Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern empires' loss of European territory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty. Keep comments (and delete comments) have consensus'd (have I invented a new word here?) on merge. Deletion would negate information. Keep votes (some which say article is 'good') also mention that merge is an option. Established editors like JClemens concur. Thus, merge! Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern empires' loss of European territory[edit]

Modern empires' loss of European territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title is confusing and unclear. I have no idea what this page would be about without looking at its contents. It is unsourced, which raises issues about WP:OR and especially WP:SYN, not to mention WP:NPOV. The page makes no sense. The "modern empires" are predominantly European ones, so why is their loss of "European territory" a worthy topic for an article? The use of modern states as some sort of baseline is anachronistic. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not cite one single source. It is your accusation that is baseless. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that is unreferenced is a completely separate issue from WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. That being said, I see now there are some questionable entries in the table, such as WW I being an independence war for the Balkan nations and Dutch sovereignity set at 1815. Merging to the article clarityfiend named and deleting the redirect seems the best option. Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is more acceptable than the status quo, but even that article is, to me, of dubious value. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I looked for a list like that but could not find it, changing my vote accordingly. Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - about the sources - the article is compiled from information from the respective articles about the history of the states. If required particular entries should be corrected. It is also possible to merge into Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe (see this discussion). The article is part of the Decolonization series, but as Europe is a special case it was renamed, so it is possible to rename again to a more appropriate name. Alinor (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    extract from the merge discussion: This focuses on empires dissolution, not on all independence events. Maybe it could be merged into the predecessors list, if the predecessors list is expanded backwards in time (up to the last empire, if it doesn't go that far already) and the relevant events are marked somehow as such (with bright or other colors?), and a note about independence war/etc. is attached. But I don't know if such changes are appropriate for the predecessors list. Alinor (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - for background see the previous AfD discussion and the talk page. Alinor (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere I see two valid targets proposed above, and I am not a content expert in the topic area, so I trust those others to hash out where this should be merged on the appropriate talk pages. What I also see is several people asserting that this content is worthy for encyclopedic inclusion and should be included elsewhere, even as much as they decry the title as confusing and awkward. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the article throws together a bunch of different kinds of events and treats as if they were all of a kind. And it cites no sources, but relies instead on other Wikipedia articles. Croatia's separation from Austria–Hungary is treated as an event, but not its separation from Yugoslavia. What is the basis for this? The Soviet Socialist Republics are all shown as having separated from the "foreign power" called Russia. That's just not true. This whole article from top to bottom is misleading to the reader and provides the unsourced personal opinions of its author. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia was not an empire. USSR is successor state to the Russian Empire. That is the difference - it is described in the article itself. The article doesn't deal with all separation/independence/statehood/sovereignty/etc. events - it deals only with the dissolution of the Empires of the modern time (decolonization). The articles for the other continents are called 'Decolonization of Asia/Africa/etc.', but as 'Decolonization of Europe' and even 'Decolonization in Europe' do not reflect the speciality of the case (as most Empires had their origin/mainland in Europe) it was renamed, but maybe we should rename' to a different heading? (Timeline of dissolution of the Emires of the Modern Age on the European continent) Alinor (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, your answer greatly worries me and I am now considering changing to delete. The reason for this is that I now see the article is not a mistitled list with some bad entries as I originally thought, but an original research project started for the sake of completeness. If decolonization did not occur in Europe we do not need an article for it, period. Both "empire" and "modern age" are not properly defined terms and the list is highly subjective. For example, San Marino became independent in 301 AD, definitely not modern age. The Netherlands have never been called an empire, but the Belgium separation is included for some reason. Sorry Srnec, for not understanding this earlier and accusing you of not reading the article, while I failed to read it properly myself. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course San Marino got independence not in modern age - this is clearly stated in the article - gray entries (Belgium, etc.) are included only for historical context and it is clearly stated that they are not related. They could be even removed, but I'm not sure that this will be an improvement.
Read the Decolonization article - it covers Europe (Ottoman, Austia-Hungary, British, etc.) - so decolonization did occur in Europe, but not all-over-Europe as some/most of the Empires are european countries and vice versa.
For the other continents there are only a few "historical context" entries (1 in Africa, 8 in Asia), but in Europe there are more, that's why it has coloring/font changes and different article name. Alinor (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about decolonisation, why not call it that? Because of a previous deletion request, that's why. The problems with this article are too deep to be summarised succinctly. Europe was not colonised by the Ottomans, by the "Austro-Hungarians", by the British, or by the Russians. Why force all history to fit into one paradigm? (I'd have a problem speaking of the "decolonisation" of South America, and I cannot say I have heard the loss of Portuguese and Spanish sovereignty described as such.) And what makes the USSR more of an empire than Yugoslavia? And why isn' the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire covered? And why do we need historical context about events in the Middle Ages? I think almost every line in that table is misleading.
  • Keep or Merge The article is referenced and is clearly notable. That said, the information provided could be clearer, and it certainly needs a better title (I had no idea what to expect when I clicked on that article). BlueRobe (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, the article does not contain a single reference, those are footnotes. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Footnotes are references, as are endnotes and bibliographies. BlueRobe (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not referring to referencing style here, but to the footnotes which are actually detailed explanations of stuff in the table instead of links to external sources. Read some of the "references" in the article and you will understand. Yoenit (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is good written and important. --maxval (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either title as probable WP:CFORK and by order of the Abysmal Title Redirection Cabal. JJB 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK formation is not a subject of this article. The gray entries (such as UK) are only for context. I think it is better to improve the description of the complicated cases (with some footnote or a link to appropriate article) or in the worst case delete the gray entries altogether, but the article is in no way covered in List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty - they describe different, albeit related events. Alinor (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - anything to get rid of it. I tried engaging in discussion over the article, but it kept coming back to the same thing. It is a list of what one particular editor wishes to list, and is entirely unsalvageable. Most of the entries are admitted not to be examples of what the page is stated to be about, but are still 'necessary' for context ('I made them a different color, so it doesn't matter if they are irrelevant'). The definition of what is an Empire is completely subjective and inconsistent, e.g. Yugoslavia is considered to be an Empire for the purposes of Macedonian independence, but not an Empire for Slovenian or Croatian independence, because those lands had earlier had brief independence after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This is another (counter-factual) criterion insisted upon by the editor - that no country can gain independence be listed more than once. The whole thing is one editor's pet list, the result of OR by SYN and not founded on anything other than that editor's strongly argued but arbitrary preferences, resulting in a list of whatever is in the list. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is based on the Decolonization definitions. It is a compilation from the "History of ..." articles. As described multiple times on the talk page - Yugoslavia is not considered Empire - neither for Macedonia, nor for Croatia. The empires are the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman. As the first independence of Macedonia is in 1991 it is listed as Ottoman->Serbia (as the territory of present Macedonia was acquired by Kingdom/Principality of Serbia from the Ottoman Empire). All this is described in the notes and Yugoslavia is not in the list at all. "Subjective and inconsistent" - if there are such issues they should be raised on the Decolonization talk page, where the definitions originate, not on individual continents lists. Alinor (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And we are right back to it again. The page is not a List of First Independence of European Countries, it is Modern empires' loss of European territory. To list Macedonian independence in 1991 as an example, you are thereby indicating that Macedonia was lost by a modern Empire (Serbia/Yugo). If this is an Empire, then it is likewise an Empire with regard to Slovenia and Croatia. This is not a European Decolonization page, it is Modern empires' loss of European territory, so the definitions on some other page about something else are irrelevant, and even were they relevant, their application is still subjective and inconsistent, as the above example shows. It is not appropriate to deal with this on the Decolonization page when the problem is here. Further, as we went through on the Talk page, it is not a question of your criteria vs. my criteria, that can be solved by negotiating 'our criteria'. The problem is that by basing this list on the criteria of editors rather than WP:RS, it is a WP:SYN independent of which editors judgement prevails or how consistently applied. Agricolae (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again. Macedonia is listed, not because it separated from Serbia/Yugo, but because its territory was part of the Ottoman empire and was "lost" by that empire. If you want to point out that Macedonia should be "gray"/"non-decolonization" (like Belgium for example) then I agree. And this can be easily fixed. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Alinor (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Macedonia is included because it represents a territory lost to the Ottoman Empire in 1918, why would you insist on listing it in 1991? Because that is when the Nation of Macedonia dates its independence - a further example of why the list is not what the title claims it to be. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, as others pointed out, the name is a complete disaster. "Loss of territory" is by no means the same this as "a new nation created from the territory of". If the title is "loss of territory", then every time in World War I that a single Italian trench was taken from the Austrian troops, that would be a loss of territory by an empire, if only a few square meters of it. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course minor territorial changes are not included and this is marked in the article. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but when you have to start an article by explaining that it is not really about what the name says it is, the article is misnamed. If you find yourself unable to describe what the article is about in a manner both coherent and consistent, then it is probably a bad article. This has a title that says it is one thing, a description that says it is something else, while the list matches neither title nor description. Agricolae (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title and content do match and are coherent. Of course there are examples of minor events of territorial loss (exchange). Do you propose that we should rename it to some extra-long-explanatory-name in order to reflect that? I think it is better to clarify this in the article itself, as it is currently. Alinor (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is Modern empires' loss of European territory, the description is of European nations created from the territory of Modern empires, not the same thing. The list is Chronological list of European nations arranged by their first or most recent foundation or independence date, and categorized based on whether or not they came from a former European empire or other nation-state that represents the successor state to a former European Empire. That a title like that is necessary to accurately portray the arrangement you insist the list must take is why (well, along with the other POV, OR and SYN issues, part of the reason why) we are having this discussion. Do I propose we rename the page with this ridiculous yet accurate name? No. I propose that we delete or merge the page, as recommended above, because a list needing such a title was ill-conceived from the start. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable. The information was admittedly taken from other WP pages (which are absolutely not reliable sources), which means there is no need to merge. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should delete information from one article only because it is utilized in another article too. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modern_empires%27_loss_of_European_territory&oldid=1138092046"