This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4] 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 [5] (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. [6] 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" [7] 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". [8] 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" [9] 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. [10] /info/en/?search=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.
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.
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:
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)
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)
|
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.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
|
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)
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)
The source that has most often [...]. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
[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.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)
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)
What are you talking about? Your reference has been contradicted by multiple ones, what we have right now is conflicting sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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
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
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 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
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-
/info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Madrid_(13_January_1750)
2-
/info/en/?search=First_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso
Ygglow ( talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow
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
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)
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
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 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.
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
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)
´ 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 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
I favor the behavioral definition of empire as effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society.
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". [1]
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". [2]
Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" [3]
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)
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)
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)
References
Are they all from Rein Taagapera?
Ygglow ( talk) 00:27, 1 October 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));
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": /info/en/?search=Provinces_of_Brazil And then here is the list of Portuguese governors from those same states of Brazil until independence "link": https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Governadores_das_Províncias_do_Brasil_(Colônia) And then there are the Emperors / Governors general of Brazil "link": https://pt.wikipedia.org/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": https://pt.wikipedia.org/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: /info/en/?search=Acre Size of the country Uruguay - 176,215 km² link: /info/en/?search=Uruguai Size of The country Brazil - 8,515,767,049 km² https://pt.wikipedia.org/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));
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));
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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)
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))
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))
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))
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))
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: |
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. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
|
|
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)
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)
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)
We can't use personal communications, only reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of largest empires has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
84.54.153.249 ( talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Missing
First Bulgarian Empire 895 year 440,000 km2
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? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
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 [1]
In total, this equals 14,572,955. However, you must add holdings such as the Philippines and mainland Spain.
Philippines: 300,000 [2] Spain Itself: 505,990 [3]
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)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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)
https://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)
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Toungoo_Empire#Size History of the Burmese ( talk) 10:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
|
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)) |
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, 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4] 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 [5] (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. [6] 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" [7] 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". [8] 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" [9] 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. [10] /info/en/?search=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.
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.
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:
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)
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)
|
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.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
|
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)
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)
The source that has most often [...]. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
[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.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)
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)
What are you talking about? Your reference has been contradicted by multiple ones, what we have right now is conflicting sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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
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
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 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
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-
/info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Madrid_(13_January_1750)
2-
/info/en/?search=First_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso
Ygglow ( talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Ygglow
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
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)
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
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 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.
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
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)
´ 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 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
I favor the behavioral definition of empire as effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society.
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". [1]
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". [2]
Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" [3]
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)
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)
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)
References
Are they all from Rein Taagapera?
Ygglow ( talk) 00:27, 1 October 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));
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": /info/en/?search=Provinces_of_Brazil And then here is the list of Portuguese governors from those same states of Brazil until independence "link": https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Governadores_das_Províncias_do_Brasil_(Colônia) And then there are the Emperors / Governors general of Brazil "link": https://pt.wikipedia.org/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": https://pt.wikipedia.org/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: /info/en/?search=Acre Size of the country Uruguay - 176,215 km² link: /info/en/?search=Uruguai Size of The country Brazil - 8,515,767,049 km² https://pt.wikipedia.org/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));
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));
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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))
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)
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))
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))
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))
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))
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: |
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. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
|
|
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)
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)
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)
We can't use personal communications, only reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of largest empires has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
84.54.153.249 ( talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Missing
First Bulgarian Empire 895 year 440,000 km2
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? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
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 [1]
In total, this equals 14,572,955. However, you must add holdings such as the Philippines and mainland Spain.
Philippines: 300,000 [2] Spain Itself: 505,990 [3]
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)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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)
https://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)
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Toungoo_Empire#Size History of the Burmese ( talk) 10:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
|
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)) |
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, 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)