingdom of Portugal Brazil and Algarves. moreover, The Brazil even after independence, the Portuguese were the ones who formed the empire of Brazil, see here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Braganca "Kingdom of Portugal Brasil and Algarves "information of Brazil in 1815" "old Book" Notices of Brazil "1828 and 1829" https://books.google.pt/books?id=HmRCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA532&dq=Kingdom+Of+Portugal+Brazil+and+Algarves&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiai-uD6dfrAhWOHhQKHRasBkcQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=Kingdom%20Of%20Portugal%20Brazil%20and%20Algarves Other book of History: https://books.google.pt/books?id=VP9xDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&dq=Reino+de+Portugal+Brasil+e+Algarves&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2-fPl_NfrAhUCyYUKHamIDdYQ6AEwBXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Reino%20de%20Portugal%20Brasil%20e%20Algarves I will translate this text. "Subsequently during the Vienna Congress of 1815, as a result of the installation of the house of bragança and capital of the Portuguese empire, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, in the aforementioned year of 1808 during the Napoleonic wars, D. Maria I, through the Prince Regent, established the new designation of United Kingdom for its crowns, under a legal regime similar to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " now you still have doubts about the effective control Portuguese in Brazil? I really enjoyed talking to you but we need to reach an agreement. (Mark Boron (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)) You'll note that the study you linked actually cites Taagepera. In fact, it even says Historians may of course differ on the precise extent of imperial control. We rely on the assessments of Taagepera, the most thorough scholar we have found in this field. it is more reliable because they have the greatest empires of humanity, while the author "Rein Taagepera" is a study with less precision because it only refers to some empires and others are ignored. I have no idea what you're referring to here. Care to elaborate? that list tarnishes the image of my country to the maximum I think you should consider what this comment says about why you are engaging in this discussion. join the values ​​2.1 + 0.6 + 5.5 in a single empire That's a gross WP:NOR violation. You keep missing the point, which is that you need a WP:RELIABLE source which provides explicit figures for the area of the Portuguese Empire in a specified year. What are we meant to do with sources about the political structure of the Portuguese Empire? TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) But that's what I've been looking for, but it takes time, I know the data is incomplete due to lack of sources. I just want to help improve the content, sorry about my answers I know you need sources, this author should not be the only one who studies empires there must be others, I am researching. But I believe in territorial extension, now effective control is a theory, as soon as a country makes its borders and protects them from enemies and controls the economy and the states and cities themselves the control is effective. so look for example Canada, which has a large territory is the second largest country in the world and only has 37.59 million less population than Spain, so what effective control did the UK have? if it was economic, it made its borders and protects them from enemies and controls the economy and the states themselves, I agree, now explain to me what it means with effective control for I to be able to research. I’m not quite understanding what kind of effective control statement you want? (Mark Boron (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)) I mean, the answer to what effective control is/when there is effective control really boils down to "WP:RELIABLE sources say there was effective control". We follow the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Você sabe falar Português? (Mark Boron (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)) Mark Boron, Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires does not say what you think it says. It doesn't say that the Portuguese Empire ever had a territorial extent of 13.4 million km2. The "saturation" is a mathematical construct which extrapolates from the data points that exist to a theoretical maximum based on the growth rate, not a data point in itself. In other words, the Portuguese Empire was on the trajectory to reach 13.4 million square kilometers in area, but – as the source says – failed prematurely. TompaDompa (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC) For the record, Mark Boron has been blocked indefinitely, see WP:ANI#Mark Boron. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC) And they admitted to WP:MEATPUPPETRY: I joined the discussion at the request of a friend asking for help to resolve the situation (diff). TompaDompa (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire dispute

Hi, everyone. I'm trying to understand what the nature(s) of the dispute(s) here is/are; everyone please note that I have no Portuguese or Brazilian background, I don't know very much about the relevant history, I don't consider myself partial to either of these modern countries, and I don't speak Portuguese.

I've recently read the articles on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the Treaty of Madrid (13 January 1750). I've also looked at the material on the Portuguese empire(s) in the present list article.

One question I have, right from the start, is whether some / any of the dispute here may be rooted in the note saying that "the Portuguese settlers only had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Was the land area attributed to Brazil by the Treaty of Madrid (c:File:Brazil in 1750.svg) actually settled land, or was it just theoretical, and mostly unoccupied by the Europeans? Are some people here saying that the entire "official" or "theoretical" area of Brazil (settled or not) — per the Treaty of Madrid, the land subsequently claimed just before Brazilian independence, or by some other criterion —should be reckoned as part of the Portuguese empire, as opposed to just the settled area of theoretical Brazil? Or is the crux of the dispute somewhere else entirely?

Again, I have no skin in this game, I am not trying to advocate for any particular side, I'm just trying to understand at this point. Once this and other questions are settled (or the different POVs are identified), then maybe we can talk about which land area figure is correct — or possibly we can come up with a way to acknowledge "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (to quote WP:NPOV), and maybe include two different rows in the list, one for the entire claimed land area, and another for the area that was in fact settled by subjects of the Portuguese empire. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to give as neutral a description of the dispute as I can and give answers to your questions that are as neutral as possible, but keep in mind that I am very much an involved party here. If you want to know my arguments, I summarised them here.

The footnote itself is not the cause of the dispute (the dispute predates the footnote). I added the footnote in the hope that it would keep people from assuming that the relative positions of the Brazilian and Portuguese empires were an error (as multiple editors had, such as this one and this one, both judging it to be an "obvious" error).

Are some people here saying that the entire "official" or "theoretical" area of Brazil (settled or not) — per the Treaty of Madrid, the land subsequently claimed just before Brazilian independence, or by some other criterion —should be reckoned as part of the Portuguese empire, as opposed to just the settled area of theoretical Brazil? I'd say that's about right, yes. Some editors think that the area for the Portuguese Empire should include the entirety of present-day Brazil. Others, including me, disagree. I can try to summarise the arguments on both sides of this issue if you want me to (I already kind of did here). TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive#18 October 2020. TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The criteria here is effective control am I right? Does it mean that the British empire had effective control over all Canadian lands, India and Australia but the Portuguese empire didn't have effective control over the Amazon rainforest? I doubt it. If a criteria is used for a particular empire, it should be used for every empire in this list. JoãoMolina99 (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I would also like to clarify that the study of the author has several mistakes, for example, he states that the beginning of the Empire was in 1500 when the Portuguese Empire began in 1415. He even went as far as interrogating the empire size itself by using a "?"JoãoMolina99 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Boron/Archive#20 September 2020. TompaDompa (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello good weekend, I found one study of empires peer-reviewed, that says the size of the Portuguese Empire and of all empires "page 66":[[15]](Source): Rockefeller University, New York City [[16]], also WP:BESTSOURCES; And also a map of the Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves date: 1821 Source: National Library of Portugal, under the protection of the Portuguese Republic. "Exhibition": http://purl.pt/880/3 / General Website: http://www.bnportugal.gov.pt ; Good contributions, Thanks (Expert Master (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)) striking block evasion Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC) See my reply below. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC) you can order from the list, but you must be more friendly and respect the guidelines and reliable proposals for that purpose.Theory is theory and facts are facts, let's not mess things up. In addition, if you saw have a map of Brazil on the page, what I sent you there, it is also a map from 1821 that Brazil belonged to Portugal the source is reliable "If the source of the government of Brazil is reliable for you the source of the Portuguese government will also be reliable for you", it is under the protection of the Portuguese government in the national library of Portugal, we are talking about a united kingdom of Portugal and Brazil and there is the area controlled by the kingdom, if you think a government source in Brazil is reliable as included in the list , you must also consider reliable source a government source in Portugal, for please included the map on the graph with this map in the second Portuguese empire. Otherwise, I start to think that you don't like the Portuguese, I could have implicated any empire, now an empire in which a colony that was Brazil that was the capital of Portugal, that was the only European country that this happened, I think it should take this into account ah evidence of everything, hopefully it will be more friendly, nobody hurt you here, thanks (Expert Master (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)) striking block evasion Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Article title "empires"

Having the Soviet Union in the list makes the list wrongly titled. I suggest changing the title. Or at least adding an introduction that establishes the used term "empire" as a broadly defined one. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest instead of "empires" "states" Nsae Comp (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that we already have an introduction that establishes the used term "empire" as a broadly defined one, considering that the WP:LEAD defines an empire as any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign. The Soviet Union is only included in the "Timeline of largest empires at the time" section, as the final entry (because the cited source does likewise). It would, I suppose, be possible to simply remove the last entry (but I don't think it is necessary considering the definition in the WP:LEAD). Changing the title to "list of largest states" would necessitate a WP:RM, and I would oppose such a title change for several reasons (one of them being that the readers would likely expect an article with that title to be about the current sizes of extant states, rather than the maximum size of historical ones). TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaborate reply. I find the provided broad definition not ideal, but maybe moveing it further up, for example as the second sentance it would better follow up on the use empire in the title and first sentance, maybe stating that it is a broad definition of empire. But its not super terrible if the Soviet Union is not more than a reference point at the very end. PS: sorry for the sloppy edit of empire into state Nsae Comp (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I think it reads better the way it is currently written with the discussion about size before the discussion about what "empire" means, considering that the source for the definition of "empire" is also used for defining the area – the text should justify why area is the mode of measurement used (rather than, say, population or economy) before defining how to do it. TompaDompa (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Empire of Japan

According to the text, Conrad's source does not include Manchukuo's area (1940 area = 1,192,081 km2 (460,265 sq mi)) in the size of the empire. This is consistent with the large range in area between the sources (7.4-8.51 million km2). The source text states "This [figure] excluded an important dimension of Japanese empire building, namely [internal colonialism] as well as Manchukuo, which was formally not a colony but an autonomous state." I was wondering if semi-autonomous states, such as dominions or puppet states like Manchukuo, are included in the total area for this list, as it seems to be the case that the area of dominions are included for the British Empire. Dazaif (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that if the sources do, then so do we. Conversely, if the sources don't, then neither do we. Sometimes, different sources take different stances on whether to include a particular territory in an empire's total area. In those case, we evaluate the quality of the sources to see if one should take precedence per WP:BESTSOURCES, and if they are of equal(-ish) quality, we present a range. TompaDompa (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:I actually got in touch with the author of the book and he replied with this message (posted here: https://imgur.com/a/3Y0VR83, my name is edited out for anonymity), stating that "for most practical purposes, Manchukuo was part of the Japanese empire, and thus my figure (of 7.400 000km2) is potentially misleading." Along with the assertion by the other author (David H. James), would "most practical purposes" and "potentially misleading" be enough to indicate WP:CONSENSUS for the other figure? Dazaif (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If Conrad were the original source for that figure, then maybe. But I have read that same figure elsewhere, and after doing some digging, I found a source from 2012 with the title Japanese post-war economic miracle and the perspective of its implementation in the modern Ukraine (link to PDF download) which gives the same figure, citing a source from 2005 that I have been unable to locate (To Rule the Earth by Bruce R. Gordon). TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:Yes, Conrad is the original source for the figure. David H. James and Sebastian Conrad seem to be published historians on the subject, whereas V. Sobakar (the author of the article about Ukraine) and Bruce R. Gordon does not seem to have any published works anywhere. Would you agree that this is enough to reach WP:CONSENSUS as per WP:BESTSOURCES (at least for now)? Dazaif (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? The source by Conrad we cite is from 2014, but the figure can be found in sources earlier than that. My point was that evidently other people have arrived at that figure independently of Conrad, so Conrad is not necessarily the (only) person we should be looking for a retraction from if we want to remove the figure. TompaDompa (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand we cannot find the original source, correct? Conrad himself admits that the figure may be "potentially misleading" and for the "most practical purposes" we should not use the 7.400 000km2 figure. I'd argue that this is enough to achieve WP:CONSENSUS, at least for now until we can find a better source. Moreover, the pdf you linked is titled "Japanese post-war economic miracle and the perspective of its implementation in the modern Ukraine," which I'd argue (as a post-war text about Ukraine) may not be relevant as David H. James and Sebastian Conrad's works per WP:BESTSOURCES, who are established historians on this topic. What do you think? Dazaif (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure/convinced. I wouldn't dream of citing Japanese post-war economic miracle and the perspective of its implementation in the modern Ukraine for the lower estimate and The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire for the higher estimate as those sources are far from equally reliable on the subject of the territorial extent of the Japanese empire in 1942 (thus creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE), but I am (1) a bit wary of using personal correspondence to determine whether a source should be used in this manner, and (2) worried that we are dismissing this figure because one of the people who have come up with it has said it is potentially misleading when other people have evidently independently come up with the same figure. I would like somebody else to weigh in on this. I'll tag the figure as dubious in the meantime. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. From what I understand thus far, there is one confirmed source (Japanese post-war economic miracle and the perspective of its implementation in the modern Ukraine) based upon a currently untraceable source by Bruce R. Gordon for the 7.400 000km2 figure, and one confirmed source (The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire) for the 8.510 000km2 figure as well as a personal admission by another historian (Sebastian Conrad) that the previously cited figure of 7.400 000km2 is "potentially misleading" and for "most practical purposes" should include the area of Manchukuo. Because it has been a full week since 19 August 2020 when this thread was created, I am suggesting that waiting another week until 2 August 2020 for any discussion would allow enough time for other editors to weigh in, at which point I will go ahead with the change if there are no dissenting opinions. Dazaif (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If I might make a counter-suggestion, I'd propose that we solicit input from Wikipedia's WP:NOTICEBOARDS (this is really a matter of policy application more than it is a content dispute – I suggest posting to both WP:NORN and WP:RSN, since I'm not quite sure which is the most appropriate in this instance), and if there are no further replies in another week, we consult WP:Third opinion. I really think we should strive to get more eyes on this (though starting a WP:RfC would seem like massive overkill). What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dazaif: What do you think, shall we post to WP:NORN and WP:RSN? TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize as life has kept me away from Wikipedia for a while. I'll go ahead with the change for now as nobody has objected in the meantime, but if you do end up posting on those noticeboards and they conclude otherwise I will be glad to revert the edits. Thank you. Dazaif (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in to note that Britannica, while not explicitly calculating territorial size, clearly includes Manchuria within the boundaries of the Empire in its article here, which seems to lend weight to the size that includes the territory. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't use personal communications, only reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. I'll restore the removed source, then. TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

84.54.153.249 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing

First Bulgarian Empire 895 year 440,000 km2

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Better without flags?

TompaDompa, could you explain your edit regarding flags? You reverted a recent edit which had added imperial flags to the list, saying "Better without flags" in your edit summary. Why do you believe the list is better without flags? My own reaction was that I thought the flags were a helpful visual aid which made the list easier to skim through. Is there any evidence of a consensus on this issue? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Flags very rarely improve the quality of articles in general (one exception might be when they are used to represent "teams", in a loose sense of the word). In this particular case, they clutter the table and mess up the alignment (as a result of not all entries having flags). They also tend to attract WP:Nationalist editing and edit warring. That there are only flags for some of the entries is also a problem because it makes some of the entries more eye-catching than others (similarly, writing some of the entries in bold would not be a good idea, even if it were used to convey some kind of information). TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish Empire's size needs to be corrected.

In this article, the Spanish Empire is ranked below the Qing Dynasty and it is stated that the maximum extent was in 1810.

This is wrong, due to the fact that Spanish Louisiana, an undoubtedly Spanish territory post the 1763 Treaty of Paris would not be counted because the Spanish had already lost the territory.

For the calculations (in square kilometers):

Hispano-America Size: 11,466,903 Spanish Louisiana Size: 870,000 California Size: 423,970 Nevada Size: 286,382 Arizona Size: 295,234 New Mexico Size: 314,917 Utah Size: 219,887 Texas Size: 695,662

In total, this equals 14,572,955. However, you must add holdings such as the Philippines and mainland Spain.

Philippines: 300,000 Spain Itself: 505,990

Adding this onto the total, you get 15,378,945 km2. Furthermore, this is without counting the claimed areas in modern-day British Colombia, Washington, Florida and Oregon.] TheStrandedDemon (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, uhm just a bit of edits. First, "Territorio De Nutca" shouldn't be claimed as Spanish territory as all of Brazil isn't claimed as Portuguese territory. So, therefore, the true size of the Spanish Empire was ~15,549,257km2 (with Florida added). So that indeed needs to be fixed. TheStrandedDemon (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you're fairly new to this page (and Wikipedia in general), so you probably weren't around the last time this was discussed (two years ago, in November 2018). I estimated the peak size of the Spanish Empire back then and arrived at a figure similar to yours, approximately 15.6 million km². Based on that, one might think that the solution is obvious: change the entry to say 15.6 instead of 13.7. However, your calculations and mine are what's known on Wikipedia as WP:Original research, which is not allowed. We need WP:Reliable sources to provide the figures rather than coming up with them ourselves. Finding sources for the area of the Spanish Empire is not all that difficult, but far from all sources are reliable. What's more, different sources provide different estimates. This is at least in part explained by different sources using different criteria in order to determine which areas to include (and likely also due to some authors simply being sloppy). In order to decide which estimate to use, we follow the WP:Best sources. The source currently cited is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. That's a really high bar to clear in terms of quality and reliability of sources. If we want to change what the entry says, we have to find a source of at least equal quality, and that is quite a tall order. TompaDompa (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

The Roman Empire was larger than The Ottoman yet it is lower on the list.

You can find this out only by searching the sizes of these two empires at their height and wikipedia itself will tell you that The Roman Empire was at its height approximately 5 million square kilometres while The Ottoman was only 2,273,720. I hope this error will soon be fixed since as of right now it only spreads misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsy482 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The article Ottoman Empire gives the same area as this article does—5,200,000 km²—and cites the same sources. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Songhai Empire size

• Hunwick, John (1988). Timbuktu & the Songhay Empire: Al-Sa'dis Ta'rikh al-sudan down to 1613 and other Contemporary Documents. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 480 pages. ISBN 90-04-12822-0.
• Malio, Thomas A. Hale. by The epic of Askia Mohammed / recounted by Nouhou (1990). Scribe, griot, and novelist : narrative interpreters of the Songhay Empire. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. ISBN 0-8130-0981-2.

These sources state that the Songhai Empire expanded to 1.4 sq at its peak before falling to 0.8. Even the current source states the Songhai Empire could have been larger at its peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwesi Yema (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The current source is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Neither of the sources you refer to match that description. The source by John Hunwick is a translation of primary sources, and the part of the book where the figure for the area can be found is the Translator's Introduction ("Songhay: An Interpretive Essay"). The source by Hale is about African literature (per the introduction: The subject of this study is African literature and what it can reveal about Sahelian peoples in both the past and the present.). In other words, they are not the WP:BESTSOURCES because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Hunwick (on page xlix, see here or here) also does not provide a year, which is required information. I can't say if Hale does, because I wasn't able to locate the area figure (I expected it to be under the heading "The Songhay Empire" on page 22–24, see here) – on what page did you find it? TompaDompa (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Empire Map

There should not be a map of empires if it does not reflect the entirety of the page, not to mention the maps are inaccurate (talk) 15:04, 04 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the map needs to reflect the entirety of the page (which would be impossible anyway). If the problem is that the map is inaccurate, the solution is to fix the inaccuracies. Pinging Amitchell125 who created the map. TompaDompa (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kimand299: What specific alterations did you have in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Burmese Empire (Toungoo Empire) was not added

Burmese Empire (Toungoo Empire) was the largest empire in South East Asia’s history with an area of 1,550,000 km2 (600,000 sq mi) at its peak in 1580 History of the Burmese (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? TompaDompa (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/First_Toungoo_Empire#Size History of the Burmese (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

For additional reference, this is the map of Toungoo Empire at its peak, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Taungoo_Empire_(1580).png#mw-jump-to-license History of the Burmese (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

http://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23039102 Another source History of the Burmese (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The estimated Area does vary, from 1,43 million km2 to 1,5 million km2 to 1,6 million km2 History of the Burmese (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And also 1,55 million km2 History of the Burmese (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a new talk must be made to obtain sources from people who might have it History of the Burmese (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Found new source: https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64387.pdf (Pages 379-380) Which states successful conquest during the Toungoo Empire which supports the calculation of the land area stated in this page: https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/First_Toungoo_Empire#Size History of the Burmese (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't calculate the area ourselves, because that's WP:Original research. We need to find a WP:Reliable source that explicitly states what the area was in a specified year. TompaDompa (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored Toungoo Empire

Restored Toungoo Empire (1597-1752) is the restoration of the First Toungoo Empire (Burmese Empire) in which its area is similar to that of modern day Myanmar which has an area of 676,575 km², according Professor Victor Lieberman who is the author of the book “Burmese Administration Cycles, Anarchy and Conquest, c. 1580-1760” I contacted him regarding this matter: https://imgur.com/gallery/SN1Ras3 History of the Burmese (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The map of Restored Toungoo Empire: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Restored_Taungoo_Dynasty.png#mw-jump-to-license History of the Burmese (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't use correspondence with authors, only WP:Published material. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What a crazy list right?

Since WP:CheckUser blocked, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Estonian politician? But I don't think he understand history, because the numbers are not in accordance with what is studied in college, I think that instead of finding secondary sources of politicians, it should focus, what the documents say, written by people from times of each empire, and of course there are a variety of ancient maps and land names, which say the conquests more accurately, what do you think about that? if this is not based on the conquest of land, it is based on what? The list starts badly when you say ""Empire size in this list is defined as the dry land area it controlled at the time, which may differ considerably from the area it claimed. For example: in the year 1800, European powers collectively claimed approximately 20% of the Earth's land surface that they did not effectively control.[8] Where estimates vary, entries are sorted by the lowest estimate."" Right from the start by denying the historical facts, do you mean that the nations all lied and that historians too, is that it? would like a conclusive answer on your part, I'm new here, and I see this and I couldn't resist commenting, sorry. But I have read very good articles on wikipedia, but this list clearly needs a good correction, or a good justification, because it denies all the facts of the story, which diminishes the credibility of those who will read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:18BD:5CF0:7C7A:14E9 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC) That's political scientist as well as politician, and the former is more relevant here. Moreover, Wikipedia actually prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. This is in contrast to academics, who mostly use WP:PRIMARY sources (at least when possible). TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, now I understand why academics are only allowed to use some sources from wikipedia, and never use wikipedia as a direct reference. (2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:FD22:45FB:5456:5147 (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

Portuguese Empire the black sheep on this list ?

Since WP:CheckUser blocked, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Only the Portuguese Empire, which was one of the largest in the world, is the black sheep on this list, my God what a disappointment, if it were removed from the list it would be better, even more divided into 3, the Portuguese empire started in 1415 with the conquest of Ceuta , and then conquered almost all of Africa, which used to be Arabs, and then Asia, Brazil and so on. the country that saved Europe from the slavery of the Arabs, is very poorly portrayed in this list, there is a lack here of someone who has specific knowledge for each empire, because here on the discussion page it is only people complaining that something is wrong here. (2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:38B5:1E7B:9A2A:53FE (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC))

American Empire & Pax Americana

In line with the question above, where the fuck is the American Empire?

If you have military bases in nearly 200 countries are they not tributary states? If this Empire regularly removes elected leaders in these tributary states (Lula in Brazil for instance, or the folks in Ecuador, Bolivia, Ukraine), if all the global currencies are based off your currency and are just derivatives, what are you if you are not an Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.59.31 (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needs to include the American Empire on its list, however the lead's narrow definition of an empire makes that tricky. This page defines an empire as essentially a state that controls other states, which the US no longer (openly) does. The U.S. was definitely an empire in the past with its colonialism and imperialism, and this list includes colonial empires like the Dutch, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German, Italian, etc. so this should fall under the same category and be included. Also the US is the closest thing to an empire today with its hard and soft power. (It has nearly 40% of global military spending, that alone should be enough for inclusion. Only China comes anywhere close with 13%). See United States involvement in regime change, American Century, Pax Americana, and List of countries by military expenditures. Duey (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but is it going to be added soon? History of the Burmese (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Even without taking into account all of the additional factors involved in realistically measuring the influence of U.S. imperialism, the height of its official territorial holdings still constitute admission to this list. In 1899, it spanned 3.78 million square miles, or 9.79 million square kilometers. As others have said, it could be argued that its level of imperialism extends much further if you consider its spheres of influence, but considering the complexity of determining a hard number for such an abstract concept, it may not apply to this list, but that doesn't detract from the formal numbers I stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.250.214 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether the US should be included has been discussed as far back as 2006, and has been discussed many, many, many, many, many, many times since (non-exhaustive list of previous discussions). I'm not entirely sure (I haven't carefully read all of those discussions), but I believe that the exclusion of the US was based on WP:CONSENSUS among editors that it didn't belong. Of course, WP:Consensus can change and now seems to be in favour of inclusion. It is also worth noting that there have been quite dramatic changes to the general "design" (for lack of a better word) of the article over the years—one of which is that the WP:LEAD now defines an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign"—so previous discussions might not be entirely reflective of current considerations. I'll add the US to the list. Perhaps adding it will cause those who oppose its inclusion to join the discussion here, or maybe it'll be uncontroversial. We'll see. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Should we add the current Russia? China? Canada? It doesn't make sense to include the USA if we are not including other large nations, some of which are significantly larger or at least comparable in size. Dazaif (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A case could be made that present-day Russia is the successor to the USSR which is in turn the successor to the Russian Empire, and that Russia is thus already listed at a greater extent than it currently has. A similar argument can be made for China. Our main source, Taagepera, takes this approach—Taagepera considers the Russian Empire, the USSR, and modern-day Russia to be a single continuous entity, and does likewise with China from the Qing dynasty to the present day (how Taagepera determines whether to consider them distinct or continuous can be read in this paper of his—in summary, he says two successive empires with the same core location are said to be distinct only when the gap between them lasts longer than 30% of the first empire's duration, but there are some details to get into if one is interested in such matters). It's worth noting that we don't list the current size of the US—we list the size at its peak territorial extent, which was back in 1899.

As for Canada, well, maybe we should include it. I'll direct your attention to the points I made a year ago at Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 9#American empire - again. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Empire of Japan

@TompaDompa: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tojo-Hideki Encyclopedia Britannica clearly includes Manchuria as part of the Japanese Empire. Given this is a highly credible source, would you mind readjusting the figures? Dazaif (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether Encyclopædia Britannica includes Manchuria as part of the Japanese Empire or not is irrelevant to this list, and the article you linked to doesn't even do that—what it does is include Manchuria in Japan's "area of expansion" in 1942. Your argument seems to be that the source that says that the greatest extent was 7.4 million km² is wrong because it does not include Manchuria and that we should therefore not use its estimate, but that's not how it works. We go by what WP:RELIABLE sources say, and disagreement between sources about which territories to include is to be expected. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. There does not exist any agreed-upon set of criteria to use—let alone a universally accepted way to apply those criteria—so arguing that a source is not doing it right (because the way they're doing it doesn't comply with our notions of how they should be doing it) is pointless. Instead, if we disagree with the way a source arrived at a figure for the maximum extent of a particular empire, we should focus on locating a higher-quality source which provides a different estimate rather than arguing about what the "right" way to treat that particular empire's extent is. TompaDompa (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What is a largest empire

Is there an inclusion criteria, as this seems to just be a list of empire by size?Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. As for the "largest" part, we used to have a threshold for inclusion corresponding to 2% of the world's total land area, but it was removed in 2018 following discussion about whether requiring a minimum area to be listed was appropriate. As for the "empire" part, that's something that has never really been resolved (though the WP:LEAD currently presents a definition by Rein Taagepera). If you're interested, I elaborated a bit on both these issues about a year ago, see Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 9#American empire - again. TompaDompa (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Not too long ago along with the Russian Empire was a side note "a", which labeled the Soviet Union as a successor empire to the empire of Russia due to it's invasion and subsequent subjugation of countries in eastern Europe, for example Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and it's establishments of satellite states, for example Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania. I would like to know why the side note was removed, especially since it is controversial. In addition, to have the United States listed and not the Soviet Union and vice versa is extremely controversial, after World War 2 the two foremost imperial powers were the USSR and USA, However before and during the war they were joined along with the British Empire. I would like to know the reason(s) for the removal, and I don't see a talk page discussion it being removed, and unless there is a consensus on it being removed, I will re-instate the edit, it is simply too controversial. the Soviet Union is listed in "...empires to date" however it should also be returned to a sidenote for the Russian Empire line on "Empires are there greatest extent". B. M. L. Peters (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the explanatory footnote was unilaterally removed last March. I restored it. TompaDompa (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Songhai Empire

The wiki page for the Songhai Empire states it was 1.4m km in 1500 but on this page it is stated it's largest extent was only 0.8m.Firestar47 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The article Songhai Empire used sources that are not up to snuff, see previous discussion about those specific sources at Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 10#Songhai Empire size. I edited that article to fix that issue. TompaDompa (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)