Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Inaccurate Map (October 2023)

Hello, I've tried to reach a consensus with other wikiusers as seen above. Unfortunately, this article has been hijacked several times by several sockpuppets with different POVs like Venezia Friulano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Reman Empire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but fortunately, it seems the admininistrators have done a fast intervention.

The only problem is that, the actual map is inaccurate. It actually misses some Spanish territories, being the most important one Spanish Guinea which was Spanish even at the peak of the territory as shown on the map. But still, can we find or make an anachronous map like we can find in most of the other big empires wikipages? I'm still more prone for that as I have said about 2 months ago. And now we can reach a real consensus without disruptive trolls/sockpuppets acting in between like it unfortunately happened over the past 3-4 months making this page a mess.

Yet still, the actual map shown in the infobox is not historically accurate as some territories are missing, so even if we don't agree on an anachronous one, we should find at least an accurate one. It says 1714-1800 yet Spain already had Guinea in the late 1700s and this file is only in use in 2 wikipages, being this one of them and it was uploaded by a random user in 2014 without any real sources to back it up. I don't think this is accurate for any single wikipage let alone such an important one like this one... Or at least that's my opinion. What do you other users think? Thank you all and every user's opinion is welcome! LucenseLugo (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless agreed by consensus, take it out. Yes, it is wrong Patagonia? TDF? It is O.R. so remove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's bizarre that this is the only empire article that uses peak extent instead of an anachronous map. And not even a correct one for that matter.

I don't think it's a good idea to decide every single territor ourselves, though. Equatorial Guinea, Patagonia, Louisiana... there are plenty of problematic cases. We should find a reliable source and use its map.

I've been recently to the Tordesillas museum, and took a photo of the map of the Spanish empire there. I can upload it if anyone is interested. Tercer (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the only empire article to use a peak extent map rather than an anachronous one, nor are those the only options—see e.g. Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Belgian colonial empire. I remain firm in my opposition to anachronous maps, here and elsewhere. I agree that we shouldn't decide on the territories ourselves (WP:Original research is original research whether it is in text form or image, obviously), but I'm unsure about the copyright implications of using a map from elsewhere. TompaDompa (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

LucenseLugo re-added the anachronous map, which is pretty flagrantly contrary to consensus. If the peak extent map is so inaccurate that we are better off without it, then it should be removed entirely rather than replaced with a map that has been repeatedly rejected on the talk page. I have done so. TompaDompa (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa, @Tercer: and @Roger 8 Roger: and thank you for your fast reply.

As recommended by Roger, I have deleted the inaccurate map that had 0 sources and that was wrongly showing peak extent territories.

TompaDompa, the map I have added right now was actually proposed by the user @Barjimoa: a couple of months ago, before the sock burst of "Reman Empire" as I have checked all of the maps proposed in this talk page and this one seems the only one that's closer to reality yet it misses for example the Spanish territories in NW North America (I don't know until which extent did the Spaniards arrive, but they arrived at the very least to the 50°N parallel as Fort San Miguel was built in Nootka Island) but it's nowhere near as bad as the other one. Yet still, if you are against an anachronous one I respect that and your opinion counts against the proposal. I have just deleted the inaccurate map and temporarily replaced it with another one.

Oh and Tercer, it would be really interesting if you show us that map from the Tordesillas museum! Thank you all for participating and further comments are very welcome! LucenseLugo (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

But I don't understand, what's wrong with this new one? In fact it has been edited again by the user Barjimoa to have better accuracy on 28th August 2023.

You say there was a consensus to delete that map, can you please show where? As far as I know, people were opposing to use the anachronous map that used parts of the Portuguese Empire during the Iberian Union, you are the only one firmly against an anachronous map in general, users rejected the map that was a mess (the "famous one" inserted by Venezia Friulano in many pages) but that map wasn't the map I have inserted today! LucenseLugo (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Using an anachronous map was rejected by the discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 6#Spanish Empire map including Portuguese Empire, again at #Map (again), and again at #Map (yes, again again). Besides opposition to anachronous maps, you can see people (e.g. Cinderella157) expressing support for peak extent or animated maps to the exclusion of other types. Anachronous maps are bad because, and I'll quote Barjimoa here, they were made with the precise goal of misleading readers. This is not even to mention that the anachronous map you added had accuracy issues that were pointed out back in August, so it's not even an accurate map by those standards. TompaDompa (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the map I have inserted today, I can see Barjimoa and Tercer agreeing over it and you disagreeing. Not that there has been a strong opposition to it, besides of your constant disagreement over anachronous map (not blaming you, just saying it out as that's what I've seen in the discussion from above) I won't add again that map if other users don't agree it as well, but I think this page should have a map and the last anachronous one seems okay despite having some minor errors, but nowhere as bad as the one in conjunction with Portugal or the inaccurate peak extent one that was included until today.

For me this is not a problem, as I have said last night I would like to keep this as a healthy, open debate where everyone is welcome. As fortunately, we finally don't have socks we have to avoid so there is no rush into deliberately putting maps here and there. Thank you! LucenseLugo (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I view the use of anachronous maps as similar to including large number of countries in the "today part of" field of the infobox (there's a reason the documentation explicitly says Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries.) even if there may only have been a small part of the present-day country under the control of the former polity—it is (among other things) a way Wikipedia:Nationalist editors try to make "their" history seem more impressive. I expect nationalist motives to have been a major factor in the massive sockpuppetry infestation that has plagued this page for years. We don't have to set conditions to be conducive to that kind of disruption, and we should actively work against doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this:

1)My own opinion is that I favor a non-anochronous map. And, like TompaDompa, not just here, but everywhere. I consider them more readable and useful.

2)in case most users (excluding the socks) want an anachronous map, then, of all the ones I have seen, I favor the one that's been recently added by LucenseLugo, as it appears to be the least bad.

Regarding the borders, my judgement is that most (all?) of these maps appear to have overextended the borders of the Spanish empire in the Americas both to north and to the south (at least that's what seems evident when you compare them to the maps they have on Britannica or other encyclopedias). This seems to have been done by users of the Spanish wikipedia, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, on the ground of original research. Stuff like "one time some Spanish also passed by there" or "one Spanish monarch claimed this" and so they colored it as if there are researchers on the history of these places actually saying they were part of the Spanish empire. This is why we end up with so much of Northern America or Patagonia colored. It was also done in other parts of the world map. I remember a few years ago one of these maps included the city of Massawa as a part of the Spanish empire with the stated argument that there was a contract allowing Spanish ships (among other European ship) to dock there. That's how much stretched the logic behind these maps sometimes is. I have to say, this is more evident on the Spanish empire maps, but it's also a problem of other Empire maps we have on wiki.Barjimoa (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me summarize the current status: there's still controversy about whether the map should be peak extent or all conquests, and about whether the Portuguese part of the Iberian Union should be included. Everybody agrees that we should follow the maps of the reliable sources and not do OR (I think the copyright question is clear: we're free to copy the information on the maps, not the maps themselves).

My humble suggestion is then to list the actual maps used by the reliable sources so that we can reach an agreement. I contribute the photo I took in the Tordesillas museum that I mentioned before.

I also suggest we apply for WP:ECP in order to deal with the sock infestation. Tercer (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I will state again my opposition to an anachronous map in the infobox. If the map that has been used is inaccurate (as it appears), then the solution would be a request for amendments to remedy such inaccuracies. An alternative might be to review that map and determine if it is accurate at a slightly different date. I don't see a map available on commons that does not suffer from some degree of inaccuracy but this map might be a closer starting point than the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It took me two seconds to dismiss that map. It is framed around current state boundaries and is therefore wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As sourced reference. Borders of the Spanish Empire in the Americas according to Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Latin-America/Spanish-America-in-the-age-of-the-Bourbons. In green. Barjimoa (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's much better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Can we get more opinions about this topic? This is the only major empire without a map at the moment. What can we do? It's been a week already! I see the anachronous map option is winning by a small margin. The one presented by Barjimoa seems good IMO but again, more opinions are welcome! Unfortunately most if not all "peak territory" maps are inaccurate. That one shown by Cinderella157 misses territories that were part in 1800 (more territory in North America and Spanish Guinea) and includes as well territories that weren't part, specifically south of Patagonia as pointed by the user Roger 8 Roger. LucenseLugo (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Better no map than an inaccurate one, I'd say. As our WP:Editing policy states: a lack of content is better than misleading or false content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The anachronous map is not "winning by a small margin"; firstly, it's not a matter of winning or losing, and secondly only LucenseLugo and Tercer have supported an anachronous map. Other editors have stated their opposition (often repeatedly) and it was rejected in previous discussions.

What we need is a peak map that is based on reliable sources. Until such a map exists, this article should remain map-less. At some point earlier in the conversation Fort San Miguel / Santa Cruz de Nuca was mentioned, a settlement that existed for barely five years and was contested throughout. I'm not totally convinced that the infobox map needs to include tiny every outlying fortress of the Empire, but we can follow what reliable sources do on that.

(Side note: the article's lead currently claims that the empire's peak was 1810 on the basis of an article about modern Russia. The claim is obviously dubious, since Spain didn't control Spain 1810). Furius (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not an article about modern Russia. It's a peer-reviewed scientific article about the territorial extents of historical polities and how they change over time (part of a series), where Russia is used as a device explaining why this might be an interesting thing to look at. TompaDompa (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a fine distinction. It is an IR article which simply reproduces figures from a range of tertiary sources (the Spanish data apparently taken from ENGEL (1953-1962) Grosser historischer Weltatlas. Vol. I (1953) up to AD 565; Vol. 11 (1958) 600-1527; Vol. III (1962) from 1477 on. Munchen: Bayerische Schulbuch-Verlag). It would be far better to use a source actually on Spanish history for a claim that appears in the first few sentences of the article. At any rate, it is clearly nonsense, on the basis of the sources cited in Spanish_Empire#End_of_the_global_empire_(1808–1899), to say that 1810 marks the empire's peak; it was falling apart. Note further that Taagepera's article claims that the empire was exactly the same size in 1780, in which case 1810 is no peak. Furius (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate either—the figures are Taagepera's own work. The underlying data (i.e. the maps) is what's from the other sources. I'll admit that I don't quite understand why Taagepera says "peak size" about the 1810 figure when the 1780 figure is identical, but it may simply be to say "it never grew larger than this" (and obviously it would be at its largest extent immediately preceding when it started to lose territories). Anyway, that can be fairly easily fixed by adjusting the phrasing, which I have given a shot. I think it's also worth noting that "at its peak" is in this context intended to be read as "at its greatest territorial extent" rather than "at the height of its power". TompaDompa (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A better source is clearly needed. There's no end of trouble caused by relying on tangential remarks of sources that are focussed on another subject. In fact we had this problem on this very page, a Spanish nationalist pushing some absurd figures for the area based on a source that was about the linguistics of the former Portuguese and Spanish empires. Tercer (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as area estimates of historical polities go, Taageepera is the recognized authority, and the series that article is part of is the core scholarly work in the field. You're almost certainly not going to find a better source for the area. TompaDompa (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Area estimates of historical polities" is not a field. Rein Taagepera is just one guy who likes to study parallels between the evolution of empires. He is not even a historian, he is a political scientist. I think a historian that was writing about Spain wouldn't make such a basic mistake as saying that the peak of the Spanish Empire was in 1810.

And come on, this is not a niche question, there must be plenty of historians interested in the Spanish Empire specifically. Tercer (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We can call it a topic, if you prefer. Taagepera is nevertheless the most respected authority on the question "what was the area of polity X in the year Y?". That doesn't make Taagepera the source to turn to when it comes to the question "when was the peak of empire X?" or "what were the borders of empire X?", but if you want a figure in km², Taagepera is the one you ask. You might be surprised as to how niche the question of quantifying territorial extents of historical polities is. Having spent a not-inconsiderable amount of time trying to track down such figures for various polities, I can tell you it's not particularly easy. Taagepera's work is a rare example of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject, and the only one I have found (that I can recall) that outlines a rigorous and methodical approach for coming up with those figures. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's some rather implausible hair-splitting. It's not possible to know what was the area of polity X in the year Y without knowing the peak area and the borders of the polity.

And no, I don't believe for a second that quantifying the territorial extent is a niche question. Pretty much any material about some polity includes a map of its territories. From that it's straightforward to estimate the area.

Taagepera claims to have a rigorous and methodical approach, but he gives zero information about what he did for Spain specifically. There's just a bunch of years and numbers with random comments. We have no idea which territories he included or when.

I think this makes him even worse than one of the sources that you have repeatedly removed, Prados 2018. Although that one is obviously flawed, at least he shows the map specifying which territories he is including so that we can evaluate it. With Taagepera no, we just have to take his word for it. Tercer (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not possible to know what was the area of polity X in the year Y without knowing the peak area and the borders of the polity. It is perfectly possible to know what the area was in year Y without knowing what it was in any other year. But that's also not what I said. What I said was that Taagepera is the WP:BESTSOURCE for quantifying the area, but not necessarily the WP:BESTSOURCE for anything else. I don't dispute that estimating the area can be done from a map, but Taagepera is the one who has actually done so, had it peer-reviewed, and published it in an academic journal. You also must not have read Taagepera's work all that carefully if you think that he gives zero information about what he did for Spain specifically. Taagepera outlines the maps used for all the polities listed. There's a fairly long discussion above in the #Area section of the talk page about the relative merit of Iberofonía y Paniberismo as a source on the area, but in summary it fails WP:RSCONTEXT and promotes a WP:FRINGE view. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read Taagepera's paper. Please enlighten me, where does he discusses which territories belong to Spain and when? Tercer (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The most relevant aspects of the general approach are on page 477 (and a fair amount of additional details can be found in this previous paper on the subject, in particular on pages 112–114), the entry for the Spanish Empire is on 499, the key for abbreviations on 502–503, and the references on 503–504. TompaDompa (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Now you're simply being dishonest. Yeah, I know this part, this is precisely what I refereed to with There's just a bunch of years and numbers with random comments. And you want to convince me somehow that there is some detail or discussion there? Or are you trying to convince some third party that is reading our discussion without having read the paper?

By the way, I did take a look at the paper you've linked just now. As I expected, your claim is again false, there's zero discussion about Spain specifically, just general remarks about methodology. Tercer (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Taagepera relied on maps by other authors, which is clearly described in his work. Which maps were used for each polity is similarly clearly outlined in Taagepera's work. Were you expecting Taagepera to conduct the primary research (i.e. drawing the maps) himself? I mean, I explained this above a week ago (the figures are Taagepera's own work. The underlying data (i.e. the maps) is what's from the other sources). TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to the atlas which Taagepera used, which was written (drawn?) in the 1950s. Does it, for example, include all of Patagonia? How much of what is now the United States and Canada does it include? (I'm guessing not much, since Taagepera finds that the loss of Louisiana caused no change in the size of the Spanish empire between 1780 and 1810). In the interminable discussion about the infobox, a number of maps have been rejected as irredentist or out-dated for misrepresenting these details. Are the same details baked in to Taagepera's figure for the area of the Spanish empire? We don't know and any readers of WP who are interested in finding out more (one of the reasons why we provide links and references) won't be able to find out, because, as Tercer has pointed out, he provides no actual explanation of where he got these figures beyond looking them up in an old atlas. A published figure in an IR-journal is better than nothing, I suppose, but a recent source by a historian of the Spanish empire would be far better. Furius (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Taagepera's work could obviously be superseded by more recent/up-to-date work on the same general topic, and a hypothetical peer-reviewed scientific article with a more narrow focus on the territorial evolution of the Spanish Empire that similarly quantifies the area systematically could likewise be a preferable source to use here. That being said, Taagepera's work is, as I said above in the #Area section of this talk page, a highly-regarded and widely-cited piece of scholarly work. It is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology, and scholarship on the territorial extents of historical polities relies heavily on it, as it occupies a central position in the literature on the topic in a way that is similar to the position of McEvedy and Jones' Atlas of World Population History in the literature on historical population estimates. That's a high bar to clear in terms of source quality. TompaDompa (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I tracked down the atlas used by Taagepera back in 2018 when JamesOredan was WP:POV-pushing at Talk:List of largest empires, see Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8#I think there is an error in the extension of the Spanish Empire. There is some discussion there about what is included and excluded on those maps. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I expect Taagepera to explain what he did. Did he just slavishly calculate the area from the map of Engel (1962)? I assume not, that would make a mockery of his claim to have a method. Which territories did he count in, which territories did he leave out? Where did he put the borders against uninhabited territory? What was part of the Spanish Empire proper, as opposed to a different polity ruled by the same king? We have no idea, because Taagepera didn't say anything.

In any case, if anybody can get access to Engel (1962) that would be great, at least we could have a reliably-sourced map. Tercer (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd draw your attention to this passage from Taagepera p. 477 (the same thing I referred to above): the color patches in historical atlases indicate a widespread belief that some territories can be assigned to some political entities, from 3000 BC on, and this notion has been extended to the populations of these areas in atlases of population history (e.g., McEvedy and Jones, 1978). There is fair agreement among the atlases on the identity and extent of the attributions, reflecting some consensus among the historians more generally. An imperfect but operational definition for the present purposes might be that polities are indicated by the different colored patches in historical atlases. This is less flippant than it may sound. We often have a consensus on recognizing features (e.g., human faces) that we cannot easily define. That is a methodical approach. Keep in mind that this was peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal. If those who assessed it before it was published had thought it to be nonsense, it would not have passed. If later authors had thought it to be nonsense, they would not have relied so heavily on it or cited it as extensively as they do. Like it or not, Taagepera's work is generally accepted among academics as authoritative on the topic of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So now your claim is that Taagepera's "method" is just to compute the area of whatever Engel defined as the Spanish Empire? That's rather funny, because in 2018 you noted the conflict between Engel and Taagepera: Total: 15.591 million square kilometers. Seeing as the discrepancy between this and the figure of 13.7 million square kilometers is roughly the size of the Louisiana Purchase (2.140 million square kilometers), my best guess is that Taagepera did not include Louisiana (New Spain) (whether intentionally or by oversight). Which reinforces the point that we have no idea what Taagepera did. It's a terrible source, I find it rather mysterious why you are defending it so passionately. And I have absolutely no reason to believe your claim that Taagepera is "generally accepted among academics". Tercer (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Taagepera's method is making measurements on maps drawn by others, yes. Taagepera himself states so, as I noted above. He also explains why that should be viewed as a valid approach in a peer-reviewed scientific article on the subject. Again, if it were bunk, it would have been rejected rather than published. You don't have to take my word for Taagepera's work being generally accepted among academics, you can check the citation statistics yourself. Or you can read what e.g. The Oxford World History of Empire and Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires write about it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

... and then he excluded Louisiana without noting that he had done this for reasons that he never explained. So, he didn't actually follow his own approach and the peer reviewers didn't bother to check his working (which is unsurprising because it's an IR journal ). If Engel actually gives a figure, we should just use that, since Taagepera's ostensible method doesn't involve added anything that is not already in that source. Furius (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Engel doesn't provide a figure, Engel provides a map. Because again, quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is surprisingly niche. There are several possible reasons why Louisiana (New Spain) was apparently not included in Taagepera's figures. An explanation that seems likely to me is that it is not in fact shaded with the colour used to represent Spain on Engel's map, it's shaded with the colour used to represent the United States and outlined with the colour used to represent France. Another possible reason is that Taagepera deemed it to not be effectively controlled by the Spanish (much like this article states that In North America, Spain claimed lands west of the Mississippi River and the Pacific coast from California to Alaska, but it did not control them on the ground.). We can speculate all we want, but ultimately it doesn't really matter. We can use the figure from the WP:BESTSOURCE we have, which would be Taagepera, or we can omit the area figure altogether seeing as it is not required information in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You keep repeating WP:BESTSOURCE but nobody agrees with you. And no, it definitely does matter that Taagepera commits basic mistakes, we are allowed to judge the quality of our sources. In fact it's the main task of an Wikipedian. Tercer (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to like the source, but scholars researching the topic do. It's not just mainstream, it's their go-to source. We don't reject scholarly work that is widely accepted by others working on the same subject because we disagree with them.

I'm not sure what basic mistakes you're referring to here—there is no "correct" way to decide what territories to include and exclude, it's always a judgment call. There are different possible approaches to handling territorial disputes, Antarctic claims, sparsely populated or entirely uninhabited areas such as deserts and rainforests, and so on. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. In this case, Taagepera appears to have excluded Louisiana (New Spain). TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's rather enlightening to read what "The Oxford World History of Empire" write about Taagepera. Their adjective is "the most comprehensive", without saying anything about quality. And indeed when it comes to numbers they don't reproduce Taagepera's, but instead give a different area and a different year, noting that they are incorporating corrections from Etemad 2007. Now that sounds like a proper source, if anybody could get access to it. Tercer (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If you had read previous discussion on the topic on this very talk page, you would know that Etemad is accessible here, and that The Oxford World History of Empire uses both sources for Spain. And if you had read The Oxford World History of Empire properly, you would have seen that their principal source for the data is indeed Taagepera. Again, Taagepera's work is not just mainstream, but the go-to source for others working on the same topic. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Now seriously, what do you expect to accomplish by lying about a reference that I have access to? Do you think you can convince me that I'm insane and I should reject the evidence of my lying eyes? Or are you trying to play to an audience?

Directly quoting from "The Oxford World History of Empire": Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera [...] with corrections from [...] for several Inner Asian empires, and from Etemad 2007, 134-187, for modern colonial empires [...]. Now the numbers it uses for Spain are two: 7.1 million km² in 1640, which is from Taagepera, and 12.3 million km² in 1760, which is from Etemad. Now Etemad gives the following numbers for Spain: 12.298 million km² in 1760 and 0.466 million km² in 1830. While the first number might be consistent with Taagepera, the second directly contradicts it. I think it's rather telling that "The Oxford World History of Empire" ignores the higher number given by Taagepera, given that it's interested in the peak area, and prefers to use the 1760 number by Etemad, which can not be the peak number as it's from before Spain took over Louisiana. Similarly, "The Oxford World History of Empire" ignores the area for Portugal given by Taagepera and uses the one from Etemad.

Therefore, instead of lending credibility to Taagepera, "The Oxford World History of Empire" implies that it cannot be trusted. Which is unsurprising, given its opacity, and the basic mistakes we have discussed here (saying that the peak area was in 1810 and ignoring Louisiana). Tercer (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Either specify what you think I'm lying about or retract the accusation. The source says Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera where I say their principal source for the data is indeed Taagepera. That's the same thing, and another way of putting it is that Taagepera is their go-to source. There is no contradiction between that and supplementing it with other sources.

Saying that Etemad's 0.466 million km² figure for 1830 directly contradicts Taagepera, who gives a 0.9 million km² figure for 1830, is rather overstating your case. Etemad only includes the colonial possessions, whereas Taagepera includes Peninsular Spain (Taagepera counts the entire polity, not just its colonies).

You're presupposing that Louisiana (New Spain) ought to be included in the area figure and working backwards from your conclusions. Surely you realize that? TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tercer: I advise you to revise your comment above TompaDomba. Repeated accusations of that sort are regarded as casting aspersions. Donald Albury 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I won't revise anything, I stand by what I wrote. I take WP:AGF to the breaking point but no further. Tercer (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's precisely what you lied about: their principal source for the data is indeed Taagepera and Taagepera's work is not just mainstream, but the go-to source for others working on the same topic, when in fact you know that it refused to use Taagapera's numbers but went instead for Etemad. And now you just lied again: [...] supplementing it with other sources. You know very well that it is not "supplementing" Taagepera, but instead correcting it. Frankly it's impossible to have a productive discussion when you insist in such gaslighting. Tercer (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The vast majority of the figures in that table are straight from Taagepera, as the source itself states (Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera). That's hardly "refusing to use Taagepera". TompaDompa (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop being so disingenuous, this is driving me crazy. We are talking about Spain! It refuses to use Taagepera's number for Spain! Maybe he is very reliable about the Roman Empire, who knows, but that is completely irrelevant for this article.

And I don't think your claim that The vast majority of the figures in that table are straight from Taagepera is true at all. We do know that it corrects Taagepera on "inner Asian empires" and "modern colonial empires", which do account for most of the list. But no, I'm not going to check every single entry of the list to ascertain the exact proportion of the data that comes from Taagepera, that's the path to insanity. And in any case the burden of proof is on you. Tercer (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that you have spent the last few days assuming bad faith on my part. You may be talking exclusively about Spain, but I have from the start been talking about Taagepera's work and the broader subject of the territorial extents of historical polities more generally. If you re-read what I actually wrote instead of assuming what I meant, I think you will find that it makes a lot more sense to you. I mean, interpreting "The source says Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera where I say their principal source for the data is indeed Taagepera." as only referring to the figures about the Spanish Empire is a completely nonsensical reading—it plainly refers to the entire table. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. If my count is correct, 55 are exact matches for Taagepera's work. Of the remainder, a large proportion are exact matches for Turchin et al (2006), which also relies heavily on Taagepera's work (while making some adjustments). There's just no getting around it: when it comes to quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, Taagepera is the well that scholars keep drawing from. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would we follow Taagepera for these figures rather than the more recent sources which incorporate corrections? All modern discussions of, say, evolution go back to work done by Darwin, but our article cites the up-to-date sources not Origin of the Species. You can't both claim that T. is reliable because his work is drawn on by E. and the OxWHE and that their modifications - to the figures that matter for this article - are to be ignored. Furius (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even saying that we should use Taagepera's figure—in fact I specifically suggested not using any figure at all. That being said, recency isn't the only factor at play. For instance: the type of source, such as whether it is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities or not, also matters. TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is The Oxford World History of Empire not peer reviewed? Is the table in it not specifically about the territorial extent of historical polities? Furius (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you start by talking about the entire book and go on to ask about the table when the relevant comparison would be the chapter. Which unlike Taagepera's work doesn't use a single systematic overarching approach to the figures and isn't cited as heavily in the literature on the topic.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we should cite the 1760 figure from The Oxford World History of Empire (or rather, from Etemad) in this article? TompaDompa (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Furius: The problem is that Etemad doesn't compute the area for the peak extension, it just computes the area for 1760 without claiming that it was the peak.

@TompaDompa: I suggest we use Britannica as a source, as proposed by Cinderella157. I'm aware that it gives the same number as Taagepera, but it hasn't been repudiated and is a tertiary instead of primary source, which is always preferable. Now Britannica is still a bad source, it's just that we don't have anything better. Tercer (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think Encyclopædia Britannica (specifically this page, right?) is a bad source in this case—and I certainly agree that it is—why is it preferable to nothing? For that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that Taagepera is a primary source in this instance while Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary one? And where did you get the idea that Taagepera has been "repudiated"? TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Because we do need to give a number for the area. If Taagepera were the only existing source I would defend using him. If Prados were the only existing source I would defend using him. Luckily the situation is not so dire. As for the definition of primary and tertiary see WP:PST. Taagepera might be classified as secondary, if we regard his source Engel (1962) as the primary. Tercer (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I would certainly consider Taagepera's analysis of maps from other sources to be secondary research. Anyway, we don't actually need to give a figure for the area. Not doing so is a perfectly cromulent option, and there is a fairly strong case to be made that we generally shouldn't for historical polities (past a certain point back in time it doesn't correspond to the present-day notion of a country's area, the boundaries of historical political entities are often difficult to define or even inherently fuzzy, and so on—The Oxford World History of Empire and Taagepera both make several points along these lines about the limitations of trying to assign numerical values). More generally, Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy states that a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, so we are supposed to err on the side of not including content that may for one reason or another be dubious. And if you think Taagepera is too opaque (which I don't particularly agree with), surely the Britannica listicle is leagues worse? It doesn't give any indication whatsoever how the figures were arrived at. TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(a) We can give the area at multiple dates. Cf. Song dynasty (infobox rather than prose, but to give multiple areas in prose is even easier). (b) there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the claim that the peak falls in the late 18th century; we don't need to be more specific than that (and in fact there's a risk of spurious accuracy in picking out a specific date "it reached its peak on 13th June 1787 at 8:02" is ludicrous and "in 1787" is not much less so). There's no preference for tertiary sources (WP:TERTIARY), but a more recent secondary source is generally preferable to an older one (WP:RSAGE).

So, yes, I'd prefer to go with the The Oxford World History of Empire 's figure(s), being a synthesis of Taagepera and Etemad. It obviously won't be as heavily cited as these sources, because it was published two years ago, but it incorporates both their insights, and comes from a very reputable publisher; T.'s "systematic overarching approach" isn't really relevant since in this article (perhaps as opposed to a list of empires by area), we're only interested in the one polity. Furius (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We can indeed—other examples include Mongol Empire and Roman Empire. I've been involved in a fair amount of infoboxes when it comes to historical area estimates, and another "outside the box" solution is presenting a range of estimates and clearly labelling them as such, see e.g. Maurya Empire and Kushan Empire. There are also quite a few that simply don't give an area estimate at all.

I think calling it a synthesis of Taagepera and Etemad is a bit of a stretch when it uses one figure from each for different years. Scheidel's chapter in The Oxford World History of Empire hasn't (as far as I can tell) been as heavily cited as Taagepera's work even when only looking at the time since the publication of the former. But yes, it's certainly possible that sources will from here on prefer citing Scheidel to citing Taagepera, which would indicate a greater level of acceptance (for lack of a better word) among scholars working on the topic. I think having a consistent approach is important—the figures listed by Scheidel were arrived at by different methods (and people, which matters less if at all) and are therefore not directly comparable to each other, including the two figures for the Spanish Empire. It's a question of internal validity.

We do already phrase the WP:LEAD in a way that avoids excessive precision both in terms of time and area (At its greatest extent in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Spanish Empire covered over 13 million square kilometres (5 million square miles)), though the infobox doesn't really lend itself to that kind of nuance. What would your opinion be on not giving a numerical value at all? TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And we have yet another example of bad faith: the question was which proportion of the figures come from Taagepera. You counted 55 and acted as if this supported your claim that the "vast majority" are "straight from Taagepera". You neglected to mention that the total number of figures is 91, which instead shows that your claim is false. Tercer (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Still the majority, even if you wouldn't characterize it as "vast". And that's discounting instances where the area matches but the year doesn't (hence "exact matches"), of which there are plenty. But yes, it was somewhat fewer than I thought. I find it curious that you would take my "vast majority" as evidence of bad faith when you said it corrects Taagepera on "inner Asian empires" and "modern colonial empires", which do account for most of the list, which is incorrect since they make up a minority of the entries.

And I suppose I'll ask you too: what do you suggest be done with this article? TompaDompa (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked WP:SOCK, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thumbs up to you to be able to stand up to this Wikipedia bully. Arguing with TompaDompa is not good for mental health, I've experienced what you are right now many times, it's like hitting a wall, it's a challenge like no other, a peculiar and a mental exhausted one. Winning against this guy in the talk page will be close to impossible, may luck be on your side. 87.196.74.126 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) But please be careful to don't completely lose it. I've been studying his tactics for many years and like a chess player he will strike down your king (your ego) when he sees an opening. I would say that 30 to 40% (or even more) of people who have long debates with him, end up being blocked. He makes everyone lose their heads and because of this many users simply break the Wikipedia rules and end up being blocked. This is part of his game, that's why he's a grandmaster of this Wikipedia game. Unfortunately many administrators are unaware of this insane game and keep failing us. 87.196.74.126 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

THE RIOT ACT: I have caught up on this discussion to date. While I support a robust discussion of differences, this has degenerated into INCIVILITY. Calling others liars (or that they are lying) amongst other allegation rises to the level of PERSONAL ATTACKS. Enough is enough. While none of this has been directed at me, it is still totally unacceptable and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If this misconduct does not cease immediately, I will take this to WP:ANI. Be warned! Cinderella157 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad TompaDompa is finally being noted as a lunatic among us.

His obsession with Taagapera source can drive any wikipedian insane, and above all he uses the Portuguese empire as his punching bag, especially in list of largest empires page.

Users have been fighting against him in that page for countless years (I believe it stated in 2017 or so), they provide the best evidences and sources that the Portuguese empire was not as small as Taagapera wrote, but TompaDompa is just too powerfull and gets the upper hand every single time. We all should join forces and end this crazy game once and for all. 87.196.74.126 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment I have been able to catch up on the discussion to date. The present issue (as I read it) comes down to whether we report the peak area of the empire as 13.7 M km2 (per Taagepera) or 12.3 M km² (per Etemad). Both are WP:SECONDARY sources. A second consideration discussed is when this peak occurred; though I see a consensus formed that this is resolved by using a broad descriptive range per the lead at present rather than a particular year? I see arguments made by both sides as to why a particular source should be preferred.

There is a criticism of Taagepera that the intricate detail of their workings is not reported. Anyone that has been published in scholarly journals (as I have) will probably know that they are not interested in the intricate details of methodology but a broad description consistent with the description provided by Taagepera. One will also understand that for earlier works (upon which [I understand] he builds), typesetting of images was a premium avoided if possible. I might have missed it but I am not seeing that Etemad's methodology is more specifically explained either. There is some discussion about Spanish Louisiana (1762–1801) and how this relates to figures. A big part of the issue is the distinction between what might have been claimed and what was reasonably controlled and how the different authors have dealt with this. From the period of the mid-18th century to the early 19th century, there are competing issues of acquisition or loss through war or treaty and natural expansion of control over claimed territory. A pertinent comment to note is The problem is that Etemad doesn't compute the area for the peak extension, it just computes the area for 1760 without claiming that it was the peak. For us to assert this is a peak area would probably be pretty close to WP:SYNTH. It has been pointed out that there is no difference between Taagepera's area for 1780 and what he describes as the peak, in 1810. It is not particularly troublesome if one realises that he is reporting to two significant figures (ie ± 0.5 M SqMi). I also note that while Napoleon Bonaparte forced the abdications of Ferdinand VII and his father Charles IV and then installed his brother Joseph Bonaparte as king (1808-1813) and Spain was a puppet state of France, it was nonetheless still a kingdom and empire (even if quite dysfunctional). I am not really seeing in the discussion why Etemad should be preferred over Taagepera, but more of why Taagepera should not be preferred. EB (a tertiary source) is citing 5.3 M SqMi (Taagepera). Per WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. I also see a report that The Oxford World History of Empires figure(s) uses both Taagepera for 1640 and Etemad for 1760. I would not describe this as a synthesis of the two authors but a use (for whatever reason not readily apparent) of figures from the two different authors at two different times. Unfortunately, I can't see very much of this source. While I cannot see figure 2.5, I can see: Figure 2.5 Largest Eurocentric empires, 1580-2000 (in million km2) Source: Taagepera ....

To be honest, amongst all of this wall of words, I'm not seeing a strong case for why Etemad should be preferred for reporting the peak area. At the risk of inviting another wall of text, could someone simply summarise what this case is. It is appropriate to offer the other editors here a similar right of rebuttal but let's keep it to just one response each please. If we are going to prefer one source over the other because one is better or worse than the other, then we should really be looking for critiques of these works published in reliable sources and try to avoid our own WP:OR.

From all of this, I see that there are four eight possible ways forward:

1. Use Taagepera's figure of 13.7 M km2
2. Use Etemad figure of 12.3 M km2 for 1760. We potentially run afoul of WP:SYNTH since this is not described as the peak. We would certainly need a second source that says the peak was in 1760 and even this does not let us right off the hook.
3. Use an average of both sources - 13 M km2. At face value this is a compromise solution but we would still need to justify why to use the 1760 figure while Taagepera's figures for 1780 and 1810 are the same and the latter is reported to be the peak year.
4. Report Taagepera's figure of 5.3 M SqMi to only one significant figure not two - ie 5 M SqMi (13 M km2). Given the range of assumptions and potential errors for the calculation of any such figure, it is not unreasonable for us to report this to a lesser degree of certainty.
5. Report 13.7 M km2, citing Encyclopædia Britannica. Per WP:BRITANNICA at WP:RSP, Britannica is not always considered a reliable source, particularly for material not written by staff writers. This particular article was written by Don Vaughan, who is a freelance writer. The article gives no sources. The authorship means that it falls into that particular category of EB articles that may not be reliable.
6. Report 13.7 M km2, citing both EB and Taagepera.
7. Do not report a numerical figure for peak area in the article at all.
8. Similar to option 2, to use Etemad figure of 12.3 M km2 for 1760 but refrain from specifying that this is a peak area. This is proposal would need to resolve how the present text in the lead would be amended from the current version: At its greatest extent in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Spanish Empire covered over 13 million square kilometres (5 million square miles), making it one of the largest empires in history.

Added two more options subseqent to Tercer's post below. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Added more option subsequent to TompaDompa's post here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Added another option subseqent to Tercer's post here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't formed a clear opinion on which of these options would be the best way forward. Let's see if we can't discuss these options as if it were a formal RfC and reach a consensus on how to move forward. If we can't, then we probably are looking at a formal RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid your summary didn't encompass my position: I think Taagepera cannot be used because he makes basic mistakes and his figure was rejected by The Oxford World History of Empires, they "corrected" it with Etemad's figure. On the other hand, we cannot use Etemad's figure because it's not a peak area. The only acceptable source left is therefore Britannica. The fact that it gives the same figure as Taagepera is immaterial, what I care about is the quality of the source not the area it gives. Tercer (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

On a second thought, you're right: Britannica really doesn't make the cut. I propose yet another option: use Etemad's figure but without claiming it's the peak. Just say it was the area in 1760. This is the same solution that "The Oxford World History of Empires" adopted. Tercer (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also missing an option here: not giving any numerical value at all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the case for preferring Etemad

Case for please write below here.

Rebuttal please write below here.

Discussion of options (Votes!)

Please indicate preferred option and why.

• Options 3 (average) and 5 (Encyclopædia Britannica) are both non-starters for reasons of WP:SYNTH and unreliability, respectively. Consequently, option 6 (Britannica+Taagepera) is just a worse version of option 1 (Taagepera). Option 4 (Taagepera rounded) is reasonable in prose and the current status quo there (specifically rounded down and stated as a lower bound), but doesn't really work in the infobox. Option 1 (Taagepera) is the current status quo in the infobox, and I don't mind it. Option 2 (Etemad) only works if we make sure not to imply that it's the peak value, and to my eye an inferior option to using Taagepera. Option 7 (no figure) is probably the best one—we shouldn't try to give a simple answer to a non-simple question. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 8. We have a reliable source for the area in 1760, and we don't have a reliable source for the peak area. The text can be changed for example to It was one of the largest empires in history, having covered over 12 million square kilometres (4.5 million square miles) in 1760. Options 2 and 3 are not acceptable because it would be WP:OR or, in the best case, WP:SYNTH. Options 1, 4, and 6 are not acceptable because as we have extensively discussed Taagepera is unreliable. Reducing the number of significant figures of an unreliable number doesn't make it reliable. Option 5 is subpar as Britannica is not generally reliable, but that is still better than being known as unreliable. That would be my second choice. Giving no number at all doesn't make sense. We have a reliable number for 1760, and there's clearly interest in knowing the area. Moreover, nobody disputes that the Spanish Empire did cover over 12 million km2 in 1760, which is all the text is saying. Tercer (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have an opinion on the infobox? TompaDompa (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, we put 1760, 12.298 million square kilometres, with a footnote saying that this refers to the empire outside Europe. The infobox doesn't say anything about it being a peak area. Tercer (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Uncertain. Taagepera is inherently a WP:RS. I will take it though, that where Taagepera is being referred to as unreliable, this relates to certain figures they report and particularly for the Spanish Empire. The main evidence presented for this is from Scheidel, where, at several places, they appear to rely on Etemad rather than Taagepera. The argument made against Taagepera is not based on explicit criticism by Scheidel. Quoting from Scheidel: The boundaries of empire are notoriously hard to define ... The figures in Table 2.1 try to take account of a state's capacity to project power over terrain that lacked state-level competitors, even if that terrain could not be steadily controlled. In general, our totals therefore tend to be generous rather than conservative, albeit in a fairly consistent manner. Overall, anything resembling precision often remains beyond our reach. These tallies are simply meant to convey a sense of orders of magnitude. [Scheindel, p. 94]. Also from the discussion and the quotes given therein, different authors apply different criteria to determine which areas are assessed as being a part of an empire. This does not inherently mean that an area arrived at by one author is inherently correct and the figure arrived at by another is inherently wrong. It is simply a reflection of the criteria used. If a third author uses similar criteria to one of these two authors, it can be seen as an endorsement for those criteria but it does not mean that those criteria are more correct. One author is not sufficient to form/reflect a consensus among authors (plural). I have seen some comments previously to effect that Taagepera is not to be trusted because they have not shown the intricate detail of their workings. The same could be said of Etemad. However, to me, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process of publishing in academia. Journals are not like doing homework at school. They describe the methodology in broad terms. This is not a valid criticism. Another relevant comment is that Etemad's figure is for Spain's overseas colonies. It was not able to see that particular part of Etemad's work to confirm this, so I must take this at face value but it would mean that Etemad's figure must be increased for the area of European Spain in order to report the area of the empire (ie 12.8 M km2 not 12.3 M km2). I am therefore leaning toward reporting the area as 5 M SqMi and 13 M km2 (ie with minimal claims of precision) at a time broadly described (as already done). Both Taagepera and Etemad can be cited along with the quote by Scheindel, [p. 94].

  This is not true, Etemad gives much more detail about the territories he includes, in table 8.1 and in Appendix C. This also makes it clear that he is not including the European territories. Tercer (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I have a better link to The Oxford World History of Empires (here) in which I am able to see their figure 2.5 (the caption for which I quoted above). Figure 2.5 is reproduced from Taagepera's figure 3 with minor modifications: aspect, units of area and the number of empires being reported. Figure 2.5 does show an area of about 13.7 km2 at about 1810 for the Spanish Empire. Consequently, while the The Oxford World History of Empires reports Etemad's figure for 1860 in table 2.1, I cannot see how anything negative can be implied by this in respect to how the authors view Taagepera's peak figure. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I similarly think the case about the position of The Oxford World History of Empire vis-à-vis Taagepera's peak figure has been heavily exaggerated. Scheidel mentions the approach for Table 2.1 twice on page 91: the first time is in the main prose, which says Attempts to measure the amount of land claimed by imperial powers have a long pedigree: the most comprehensive set of estimates, produced by Rein Taagepera from the 1970s to the 1990s, forms the basis for this section. With some modifications drawn from more recent scholarship, Table 2.1. summarizes his findings [...], and the second time is in a footnote that says Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera [...], with corrections from Cioffi-Revilla, Rogers, [...]. The author uses "modifications" and "corrections" interchangeably here. Scheidel doesn't make any comment whatsoever concerning Taagepera's figure for Spain specifically, which he does for the Xiongnu polity (p. 96) and the Mongol Empire (p. 94). Similarly, using Etemad's 1760 figure does not necessary imply rejecting Taagepera's 1810 (or 1780) figure, especially considering that Taagepera's 1640 figure is indeed used. It's one thing in cases where Scheidel and Taagepera report a different areas for the same year, but here there is not even a direct contradiction; reporting figure X for year A instead of figure Y for year B does not necessarily imply disbelieving the latter. Remember that Taagepera reports multiple figures for nearly all polities covered, whereas Scheidel in almost all cases reports only a single one. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just an implication, they directly wrote that they are correcting Taagepera: Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera [...] with corrections from [...] for several Inner Asian empires, and from Etemad 2007, 134-187, for modern colonial empires [...]. If they thought Taagepera's number was reliable they would certainly have reproduced it, because they are interested in the peak area. I've also checked the numbers they use for the other modern colonial empires: there are several corrections. The biggest I found were for the size of the French Empire in 1880, where they corrected 0.7 to 3.1, and for the size of the Portuguese Empire: Taagepera reports 4.0 in 1740 and gives as its peak 5.5 in 1820, whereas they report 8.5 in 1760, a clearly incompatible number. I think the conclusion is clear that Taagepera is unreliable for modern colonial empires, and indeed they are telling us so.

Figure 2.5 is clearly just meant to give us a rough idea of what was going on, you're not supposed to extract numbers from it. Note that they simply reproduce the curve for Portugal from Taagepera instead of plotting one with their own numbers, even though the difference is so big that it would be clearly visible at this sketch level. Tercer (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, "modifications" and "corrections" are used interchangeably, which is noteworthy. I think the conclusion is clear that Taagepera is unreliable for modern colonial empires, and indeed they are telling us so. That's certainly one possible interpretation, but it's hardly the only one. Another possible interpretation is that Taagepera is unreliable for some of them but reliable for others. A third is that Taagepera is reliable, but Scheidel thinks Etemad is preferable for one reason or another. What the area of a historical polity was isn't a question with a "correct" or "true" answer, it depends on how strictly one chooses to define what counts towards it, be it fairly inclusive or fairly exclusive. This is even a point Scheidel makes: The figures in Table 2.1 try to take account of a state's capacity to project power over terrain that lacked state-level competitors, even if that terrain could not be steadily controlled. In general, our totals therefore tend to be generous rather than conservative, albeit in a fairly consistent manner. Overall, anything resembling precision often remains beyond our reach. These tallies are simply meant to convey a sense of orders of magnitude. Indeed, if Scheidel thought Taagepera unreliable for modern colonial empires, surely they wouldn't reproduce Taagepera's graph of modern colonial empires? Or if they did, surely they would modify it or add some caveats? This is, to me, a rather obvious contradiction in your line of reasoning. It seems to me like you are working backwards from your conclusion, i.e. your assessment that Taagepera is wrong/unreliable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't "modify" or "correct" figures that you think are already correct. The fact that Scheidel did so for several of Taagepera's figures clearly shows there's something wrong, even if he didn't bother to tell us what exactly. Your attempt to read anything other than a correction into Scheidel is frankly bizarre. The only explanation I can come up with is that you are working backwards from your conclusion that Taagepera is perfect.

As for the graph, I already addressed it in my comment, but somehow you missed it. Here, let me copy-paste for you: Figure 2.5 is clearly just meant to give us a rough idea of what was going on, you're not supposed to extract numbers from it. Note that they simply reproduce the curve for Portugal from Taagepera instead of plotting one with their own numbers, even though the difference is so big that it would be clearly visible at this sketch level. Tercer (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure you can, if you think multiple figures can be equally valid but one is more appropriate for your purposes (a fairly common example in other contexts is using mean vs. median). Scheidel explicitly leans inclusive (see quote above). Taagepera does not (see e.g. here: Empire size (S) at any given time (t) is defined as the dry land area it controls, at least in the sense of having some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives.).

I read that part of your comment, and I came to the opposite conclusion—it's nonsensical to reproduce a graph you think is straight-up wrong without adding any modifications or caveats to it if it will be obvious that it is incorrect simply by looking at it. The fact that Scheidel did indeed reproduce it thus indicates that Taagepera's work is reliable enough in their estimation. They could have trivially removed the lines they thought were wrong (they removed a couple of others) or truncated the graph horizontally if they thought it was off at the beginning or end of the time period (Figure 2.4 immediately above was truncated at the end). They even tweaked the smoothness of the curves somewhat. Why would they bother doing that if they thought the underlying data was hokum? As you say, the difference for Portugal is so large as to be obvious—if they thought it bogus, including it was quite an unforced error on their part since they could have just omitted that line altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand: Taagapera's work is good enough to give a rough idea of the size of the empires over time, but not good enough to produce actual numbers. If you look closely, you'll see that the figure was indeed modified, removing spurious detail. Which reinforces the point that it was only meant to give a rough idea. Tercer (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, this is evidence that Scheidel is not a reliable source in this context, since there is a clear contradiction between the figures and graphs they present and the source thus lacks internal consistency. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I've looked at List of largest empires, and now the explanation for your puzzling behaviour is clear. The authorship of the page is 78.7% by you, and the reference for almost every single entry is Taagepera. You have been defending this source for years in the talk page against tons of people pointing out its obvious mistakes. Tercer (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I read the riot act (above) and I have already raised one ANI report since, that has resulted in the temporary ban of an editor. I have no objection to a robust discussion of the issues but we should argue facts, not personalities and WP:AVOIDYOU. The addendum you have made can be seen as WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of MISCONDUCT. I do not see how this is at all helpful and contributing productively to the discussion. I would advise you consider striking this comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that when they insult me accusing of me of working backwards from the conclusion you don't do anything, but when I respond with exactly the same insult and provide evidence for it you threaten me with ANI. I won't strike anything, my addendum is completely true. Tercer (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I read the riot act, the phrase working backward has been used thrice: once immediately above, once by TompaDompa here and by Tercer here in response, making the converse observation in respect to TompaDompa. If there is reason to take umbrage to the initial comment, then there is plenty of guidance that tells us to refrain from responding in kind and that two wrongs don't make a right. If there is any reasonable point to be made by such a comment, then it can an should be made in a way to WP:AVOIDYOU. The edit beginning Addendum is well outside the realm of what I consider to have a place in a good robust discussion and rises to a clear level of incivility and/or personal attack (IMO). I cannot see that this is in any way a positive contribution to the discussion. Three wrongs definitely don't make a right. It seems to me to be a clear escalation of inappropriate conduct and BAITING. I perceive that the response I received (just above) is just shooting oneself in the foot. I do hope that the involved editors will consider what I have written and take action in accordance with the advice I have given. I would hope that none of us want this discussion to degenerate to the previous level. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment The use of Taagepera by Scheidel (The Oxford World History of Empires) has continued to a point where further discussion of this point by TompaDompa and Tercer is unlikely to raise anything new or particularly relevant. In short, we have flogged this particular horse to death. Any further comments on this particular issue by these two editors is only going to create a wall of text that nobody will have the perseverance to read.

I have previously referred to figure 3 from Taagepera and the similar figure 2.5 in The Oxford World History of Empires. There is no figure 3 in the latter publication (figures and tables use a decimal format eg 2.5). Tercer, as you were primarily referring to what was written in The Oxford World History of Empires, that context made a reference to figure 3 ambiguous for me as there is no figure 3 in The Oxford World History of Empires. I can only assume that you mean figure 3 from Taagepera. If I have understood you correctly, can I suggest you amend your references to figure 3 to read figure 2.5, since this would help any others trying to read this.

To summarise the discussion regarding the use of Taagepera by Scheidel: Tercer would observe that Scheidel has on occasions chosen to report a different area for a different date than that reported by Taagepera and in some other cases they would report different areas for dates that Taagepera reports. Scheidel nonetheless relies to a large extent on data from Taagepera though at some points they make corrections or modifications and rely on other authors. Tercer would assert that Scheidel implies there are significant errors in Taagepera's work sufficient to conclude that Taagepera is unreliable for modern colonial empires. TompaDompa would largely disagree with Tercer and offers statements in rebuttal. I found the following quote from Scheindel particularly significant: The boundaries of empire are notoriously hard to define ... The figures in Table 2.1 try to take account of a state's capacity to project power over terrain that lacked state-level competitors, even if that terrain could not be steadily controlled. In general, our totals therefore tend to be generous rather than conservative, albeit in a fairly consistent manner. Overall, anything resembling precision often remains beyond our reach. These tallies are simply meant to convey a sense of orders of magnitude. [Scheindel, p. 94]. Consider also this from Taagepera (here) indicative of their approach more generally: Empire size (S) at any given time (t) is defined as the dry land area it controls, at least in the sense of having some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives. It would reasonably appear that different author's have different criteria for how they include or exclude different areas. Two figures for the same time based on different critera does not mean that either figure is inherently in error. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment Instead of arguing points, can I suggest that you cast your Votes! for your preferred option and perhaps an alternative. Can I also suggest that we limit response under each editors Vote! to one rebuttal and one reply, otherwise this is only going to turn into another wall of text that nobody will read. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't !vote because you didn't add my preferred option: use Etemad's figure for 1760 without claiming that it is the peak area. Tercer (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit indicated a position that was to use Britannica for the figure and two options were added in consequence. I will add an additional option in accordance with what is now indicated. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Where to now? Unless by some miracle, my Vote! leads to some sort of consensus, the question to be addressed by this discussion remains unresolved and the only way forward to reach a resolution is to start an RfC. Tercer and TompaDompa, can you indicate if you think we can reach a resolution or we need to start an RfC? Subject to your responses, I will formulate an RfC based on the options we have identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those are the only options—we could also simply wait for additional editors to weigh in without starting an RfC. There's no guarantee that an RfC would result in a clear consensus—they often don't—and I don't think this is a case where the conditions are more favourable in that regard than in most cases (if anything, I would say the opposite).

Resolving this among ourselves shouldn't be particularly difficult, as there are at least two obvious ways of cutting the Gordian Knot, as it were: giving a fairly low level of precision (it is uncontroversial that the level of precision it is possible to achieve is limited) and not giving any figure whatsoever (there is no requirement to present this information in the first place). TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with your compromise. We don't mix good sources with bad sources, and we don't arbitrarily choose a lower level of precision to remedy an unreliability of the source. No, what we should do is exactly what "The Oxford World History of Empire" did: use the best source only.

I think an RFC is the only solution. We could wait for Furius to chime in so we have a better idea where the consensus may lie. Tercer (talk) Tercer (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)