Template talk:Empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Useful? Just a hobby?[edit]

I question the usefulness of this template. It is just a hodgepodge of various entities called, formally or informally, academically or popularly, with or without justification, as "empires". Some are practically Wikipedianism (i.e. "Frankish Empire") and some are not linked to an article on an Empire (i.e. "Carthaginean Empire"). Even the headings "Middle Ages Empires" (should be medieval), "Modern Global Empires" (what makes these especially global?), and "Late Modern Empires" (who says this is the late modern era?) are odd. What is the purpose of this template? Srnec (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add a voice here, and don't see it overall as very useful. Maybe that's too negative; it is a popular encyclopedia, and its logical enough that if you're reading about the Roman Empire you might reach the end of the article and then be pointed on to some other Empires to read about. Brando130 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I did the expansion, but did not creat it. I just though that if it exist, then it should list all major empires, and not just a selection. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that i think that this template belongs to someones userpage rather than on Wikipedia articles. Just my thought though..Gabagool (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gabagool, his template doesnt add anything to the Encycloedia its just a collection of some users favorite pieces of history wich besides that are unrelated or not even weighted for ther true historical importance such as cultural influence that empire left. This template should be deleted, anyways all of the empires that wikipedia haves are categorized.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. One should be viewing this as a navigational bar which in itself is immensely useful, particularly for persons who may be inspired to pursue another civilization whose name they do not even know. Also, please add the Maya, Olmec, and Toltec. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Srnec; this template is amateurish. john k (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There are too many definitions of Empire for this to ever be NPOV. The periodic attempt to include the US is a case in point. This will always be WP:OR. The question of whether this or that state is/was and empire is not something that is debated in academic circles - there's a reason for that.Dejvid (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed group 6[edit]

If this is going to be a mainstream template appearing on all of these articles, group 6 must be removed on the grounds that it contains controversial, unestablished elements. E.g. potential controversy over whether to consider America an empire, or whether Nazi Germany is a useful link on the list. Brando130 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, agreed, I just followed up on the precedent logic. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Groups 4 & 5[edit]

I think, however, that group should not be called "Early modern Empires", since some of them are from the seconf half of the 19th century. On the other hand group 5 does list empire considered Global empires (and yes, I known wikipedia is not a source). Why not change the order and calling them "Global modern Empires" and "Other Modrn Empires"? The Ogre (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your good faith, its refreshing. The categorization could be based on 'Global empires'; though I'm hesitant to do so without at least one good source (nothing I have on hand, and as you said, wiki is no source) - that would be fine. Another option is to simply organize the empires to fit the new Early modern / modern scheme, as these are common terms and more historically appropriate than "late modern" was; the latter being a term that usually refers to art. I probably should have done that anyway as the one who changed the names. Brando130 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You see, for me, the problem with the Early Modern / Modern scheme is that I do not know were to place some empire that started in the early modern age and ended recentely (take the Portuguese Empire - from 1410 to 1999), or some other that had a brief existence, let's say, in the 19th century, like the Empire of Brazil (1822 to 1889). The Ogre (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ya, its not very clear cut, is it. Another possible division could be to separate the 'Colonial empires', as this would also be more common, sourcable phrasing. Something like Colonial empires / Modern empires, or modern era empires. Brando130 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

American Empire[edit]

American Empire? J. D. Redding 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The group American Empire - Soviet Empire - Japanese empire - Italian Colonial Empire - Nazi Germany was removed per talk above. The Ogre (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. J. D. Redding 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, regarding American empire and such, highly controversial additions will not help this template gain mainstream acceptance, nor should they. It is not the accepted norm to call America an Empire, but rather a highly debated topic with many proponents on both sides. In addition, the American Empire article isn't even about the history of the so-called American Empire - its about the term itself and the reasons to even call America an Empire; for the American equivalent of Roman Empire, for example, you would need to link to History of the United States. Brando130 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I understood. Thanks for stating it though. J. D. Redding 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, just wondering, where is it not accepted? Every single scholar, sociologist, historian, anthropologist, philosopher, etc. who is not a partisan has and continues to describe America as an empire. The only ones debating whether or not it is an empire are Americans. And if Wikipedia is to avoid having an American-centric POV, it should most certainly be included. Furthermore, the only reason the "American Empire" article is essentially a treatment of the terms of the debate is the furthest thing from honest taxonomy or anything worth being presented as objective. It is simply another manifestation of this debate--while American/Anglo-centric Wikipedia users are fine with firing up articles on any of the dictatorships or empires "commonly" accepted to be so, they are apparently at the vanguard when it is "their" country. Nationalism at it's best! The point is, there is no debate in the rest of the world, especially in the parts affected by U.S. "endeavors" as to America's status as an imperial power.

I mean honestly, how disingenuous can you get? The most powerful military in the world, with a long history of military expansions (from the very beginning of its inception to cover what is now the United States, including more recent additions like Hawaii), interventions (think the innumnerable devastations Latin America suffered), and "foreign wars" (the Middle East should really settle the debate right there). I mean--the Monroe Doctrine? Unilateralism? Defiance of the UN? Dictation of the terms of most global treaties? Responsible, along with its progenitor Britain, for spreading English as the de facto lingua franca across the entire globe? Still called for to acknowledge its war crimes and hold the offending bureaucrats responsible both domestically and around the world? Where are you getting that "America is not an Empire" except from the cruft that is thrown back and forth on nighttime television talkshows?

As I said. no scholar who studies anything even resembling geopolitics or political theory could possibly afford to treat America as just a big old land of people moving back and forth with an occasional war here and there to make things spicy. Any respected scholar, absolutely any must and does refer to America's imperial outings and status.

If there is no reasonable reply to these concerns in the next, shall we say week (and believe me I am open to any and all counter-claims, I just can't possibly imagine what they'd be), I'm going to go ahead and add it, or at least go along with the more sensible divisions that were suggested earlier on this talk page (as Japan is no longer an "empire" in any real sense of the term, precisely because of how it was disabled from having real military might post-WWII), with "early-modern" and "modern" empires (for example, China, which is embarrasingly absent from the list). Obviously, I don't want to just pig-headedly go through with it, I'd rather like to be able to come to a consensus, but I laughed out loud when I saw how bizarre this template looked the further down I read. And I don't think I'd be the only one.

All that's being done by fantasising "neutrality" into this discussion is to give credence to the current debate which is entirely ephemeral and entirely about America and Americans' own self-perception in the nation-state. If Wikipedians really want to avoid simply swaying with the times, then they'll do the right thing. Otherwise, we will fabricate the awkward necessity to go to the Search bar to read about modern empires instead of having the links in the template they should be in, and not for the typical technical difficulty, but for the most embarrassing reason of all: squeamishness. Parqbench (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kushan Empire[edit]

Shouldn't the Kushan Empire be added to the list of ancient empires, chronologically between the Mauryan Empire and the Gupta Empire? Nice template by the way. Cheers PHG (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And of course, of course, Parthian Empire. PHG (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also a group of possibly less important empires in ancient India: Nanda empire, Sunga Empire, Satavahana empire, Pala Empire, Hoysala Empire, Western Chalukya Empire which altogether might justify a special grouping. For the Medieval period: Vijayanagara Empire. Cheers PHG (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Among modern empires, Japanese empire and Italian Colonial Empire should be included. PHG (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kushan Empire was established by the Kushans, who were one of the five Central Asian nomadic tribes of the Yuezhi confederation. Although this empire was extended as far as northern India, but the the founders were not Indians, but Central Asians. Technically, the Kushan empire should be included in a category with the name 'Iranians', and the category 'Persians' should be changed into 'Iranians' for the following reasons: The Medes and Parthians were not ancient Persians, but they were part of ancient Iranian people. Furthermore, the Yuezhi people, who were Scythians were also part of ancient Iranian people: Kushans spoke Bactrian language, which was an eastern Iranian language; believed in Iranian divinities; and used the Iranian title of 'Shāhanshāh'.--Artacoana (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.146.86 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Aztec Empire[edit]

I think that the Aztec Empire should be added to the list of medieval empires, because the Aztec Empire, was one of the more influential empires in the region in that era, and the second largest empire in postclassic america (before the spanish conquest). Zettus 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Parthian Empire[edit]

i want just to say that Parthian Empire is one of the greatest empire alongside with roman republic and even this empire in Battle of Carrhae have a heroic victory against roman general crasus. this empire defeat successor of Alexander the Great (Seleucid Empire) in Persia and bring back the glory of persian people.i just want to say that this empire is equal to other persian empires if greater than them. so Please add this empire to the list of other ancient empires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.11.53 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Angevin Empire ?![edit]

The Angevin Empire was more of a dynasty like the Habsburgs or Qing than an empire like the eastern-Roman or Russian empires. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

I think Japan should be in a separate group, yes it is a modern empire however it is only continuing empire today. MKD Majstor 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested formatting fix:[edit]

|group4 = Modern empires |list4 = Maratha · Mughal · Chinese (Ming · Qing· Ottoman · Safavid · Afsharid · Zand · Qajar · Ethiopian · Portuguese · Spanish · Iberian · Dutch · British · French Napoleonic · French colonial · German · German colonial · Polish-Lithuanian · Russian · Swedish · Austro-Hungarian · Brazil · Italian Colonial · Korea · Japan

to

|list4 = Maratha · Mughal · Chinese (Ming · Qing· Ottoman · Persian (Safavid · Afsharid · Zand · Qajar· Ethiopian · Portuguese · Spanish (Iberian· Dutch · British · Chinese · French (First colonial · First Napoleonic · Second Napoleonic · Second colonial· German (German colonial· Polish-Lithuanian · Russian · Swedish · Austro-Hungarian · Brazil · Italian Colonial · Korea · Japan

I would also suggest putting the whole list in alphabetical order.--189.33.40.151 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II, The Ayyubid under Saladin and the Austrian Empire. It was a powerful empire before the Austro-Hungarian empire. They should be added to the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.185.86 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Two Nations[edit]

Probably we forget about adding this as an Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Two_Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talkcontribs) 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Korean Empire?[edit]

A Korean Empire!? They may have styled themselves as such for a few years before bowing to Japanese interests, but the "Korean Empire" was nothing more than a small nation thinking they're bigger than they really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.17.139 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the template. Thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.220.110.192, 27 February 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) ·


121.220.110.192 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GƒoleyFour— 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Azania and Punt[edit]

I do not feel that either belong in this template. Azania isn't the name of any single empire and nothing is known about the actual civilization or social structure of Punt, and whether or not it was an empire; the territory it occupied can not even be ascertained. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.111.184.8, 6 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Since the Haitian empires are here, should the Central African Empire not be here too?

131.111.184.8 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Logan Talk Contributions 12:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Include[edit]

Karkota Dynasty, Kashmir, India Graeco-Indian Kingdom Satavahana Rashtrakuta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.209.72 (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

dear Brandmeister,[edit]

why You undo my changes on this template? please discuss it at first --Հայկ Ափրիկյան (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

All realms you've inserted like Urartu, Orontid Armenia, Cilicia, etc are not considered empires, which can be confirmed by relevant sources and related Wiki articles. Several of those realms were kingdoms, but none an empire. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree and have reverted Հայկ Ափրիկյան again. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet Հայկ Ափրիկյան replaced these asking for a discussion - which he/she doesn't seem to want to take part in. These aren't empires. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)