Empires with sourced areas but without dates

I figured I'd make a section for empires where sources have been found for the maximum extent but with no year specified (meaning they can't be included in the list). My hope is that this will be helpful when people try to locate sources. Feel free to add entries of your own to the list below. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Obeng, J. Pashington (1996). Asante Catholicism: Religious and Cultural Reproduction Among the Akan of Ghana. BRILL. p. 20. ISBN 978-90-04-10631-4. An empire of a hundred thousand square miles, occupied by about three million people from different ethnic groups, made it imperative for the Asante to evolve sophisticated statal and parastatal institutions [...]
  2. ^ a b c d e Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio; Rogers, J. Daniel; Wilcox, Steven P.; Alterman, Jai (2008). "Computing the Steppes: Data Analysis for Agent-Based Modeling of Polities in Inner Asia" (PDF). Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Political Scientific Association. pp. 8–9. Retrieved 2020-07-13.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [T]he state of Đại Cồ Việt was established in the tenth century [...] The maximum extent of the territory at that time was around 110,000 square kilometres.
  4. ^ Bosin, Yury V. (2009), "Durrani Empire, Popular Protests, 1747–1823" (PDF), The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, p. 1029, doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0481, ISBN 978-1-4051-9807-3, retrieved 2020-07-14
  5. ^ a b Bang, Peter Fibiger; Bayly, C. A.; Scheidel, Walter (2020-12-02). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume One: The Imperial Experience. Oxford University Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-19-977311-4.
  6. ^ Shillington, Kevin (2013-07-04). Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set. Routledge. p. 733. ISBN 978-1-135-45670-2. The limits of the empire correspond approximately with the boundaries of the Chad Basin, an area of more than 300,000 square miles.
  7. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [W]hen Nguyễn Vietnam surrendered to France in the late nineteenth century the territory it claimed to control had more than tripled to over 370,000 square kilometres
  8. ^ Hart, Hornell (1948). "The Logistic Growth of Political Areas". Social Forces. 26 (4): 402. doi:10.2307/2571873. ISSN 0037-7732. In the Mediterranean area the earliest historic governments which extended their territory by major use of fleets were the Greek and the Phoenecian, reaching areas of approximately 250,000 square miles each
  9. ^ Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (1992). "Economic Diversity and Integration in a Pre-Colonial Indian Empire". World Archaeology. 23 (3): 336. ISSN 0043-8243. At its maximal extent the Vijayanagara empire encompassed some 360,000 square kilometers
  10. ^ Alcock, Susan E.; D'Altroy, Terence N.; Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (2001-08-09). Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-521-77020-0. The total spatial extent of the empire, not including the north coast, I estimate to have been some 320,000 square kilometers.

Archaemenid Persia?

The Persian Empire around the time of the Greco-Persian wars and before the conquests of Alexander is theorised to have had over 50% of the world’s population but isn’t mentioned 2001:8004:C83:20B7:3C3D:89AC:FFA1:F442 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More credible sources put the figure way lower, so that's why. TompaDompa (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US on the list

The additional information for the British empire should not be included because it is not relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote is an attempt to resolve the longstanding issue of whether or not to include the US in the list, a compromise of sorts. This way of doing it is unobtrusive and puts the information in its proper context. TompaDompa (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Empire

the CAE belongs to this list since it's bigger than Austria-Hungary even if it was shot lived — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:78A1:47BA:C24:1928:72E6:144B (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Second Portuguese Empire size...

So I see there is a very long debate regarding the Second Portuguese Empire size. The source supporting the 5.5 km2 just states that Portugal didn't had a de facto control over half of the modern Brazil, but that doesn't mean that this supposedly uncontrolled area wasn't de jure part of the Portuguese Empire. There is an overwhelming amount of information that Portuguese Brazil included much of the interior, perhaps excepting only the State of Acre.

Here are all the links I could find, just in a short research, that contradict Portuguese Brazil being merely a coastal colony:

  1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/empires.htm
  2. https://www.statista.com/chart/20342/peak-land-area-of-the-largest-empires/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceEconomist192 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. https://archive.org/details/recenseamento1920intro/page/n429/mode/1up?view=theater
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41166908?read-now=1&seq=10
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/pt/academic/subjects/history/regional-history-after-1500/colonial-brazil?format=PB&isbn=9780521349253
  6. https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/tratado-firmado-en-madrid-a-13-de-enero-de-1750-para-determinar-los-limites-de-los-estados-pertenecientes-a-las-coronas-de-espana-y-portugal-en-asia-y-america--0/html/ff8d40ae-82b1-11df-acc7-002185ce6064_2.html#I_1_
  7. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=792126078082085082064077070106005022052064034046037088095083090078115031027105072121021054120036117058055081115098119078099085047070090046036104078106002007126092079028035022067076105121117076001091082082109091027095110098120126075084073071002078065115&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was de jure part of the Portuguese Empire is entirely irrelevant, since that's not what this list is about. As the article itself says, the area that an entity claimed and the one it in practice controlled may differ significantly (and we go by the latter). This all comes down to sourcing, and right now what we have is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could possibly get for this article—saying that the area of the Portuguese Empire peaked at 5.5 million km2. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misunderstanding Rein Taagepera's paper, he merely states that at the time of the independence of Brazil, Portugal only had control of half of Brazil territories, but this doesn't impede Portugal from having de facto occupied those territories in the past. Not to mention, there is a source that is used in this article that puts the size of the Portuguese Empire at 8.5.
As I linked above, the Treaty of Madrid cedes most of modern day Brazil to Portugal, see this link, [1]. Are we just gonna ignore the overwhelming amount of information supporting Portugal presence in Brazil inland? Also, don't forget that a massive part of Brazil pertains to the Amazon Rainforest, which is very dense and of difficult access. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TombaDomba It does say, see page 93... Edit: were you talking about the date? SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 18:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Taagepera's graphs, not just the tables, it is very clear that 5.5 million km2 is the peak area. The Oxford World History of Empire is not a bad source, but it does not reach the level of a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities (and even if it did, the proper course of action would be to cite both sources, not to replace the existing one). Taagepera remains the WP:BESTSOURCE here. Citing sources of unequal quality creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is why we should only cite Taagepera.
Are we just gonna ignore the overwhelming amount of information supporting Portugal presence in Brazil inland? Yes. We do not draw our own conclusions from the evidence, we defer to WP:Reliable sources to evaluate the evidence and report what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. That's what our WP:Core content policies are all about. I would also refer you to a comment I made some time ago as to why Portugal presence in Brazil inland does not necessarily translate to effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil . TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, reliable sources draw their conclusions from evidence and I already linked a sheer amount of research papers (and I still have more) that contradicted yours. Taagapera is alone here, all other sources clearly indicate a Portuguese occupation of Brazil interior. Its worth noting that not being peer reviewed ≠ unreliable and these articles can be more than used as sources, even superseding peer reviewed ones, especially since the 5.5 value is only supported by one source and is thus completely outnumbered.
What I also don't understand is why the criteria is only religiously held against Portugal, just like you stated, 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. I'm pretty positive that if we scrutinized other European colonial empires we would find that they also didn't had a de facto occupation of all the territories that are counting towards their size. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention, but Roqui15's argument of forts being build in the interior of Brazil is very convincing and discredits Taagepera paper. Aditionally, the Portuguese military hegemony of the region fulfills the definition of a de facto occupation. And as you pointed it's not a leap, since the forts were throughout the northwest and north of the Amazon basin. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources is only relevant if they are all of roughly equal quality. That is categorically not the case here. We have one source that is way superior to the others in terms of reliability on account of being a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. When that happens, we use the WP:BESTSOURCE per policy.
reliable sources draw their conclusions from evidence and I already linked a sheer amount of research papers (and I still have more) that contradicted yours. What are you talking about? The sources you linked to are mostly not research papers and the ones that are do not contradict the 5.5 million km2 figure. For instance, you linked to the text of the Treaty of Madrid. What's that supposed to do? That's a WP:PRIMARY source and it doesn't say anything about the area of the Portuguese Empire. 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.
I'm pretty positive that if we scrutinized other European colonial empires we would find that they also didn't had a de facto occupation of all the territories that are counting towards their size. As I've said before: it's pretty clear from reading what Taagepera wrote about Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Britain, and France that control came gradually over time. It's therefore not surprising that the area controlled by the French and British in the 1900s would more closely resemble the area they claimed (and modern-day borders) than in the case of Portugal in the early 1800s. And at any rate, we are not supposed to scrutinize the empires, the sources are. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources is only relevant if they are all of roughly equal quality. No it's not irrelevant, just because is peer reviewed doesn't mean it withstands all non-peer reviewed ones, especially if it's the only one defending a particular position.
The sources you linked to are mostly not research papers and the ones that are do not contradict the 5.5 million km2 figure. They do, they assert that there was a presence on the interior of Brazil by the Portugueses, thus contradicting Taagepera paper.
...not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. And that's what I am doing, the secondary and primary sources I provided, directly state that parts of the Brazil inland were once part of the Portuguese Empire, there's no analyzing, evaluating nor nothing similar, there's just an observation of very clearly assertions of those sources. There is been a misunderstanding, I'm not arguing for those sources to be used for the size of the Second Portuguese Empire, since they don't even mention it, instead I'm using them to proof that there has been a mishap in Taagapera's paper.
And at any rate, we are not supposed to scrutinize the empires, the sources are. Stop strawmanning, obviously by scrutinize I meant doing research to find those sources, someone needs to look for them, they don't come here by themselves.
There has been a considerable amount of sources presented multiple times by both myself, Roqui15 and other people in previous discussions that support the claim of Portugueses being present in the interior of Brazil, nonetheless, Taagepera's paper still stands, even if in actuality the 5.5 number was taken from other sources. Making Taagepera's paper a WP:TERTIARY source in regards to the size of the empires. Not to mention that the supposed sources he cites are not even referenced in the article, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY, clause Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Original research. Additionally, the paper has its main focus on Russia, not as TompaDomba says in the the extension of historical polities, the purpose of the other empires is to just create a growth model. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being peer-reviewed makes it a higher-quality source than a source that is not peer-reviewed, ceteris paribus. Being specifically focused on the territorial extents of historical polities makes it more reliable than a source which is not specifically focused thereon (again, ceteris paribus), because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Your assertion that the paper has its main focus on Russia is patently incorrect, which simply reading the article (or even just the abstract, really) would reveal. It becomes even more obvious when one realizes that it is part of a series of articles on the topic, the other ones being Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size, Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C., and Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D..
they assert that there was a presence on the interior of Brazil by the Portugueses, thus contradicting Taagepera paper That's not a contradiction; presence and control are not synonymous. To quote myself: 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.
not arguing for those sources to be used for the size of the Second Portuguese Empire, since they don't even mention it, instead I'm using them to proof that there has been a mishap in Taagapera's paper. It's a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Your assessment that there must have been a mistake (because your interpretation of other sources is that there was Portuguese presence in more of Brazil than you think Taagepera includes) is really not sufficient grounds for dismissing a a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, especially considering the issue of presence (what you're focused on) and effective control (what the source focuses on) not being the same thing. I see no reason to doubt the internal validity of Taagepera's article. 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. If you disagree with the source on these grounds, you should focus on locating a higher-quality source which provides a different estimate. In this case, "higher-quality" basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective.
Not to mention that the supposed sources he cites are not even referenced in the article, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY, clause Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Original research. What are you trying to say here? It's very difficult to parse, bordering on nonsensical.
The bottom line is this: the figure of 5.5 million km2 is sourced to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. If you think we should use some other figure, you need to find sources of equal or higher quality than that. Arguing about why you disagree with Taagepera is not going to get us anywhere. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being peer-reviewed makes it a higher-quality source than a source that is not peer-reviewed, ceteris paribus. Precisely because we are not doing a ceteris paribus that one must take into account the amount of sources that conflict with Taagepera's paper.
our assertion that the paper has its main focus on Russia is patently incorrect. No its not, if you keysearch for the word Russia it gives you back 47 mentions, way more than any other polities. The name of the paper is Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia. If you do actually read the entirety of the article you would realise that its main focus is to provide answers regarding the future of Russia after the colapse of the Soviet Union, it is not on the size of the Portuguese Empire. And it only uses other empires to create a mathematical model of growth in order to try to answer those questions. It does not evaluate the size of the empires, it merely uses values from other sources. So as I previously said this research paper is a tertiary source in regards to the sizes of the empires and is just as good as Brzezinski's paper.
That's not a contradiction; presence and control are not synonymous. Oh, so having multiple forts throughout the Amazon basin is not a sign of control? Besides who gets to choose what is the definition of an empire, you? There are multiple sources around, so why would Taagapera's definition be considered the correct one?
What are you trying to say here? It's very difficult to parse, bordering on nonsensical Its really not that difficult to understand. The assertation of the Second Portuguese Empire's size fails WP:VERIFIABILITY clause, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, because there is only one source listed for this much controversial and contested claim. And that it also fails the clause, Original research, since the claim in Taagapera's paper in regards to the size of the empire is unreferenced.
In this case, "higher-quality" basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective Yeah yeah, you know very well that this is an impossible task, there's not much research on the size of empires, and must certainly there isn't a paper explicitly stating that Taagepera is wrong. Thus what I was trying to get across is that, there is various papers asserting a presence and control of the Amazon basin. That is the only plausible way for Taagepera to be substituted. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 01:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt: You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
The number of lower-quality sources is completely irrelevant (it's WP:BESTSOURCES, not WP:MOSTSOURCES). Most sources that include figures on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities are not reliable for that information.
Taagepera's article is primarily about the territorial extents of historical polities and how they change over time (as are the other three articles in the same series that I noted above), with Russia used as a device explaining why this might be an interesting thing to look at.
It does not evaluate the size of the empires, it merely uses values from other sources. This is completely wrong—Taagepera uses a variety of sources to evaluate the sizes of empires. The figures come from Taagepera, not from Taagepera's sources. Taagepera explains this.
The source by Brzezinski (Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power) is not a paper at all, it's a book. It 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. It's not a reliable source for the areas of historical polities because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS—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..
Oh, so having multiple forts throughout the Amazon basin is not a sign of control? As I've said earlier: it 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 forts was effectively controlled. 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.
Besides who gets to choose what is the definition of an empire, you? No, and neither do you. We defer to the sources on that. We do the same thing with how to define the area—we leave it to the sources, even if we might disagree on the criteria they use. The article by Taagepera is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is why we use that one.
That's not an exceptional claim, at least not in the sense that WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about.
it also fails the clause, Original research, since the claim in Taagapera's paper in regards to the size of the empire is unreferenced What are you talking about? WP:Original research applies to the content of Wikipedia's articles, not our sources. You can't assert that a source fails original research, that's a complete misunderstanding of what original research even is.
there is various papers asserting a presence and control of the Amazon basin. That is the only plausible way for Taagepera to be substituted Yeah, no. We're not going to replace a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities because you've looked at other sources and reckon that it should have counted a larger area as being under control than it does. We defer to the most reliable sources in matters like these. In this case, that's the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. The source does not become less reliable because you disagree with the criteria it uses. TompaDompa (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of lower-quality sources is completely irrelevant (it's WP:BESTSOURCES, not WP:MOSTSOURCES). Most sources that include figures on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities are not reliable for that information. Obviously that matters, WP:BESTSOURCES is not going to prevail when all other independent, reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy contradict the only source that backs the 5.5 value, which is the Taagapera's paper.
It's not a reliable source for the areas of historical polities because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Since it doesn't fit your normative norms you label it as not reliable and do a misinterpretation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, play close attention to the modal verb may. A book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a highly regarded scholar, is more than reliable.
it 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 forts was effectively controlled. They constructed a cartography of the whole Amazon basin. They had Jesuit missions throughout the region. They built forts near the Amazon river and its affluents. There was an economy in the region. Every source points for the Portuguese having a presence and control of the Brazil interior. We cannot simply ignore this because of one mere paper and because its supposedly the WP:BESTSOURCE.
No, and neither do you. This argument is ineffective since I never asserted nothing regarding what the definition should be. You're the one who seems to have a WP:OWNERSHIP problem and we must all succumb to the definition you choose. Especially because in this case there are surely multiple of other definitions of empire, provided by other peer reviewed papers, but since you idolize Taagapera or his definition fits more whatever bias you might have, his paper must prevail.
That's not an exceptional claim, at least not in the sense that WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about. This is an exceptional claim. It fails the first clause, Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources, there's only one source supporting the 5.5 value and the forth clause, Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions..., since all other sources point to a much higher number.
because you've looked at other sources and reckon that it should have counted a larger area as being under control than it does. You are purposely strawmanning my arguments. It's not what I reckon, its what those sources say, the Brazilian interior was part of the Portuguese Empire. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 13:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's settle this once for all. The most fair outcome that comprimisses both sides, that are equally valid, is to cite both Taagapera and Brzezinski. We would remove the 8.5 value since its redundant to include. What do you say? SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No source of comparable quality points to a much higher number. The source for 8.5 million km2 is a decent source for that kind of content but doesn't compare to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the sources for 10.4 million km2 are all way inferior.
since you idolize Taagapera or his definition fits more whatever bias you might have, his paper must prevail Knock it off with the WP:Personal attacks. Taagepera gets no special treatment, it just happens to be one of the best sources there are for an article like this. Other sources of comparable quality for this type of information do actually exist. For example: this is also a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, but it unfortunately doesn't say anything about the Portuguese Empire specifically.
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 citing both becomes a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
becomes a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not citing other sources besides Taagepera is what would create a WP:NPOV. WP:FALSEBALANCE is clearly not referring to this type of situations, claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. The policy serves to restrict this types of falses balances, and none of the formers are even remotely comparable to what is going on here. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. The 5.5 value is the one that is a minority view, all other sources independently if they are the WP:BESTSOURCE, cite much higher numbers, Taagepera's number is clearly not mainstream. With being said, there's no WP:NPOV created by a WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the problem was WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then, it has already been fixed, by citing a scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing sources of different reliability as if they were of equal reliability creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE even if it isn't as extreme as one source promoting WP:FRINGE views. The 5.5 value is the one that is a minority view, all other sources independently if they are the WP:BESTSOURCE, cite much higher numbers, Taagepera's number is clearly not mainstream. Taagepera's research is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. It is very much mainstream. If you believe his figure to be a minority view among scholars assessing the territorial extents of historical polities, you need to back that up with those kinds of sources—peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities.
As for Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires, 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. It's also worth noting that this source gets its data from Taagepera. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it's been quiet a fight I see. Somehow, someway the portuguese empire is still listed here as 5,5 million km2. It's laughable by now with all the evidence provided against that figure in this and past discussions.Roqui15 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories