Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Greatest share of world population

according to the Guinness World Records, by share of population, the largest empire was the Achaemenid Empire, better known as the Persian Empire, which accounted for approximately 49.4 million of the world’s 112.4 million people in around 480 BC – an astonishing 44%. Originating in modern-day Iran, the empire was first established by Cyrus the Great and included parts of Central Asia, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and even European territories such as ancient Thrace and Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moradoon (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have moved this to a new section at the bottom of the talk page, see WP:Talk page guidelines. Anyway, Guinness is not a WP:Reliable source for this information. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance tags added by User:SpaceEconomist192

SpaceEconomist192 recently added {{unreliable source?}} and {{better source needed}} tags to one of the entries on the list. These tags are without merit; the source in question is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. It is also used for a bunch of other entries on the list, where these tags were not added. I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of an editor disagreeing with what the source says rather than there being an actual problem with the source. I have consequently removed the tags, but they were later re-added. There have been no suggestions from the editor who added the tags about what to do and it's starting to look like the tags are there purely to express disapproval, which is of course not what maintenance tags are for. I don't see how this can lead to anything productive, but I'd prefer this not ending up as a protracted WP:Edit war of removing and re-adding the maintenance tags, so I figured I'd bring this up here to see if there is anything to be done before removing the inappropriate tags again. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The tags are added for a reason, the source used for the Portuguese Empire value has been contested over and over again by a lot of editors. The reason why I added the tags in question, it's not only to bring to attention the bias of the source but to also contest the WP:OWNERSHIP exhibited by TompaDompa. Aditionally, there're more definitions of empire other than Taagepera's, plus for some reason the concept of effective control is only religiously held against the Portuguese Empire, almost all other major empires didn't control the full extent of their claimed territory and it would be absurd to even think that's reasonable, even in today's world this isn't verifiable for quite some countries. I don't substitute it with other source because, as you very well know, there're very few studies about the territorial extents of historical polities, though there're plenty of primary and secondary sources that contradict Taagepera claim that Portugal didn't have a presence in the interior of Brazil. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

None of that is the same thing as the cited source being unreliable. It remains a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Editors disagreeing with its approach does not change that. Taagepera also doesn't claim that Portugal didn't have a presence in the interior of Brazil, what Taagepera says is that there was "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil" in 1820, which is completely different (presence ≠ control). The Portuguese Empire is treated the same way by the source as all the other ones. As I've said before: it's pretty clear from reading what Taagepera wrote about Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Britain, and France that control came gradually over time. It's therefore not surprising that the area controlled by the French and British in the 1900s would more closely resemble the area they claimed (and modern-day borders) than in the case of Portugal in the early 1800s. That concept of control coming gradually over time is also apparent if one looks at the curves on page 484.

If you think there is an WP:OWNERSHIP issue here, the appropriate thing to do is to bring it up at WP:ANI, not to add maintenance tags to the article. Adding maintenance tags to express disapproval, which is basically what you're saying, is just being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. TompaDompa (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese empire (for the 100th time)

I can't believe portuguese empire is still listed as 5,5 million km2 when it's been proved on this talk page many many times that Portugal had an effective control over the entire of Brazil. Why are we letting a single guy having the complete authority over this page? 168.182.165.85 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What multiverse is this? Since when is the Spanish empire bigger than the Russian one?

Stop editing nonsenses 89.205.124.11 (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa

This source is from ABC (newspaper), which is not a reliable source for this material. This source is likewise hardly the most reliable source for this material and does not even provide the year, making it unusable for reasons of WP:SYNTH. The source they replaced is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE source we can get for this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave you an extra citation. South America already makes 18M km2 you add Mexico, half the US, central america, Philippines, all the Portuguese African territories+ half Italy , half Germany, Netherlands and you have more than 20M km2 under effective control. Philippe the 2nd. Do I have to make a paper for you to add it when I already gave you a book? Comn man this is unrealistic nd you know it. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do WP:Original research. If you want to replace a source that gives one figure with a different source that gives another figure, the new source has to be a higher-quality one. In that case that's going to be rather difficult since the source you want to replace is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. The sources you did try to add were way inferior. Both the area and year also need to come from the same source, or else you're engaging in WP:Improper editorial synthesis. The territories you mention weren't even all controlled by Spain at the same time. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok here you have another source: [1]http://academiadeladiplomacia.es/pdf/Iberofonia-y-Paniberismo-Durantez-2018-libro-en-pdf.pdf

Page 109

ISBN: 978-84-16159-29-1 JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

24M km2 JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. This is a textbook example of just that. Furthermore, that source does not actually say on page 109 that the Spanish Empire reached its maximum extent in the year 1638, as you falsely claim. That is a completely unacceptable misrepresentation of a cited source. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa, repeatedly removing maintenance tags to this effect without addressing them is rather disruptive. Surely you understand that we can't just cherry-pick the source with the highest estimate without taking source quality into consideration? TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

My citation, the research on page 109 and on page 138 indicates on the one hand the extension of 24 million km2 for the Spanish empire and on page 138 there is a map that shows it. This research is specialised in the territorial extension of the Spanish Empire and is more specialised and descriptive than the one you provide. Please accept it as I will not stop changing this over and over until the truth is shown. Please accept the change as I will not stop until the truth is exposed for what it is. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. As Cinderella157 pointed out at Talk:Spanish Empire#Area, WP:THESES are not ideal sources. Contrary to your assertion that This research is specialised in the territorial extension of the Spanish Empire and is more specialised and descriptive than the one you provide, it's a brief mention without any signs of scholarly rigour on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities in Iberofonía y Paniberismo, a source on a completely different topic. No serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km² to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union, and no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control. To put it simply, the figure you put forth represents a WP:FRINGE view. The source you replaced, on the other hand, is 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. When it comes to source quality and reliability in this context, there is simply no comparison. Your closing words sound like a declaration of intent to WP:Edit war in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is another discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire#Area discussing this very issue - the peak area of the Spanish Empire. As Spanish Empire is the primary article for this, how about we centralise the discussion there? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

In light of the discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire#Area and WP:FRINGEN, I'm going to restore the long-standing stable version. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Using the best source

SpaceEconomist192, this is rather disruptive. You're not disputing the difference in reliability between the sources, so why present an estimate from a lower-quality source alongside one from a higher-quality one? We're supposed to use the WP:BESTSOURCE. TompaDompa (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as no reply has been forthcoming in over a week, I'm going to restore the long-standing stable version. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Union wasn't an empire....

Although it wasn't an empire, I would be fine with it having a place on the list as long there is a note informing the reader as such. 172.116.113.102 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

RS say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Even Chatgpt knows Portuguese empire was around 10.4 million km2

Blocked WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive#25 June 2023 TompaDompa (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"The total land area of the Portuguese Empire throughout its history is difficult to precisely quantify due to the changing nature of colonial boundaries, territorial disputes, and the expansion and contraction of territories over time. However, estimates suggest that at its height during the 16th century, the Portuguese Empire may have covered around 10.4 million square kilometers. This figure includes the territories and colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas under Portuguese control. It's important to note that this estimate is approximate and can vary depending on the specific definitions and boundaries used to define the Portuguese Empire. The empire went through periods of expansion and contraction, and the exact extent of its territories changed over time" 109.48.241.191 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. TompaDompa (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC) ChatGPT doesn't "know" anything, and an estimate of 10.4 million km2 at its height during the 16th century is so far outside the academic mainstream as to be risible. No serious scholars consider Portuguese territorial expansion to have been at its height in the 1500s. That alone is such an obvious red flag that you really should have been able to dismiss that entire statement as nonsense out of hand. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire's extention

LTA socks' tendentious query needs no further attention.

In the expanse of historical research, a vast compendium of articles converges to shed luminance on the true extent of the Portuguese Empire, revealing an overwhelming consensus that attests to its grandeur at 10.4 million km² by the late 18th century, early 19th century. Countless scholarly works, authored by esteemed historians and ardent researchers, resound in harmonious accord, substantiating the empire's vast territorial reach that shaped world history. Amidst this symphony of historical documentation, a lone and antiquated article, revered by TompaDompa, suggests a markedly diminished size of 5.5 million km². Like an evanescent whisper in the winds of time, this solitary piece stands as an outlier, proffering an incongruous perspective that diverges significantly from the tapestry of evidence woven by a multitude of scholarly voices. The weight of historical veracity firmly rests upon the shoulders of the preponderance of evidence, an intricate mosaic of meticulously researched articles that converge upon the empire's true extent. This robust chorus of historical insights, encompassing a breadth of disciplines and perspectives, leaves little room for doubt regarding the Portuguese Empire's expansive reach. To ascribe unwavering reverence to a single outdated source, while dismissing the abundant and compelling evidence that prevails, bears the risk of obscuring the empire's genuine might—a disservice to the pursuit of truth and intellectual rigor. By acknowledging the 10.4 million km² expanse of the Portuguese Empire, we honor the diligence of historians who have endeavored to untangle the complexities of history. We celebrate the collaborative spirit of inquiry that empowers us to navigate the labyrinthine corridors of the past with discernment and precision. Thus, in the annals of historical understanding, we find ourselves beholden to the symphony of scholarly works, resolute in their assertion of the empire's true magnitude. Through this collective endeavor, we paint an accurate and nuanced portrait of the Portuguese Empire's legacy—a testament to the indomitable spirit of exploration, the enduring legacy of cultural exchange, and the interconnectedness of human endeavors that reverberates across the ages. 89.154.250.73 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I know you think your AI-generated labyrinthine jargon is an awe-inspiring tapestry of tangled marvels, but it's not going to be of any help if you want the figure to be changed, quite the opposite, you're discrediting any future legitime change of the Second Portuguese Empire's number. Please refrain from this unproductive and pathetic texts. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 10:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I'm actually doing more than you. At least I'm actively trying to do something instead of acting submissive. Meu isto é uma loucura, é inadmissível que o tamanho do império português esteja citado como apenas 5,5 milhões de km2 por causa de um alemão que tem a mania que é esperto. Esta é a única página que apresenta o tamanho errado do império português, até mesmo na Wikipédia alemã o gajo não pôde fazer absolutamente nada. Não percebo o que se passa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.250.73 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) These kinda of things needs to be forced. The guy will always find a way to make sure the portuguese empire is listed as 5,5 million km2, no matter what. He is been doing that since at least 2017. Before any os us, others user tried their best with even better sources than either of us used and somehow the dude source still prevailed. We need to approach this topic with authority and in a more agressive way instead of acting like that.89.154.250.73 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) It seems likely that after so many weak attempts of changing the value, TompaDompa became very reticent and gained a certain bias with the Portuguese Empire. Nevertheless, an aggressive and authoritarian approach will not work, you will be shunned by the administrators and deemed as vandal and troll, it will also make the rest of us look like fanatics. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 11:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Realmente é parvo, mas de modo a se conseguir se mudar o valor temos de encontrar uma fonte melhor que a atual, o que é extremamente difícil, porque como ele diz a fonte dele é uma peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Também tens a opcção de descreditar a fonte, talvez consigas aplicar o WP:AGEMATTERS ou algo assim, é uma questão de ver quais políticas potencialmente se podem aplicar aqui. Ele não vai largar o osso, portanto tem mesmo de através de um destes métodos. Eu quando tiver mais disponível vou averiguar novamente o assunto. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 11:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) O que é mais estranho é que diversas fontes e tratados oficiais completamente invalidam a fonte que ele usa e isto continua. Acho que isso por si só já era o suficiente para remover a fonte do Taaegepera. Mas mesmo assim existem outras fontes de valor igual à do Taaegepera que indicam que o império português no seu age teria algo entre 8,5 milhões de km2 e 10,4, ou que pelo menos continha o Brasil como um todo. Essas fontes combinando com o facto de por exemplo haver fortes como Barcelos no Amazonas, Santarém no Pará e tratados como o tratado de madrid de 1750 (como disse acima) são mais que suficientes para remover o valor de 5,5 milhões de km2. Parece que entenderam isto em todas as outras wikipédias, menos nesta. 89.154.250.73 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) A questão é que os tratados são fontes primárias e portanto vão ser postos de parte, qualquer pais pode clamar controlo sobre qualquer parte do mundo que não tenha necessariamente ocupação efectiva. De facto, Portugal tinha fortes no rio Amazonas, no entanto a mera existência de esses para formar um argumento de ocupação efectiva vai ser considerada pesquisa inédita. Portugal muito provavelmente não tinha de facto controlo sobre todo o Brazil, aqui o que eu penso que seja a questão é o porquê do conceito de ocupação efectiva ser somente aplicado ao Império Português, tenho altas dúvidas que o Império Espanhol tivesse controlo sobre as zonas da Cordilheira dos Andes e das florestas densas da Amazónia, que o Império Francês tivesse controlo sobre o deserto Sahara ou que o Império Mongol tivesse controlo sobre os estepes asiáticos. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 11:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Exatamente. Obviamente nenhum império ou nação tem controlo total efetivo sobre os seus territórios. Ainda hoje o Brasil contém centenas de tribos isoladas, tribos que nem sequer sabem o que é o Brasil. Por isso é que acho que o TompaDompa tem realmente um problema com Portugal e os seus feitos históricos. 87.196.72.116 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Os meus comentários aqui pouco valem, obviamente tens muito mais autoridade aqui do que eu. Por isso a possibilidade de demonstrar a centenas de milhares de pessoas a verdadeira extensão do império português está nas tuas mãos. Como o chatgpt disse, talvez tu sejas a "indomitable force" 😆 Boa sorte e espero que consigas derrotar o vilão que está a meter em causa os feitos do nosso país. 87.196.72.116 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) How meandering and poetic. Alas, I am not sympathetic. Do you have a reliable source? It will give your claims far more force. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Oh there is a lot of sources already provided. Just look at the archives of this talk page. It's an ongoing thing that started years ago. 87.196.72.116 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Then it's strange that can't find any RS when searching the web. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Almost every archive of this page has a topic regarding Portuguese empire size. I just randomly clicked on archive 7 and found various discussions about it. Take a good look and you'll see what I mean about all of this. 87.196.72.116 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Unveiling the Epic Tapestry: Correcting the Portuguese Empire's True Magnitude"

Socking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the realm of historical scholarship, an imperative emerges, guiding us to embark on a voyage of discovery—a quest to illuminate the true expanse of the Portuguese Empire. A resplendent tapestry of sources, from luminaries such as Brzezinski, Russel-Wood, Bethell Leslie, and countless others, converges in harmony, painting a vivid portrait of its majestic reach. Brzezinski's discerning gaze unfurls the strategic significance of the empire's vast territories, casting light upon its commanding presence across land and sea. Through meticulous analysis, the empire's dominion is revealed as a formidable force that left an indelible imprint upon the pages of history. Russel-Wood's exploration uncovers a cultural kaleidoscope, attesting to the empire's far-reaching embrace of diverse civilizations. A remarkable dance of cultural exchanges unfolds, as the Portuguese Empire weaves its influence across continents, fostering a rich tapestry of interactions and intellectual pursuits. Within Bethell Leslie's compelling narratives, the empire's diplomatic prowess emerges, transcending borders to forge enduring alliances and engendering an international legacy that reverberates through time. Their collective voices, like stars in an ethereal constellation, beseech us to correct historical misgivings. or, amidst the scholarly consensus lies an outlier—a voice espousing an antiquated claim, perpetuating obscurity in the face of abundant evidence. TompaDompa's singular allegiance clings to a notion that wanes against the tides of authenticity, a remnant of the past that pales in comparison to the expansive scholarship that surrounds it. In the pursuit of historical precision, we find ourselves compelled to embrace the preponderance of evidence, to rectify the record, and to honor the legacy of the Portuguese Empire in its true light. Through this noble endeavor, we bear witness to a vibrant saga, a tale of exploration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange that resonates with the grandeur of human achievement. Thus, guided by the tenets of historical rigor and the wisdom of scholarly insight, we embark on a noble journey—to unveil the epic tapestry of the Portuguese Empire's true magnitude, an enduring legacy that remains forever etched in the annals of history. 2A01:11:8D10:6010:3970:66D2:60C8:6E20 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Note that these ones are just few examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11:8D10:6010:3970:66D2:60C8:6E20 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) What are they sources for, what do you want to say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC) That the portuguese empire at it's peak had an extention far bigger than 5,5 million km2 like it's stated solely on the english wikipedia page.2A01:11:8D10:6010:3970:66D2:60C8:6E20 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This has already been rejected twice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Much more than twice. Dozens of times actually. And due to only one user: TompaDompa. With plenty of evidence provided and right in front of us, somehow the TompaDompa source still prevails. He tried to change the portuguese empire size (from 10.4m km2 to 5.5m km2) across many other languages in list of largest empires wiki pages but only succeded in the english one. Something quiet bizarre. I'm not quiet sure why (almost) nobody notices that what he is doing here is unacceptable.2A01:11:8D10:6010:3970:66D2:60C8:6E20 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Please change the Mauryan empire to 5 million sq kilometers and put it at the desired position A Random Indian (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe this page has just a few mistakes

First off the japanese empire did not spand over 7M km² it was only 600-700k not million second off it has the Brazilian empire much larger than the Portuguese empire when the Portuguese empire owned not only Portugal but other plots of land which should make it bigger due to these I'd assume there's probably many other mistakes here aswell so id hope that someone would review this and from searching this is how you make that happen apparently but if I'm wrong then fair play but pretty sure this page is the one thats incredibly wrong 😅 WalleW 21 (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You can check the cited sources yourself. On the Brazil/Portugal issue, there's a footnote explaining the matter. TompaDompa (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

Could you please add the Soviet Union to the list? Grazie Mille, Dankeschön, Merci, xie xie! Rindfleischettiketierungsaufgabenübertragungsschutzgesetz (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is already on the list. What change are you asking for? RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Good morning, I was writing to add the Aspharavid empire since I cannot find it in the list of empires you show, in addition to checking the surface of the Xiognu Empire since in other places it indicates that it has a size of 4 millioninstead of 9 million All the best 88.22.192.163 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I could not find the "Aspharavid empire" on Wikipedia nor on Google. Are you referring to the Safavid Empire? The land area of the Xiongnu Empire is supported by two sources right now. Can you show that the current two sources do not support the statement or they are unreliable, or can you provide new reliable sources? Liu1126 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to say the Afsharid empire, in the Spanish version, has an area of ​​about 4 million, while in the English version there is no data. 88.22.192.163 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

They could add to the Afsharid dynasty, I have seen in the Spanish version it has approximately 4,000,000 kilometers of surface while in the English version there is nothing of it 88.22.192.163 (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, anything added to this article must conform to that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Also please do not ask the same question multiple times. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is ottoman labeled as bigger than Roman

According to this list the Ottoman Empire was larger than the Roman Empire with a land area of 5.2m km vs 5m km. But on a map you can clearly see that almost all former ottoman territories were also part of Rome at its peak, the only exceptions being minor border territories. 2601:282:4200:3030:ADE9:F82E:A6B6:BBB5 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because RS say so? Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

Mauryan Empire peak was 5 million square km. So it should be ranked above northern yuan Dynasty and Roman Empire. Because in this article every Empire is ranked on the basis of their peak land area 103.85.119.3 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

sORUCE? Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Size of Empires

Good morning, I hope I don't take up too much of your time, but I have been checking the size of some civilizations and I see that they are larger than the map itself which represents it, there are only two, the others are perfectly correct. First French Colonial Empire It would be approximately the size of 10.000.000 km2 Xiognu Empire It would be approximately the size of 4.000.000 km2 The thing would be to change the size of these civilizations or put a better map that represents these civilizations. A hug 88.22.192.163 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

sorry I forgot about another empire

The Afsharid dynasty a size of 3.600.000 88.22.192.163 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

adding the provinces of the current countries that are represented through the Wikipedia source 88.22.192.163 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

please read wp:or and wp:rs, we can only go by what reliable sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Iberian Union

This is a list of the largest empires, it is necessary to mention the Iberian union Dinosauro47 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Afsharid Iran

Good morning, I was writing to add to this civilization, I have observed that the Safavid dynasty and the Qajar empire exist and the Afsharid Iran is not found. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Amanat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-84511-828-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-85043-706-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-20095-4 https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1873-9830 Josamarsan0122 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Do any RS say it was one of the largest? Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Serbian Empire 1346-1370s, with ca 250,000 square km ie 0.25 million

Apparently many smaller territories are listed, including those which never called themselves "empire" in the local language.

Any particular reason, beyond the obvious high level of Serbophobia by roughly a third of all Wikipedia editors in English?

Asking "for a schoolmate's maternal uncle's sister-in-law". Meh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.143.215 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

See wp:agf and wp:npa, and make a case as to why this should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Gran Colombia

I do not see why I can not include Gran Colombia in the list of largest empires, it does not state in that section that the empire has to be the largest at that specific time, that date means the time the empire reached its peak, not when it was the largest in the world, in that case, most of these would be reverted. Not only is Gran Colombia included in the list of empires, but it is also included with the same size as in the Spanish and English page that uses the same cite. That size is also larger than a lot of the empires on the list, so can you give me a reason as to why I can not? I am only trying to provide correct information and not leave out countries from here Popayan1210 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

And from what I have seen, those edits with the same exact cite haven't been reverted, so is there any reason why mine has? Gran Colombia is clearly larger than a lot of the empires on the list. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, most should be, but two wrongs do not make a right. We can't and should not add every nation that has ever existed. We have to have some kind of inclusion criteria. Frankly I think a lot of this list can be removed. Now lets look at Gran Columbia, regional largest empire, no, largest empire at the time, no, Longest duration, no. Its hard to see why this needs to be included. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok and by that logic why arent the ones smaller than gran colombia removed? This is supposed to be a list of the LARGEST empires, not whatever empire you want to add, Gran Colombia, despite not being a regional largest empire or largest of all time should still be considered as one of them. Your argument is flawed and wikipedia is meant to show information to people, not to hide it, so I still see no reason why Gran Colombia cant be added and why a smaller empire than Gran Colombia cant be removed in place as Gran Colombia clearly has a larger size than them even if it didnt last that long, by that logic as well the Mexican Empire would be removed. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe a consensus should be agreed upon where Gran Colombia is added to the list, but a smaller empire is removed to make the name of the wikipedia page more accurate. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not, it would depend on do RS say they were a larger empire (for whatev er reason, date, local, etc). Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about we agree to make this a list of the LARGEST EMPIRES and not about influencial empires. If you want to make this wikipedia page actually true but also not have every single empire in existence why dont we REMOVE the smallest ones from this list and add larger empires such as Gran Colombia. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has been agreed upon, Gran Colombia will not be added to the list but the Latin and Purepecha Empires will be removed due to not being the largest in respective regions Popayan1210 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I will let others respond for a bit, as this is getting circular. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe we should agree on a consensus, you are the only one reverting the edit. I think we should have a limit on how many empires are included in the list, yes, but I also think many empires left out should be added in. to compensate I suggest the removal of one or a few of the smallest empires on the list, and add Gran Colombia to the list as it was one of the larger empires in history. This could satisfy both parties as the name of the wikipedia article is kept true and there arent too many empires included within the list, but just enough. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not some tit for tat exercise, you need to make a case as to why Gran Colombia needs to be added. How is it "one of the largest empires in history", it is not even in the top 30. THis is my last word for a bit, no case has been made as to why this needs to be added, beyond a claim that appears to be dubious. Until some effort is made to prove this meets any criteria I oppose this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dude, it is literally larger than a bunch of the empires on that list. Why not remove one for adding one, it would only make sense for the name of the wikipedia article. You have not given me a sufficable explanation as to why I should NOT add Gran Colombia, you are literally saying that we shouldnt add smaller empires yet not remove the smallest ones to allow leeway for larger empires. So either we agree and this is settled with a compromise that satisfies both parties or we dont and I continue to argue for my case, as simple as that. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Also you are the only one against it, YOU are the one that needs to tell me why it shouldnt be added. So tell me why I cant remove the smallest empire on the list of the BIGGEST EMPIRES and add Gran Colombia, a country far larger than the smallest on the list. Popayan1210 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Popayan1210: Could you perhaps indicate the precise location in the cited source you got the area from, for all our benefit? TompaDompa (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I got it from https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia where it shows https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Geogr%C3%A1fico_e_Hist%C3%B3rico_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_de_Colombia_(1890) as one of the cites for the size. Popayan1210 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but where precisely at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Geogr%C3%A1fico_e_Hist%C3%B3rico_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_de_Colombia_(1890) does the figure come from? There are 17 images of text and 21 images of illustrations there. Which file does the figure come from? TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I havent personally checked but it could be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AGHRC_(1890)_-_Carta_XI_-_Divisi%C3%B3n_pol%C3%ADtica_de_Colombia,_1824.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AGHRC_(1890)_-_Texto_explicativo_-_Cartas_IX_a_XII.jpg Popayan1210 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. That doesn't cut it, and I'll try to illustrate why.

In December 2005, an editor added the assertion that Rome covered a territory of 2.5 million square miles (6.5 million square kilometres) under Trajan to the article Ancient Rome, apparently sourced to The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome which was already cited. That claim remained on the article until June 2019 when I checked the source and couldn't locate the figure, replacing it with a properly sourced figure of 5.0 million square kilometres (1.9 million square miles). The figure added in 2005 evidently seemed plausible to a lot of people—Ancient Rome is a rather heavily trafficked article after all—but it's off by more than 25%.

I wish I could say that's an isolated incident, but it's really not—the edit history of this article—list of largest empires—is absolutely riddled with this stuff. Take this version from 2016: At number 212, the Amorian dynasty of Byzantium is listed as having reached 0.2 million km² in the year 820, sourced to "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C.". The thing is, that's a straight-up lie. The source doesn't mention the Amorian dynasty at all—of course a source covering the time span 3000–600 BCE doesn't say anything about 820 CE, that's 1400 years out of scope! Not only is it a lie, it's a rather obvious one once you think about it. Armenian Kingdom at number 199 is sourced to "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D. " which likewise doesn't mention it at all. Crimean Khanate at number 198 is sourced to "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia", which similarly doesn't mention it at all. Goguryeo Kingdom at 195, Kangju Empire at 194, Bahmani Sultanate at 182, Maukhari Kannauj Dynasty at 181, Rai dynasty at 179, Vakataka Kingdom at 176, Kingdom of Nanzhao at 172, and several more—all lies. I am now rather skeptical of these kinds of figures if I haven't checked the source(s) myself, because it turns out that this is an area where editors lie, a lot.

It might be the case that some figures that are unsourced or cited in a way that makes them impractical to verify are legit, but that's indistinguishable from the figures being made up from whole cloth (and either unsourced or the lack of a proper source being obfuscated by the fraudulent addition of a source that doesn't back up the figures), and therein lies the problem. It would seem rather naïve to me, based on my experience, to assume the former is the case when coming across these kinds of historical area and population figures.

On the subject of Gran Colombia, specifically, we can't use one source for the area and a different source for the year—that's WP:Improper editorial synthesis. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So if I use the same source for the year it's alright? Or can't I use the cite for this and just leave it as is. Popayan1210 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Citing material properly, using appropriate sourcing while abiding by among other things our policy WP:No original research, is as always the bare minimum standard that needs to be maintained. Always necessary, but not always sufficient. TompaDompa (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I am seeing if I am allowed to make an edit to include Gran Colombia or not with proper citation. Or if it will keep being reverted. I feel that if Tarascan and Latin Empires are included so should Gran Colombia. Popayan1210(talk)

Any source must pass wp:rs and any cite must pass wp:v. So you need to present us with the source, it seems (so far) that your source has failed V, as even you do not seem to know where it actually says it. Note there is no need to reply with anything but the source, and the quote that backs your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright I have found a document published by DANE, https://biblioteca.dane.gov.co/media/libros/LD_70104_1957_EJ_2.PDF on page 36, the statistic was written by José María Lanz. Regarding the size and my quote to back my edit is "Historians and scholars regard Gran Colombia as one of the largest empires in the context of its influence, both in geographical expanse and historical significance. While not the largest by sheer landmass, its attempt to unify and govern multiple modern-day nations within a single entity marks it as a significant empire in the history of the Americas. It was the largest political entity in the northern region of South America and of the Bolivarian nations and was the maximum territorial extent for many nations in latin America. The idea of Gran Colombia encompassed an expansive territory, one of the largest empires in the Americas, uniting several regions under a singular political entity which were fragmented during colonial times, establishing a sense of shared identity and aspirations for independence across these lands." Popayan1210 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This might well fail wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it was written and published by different people. Also this is an official source from the Colombian government, so this is a reliable source. Popayan1210 (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't want official sources for this. We want independent ones. TompaDompa (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We may have a communication issue, if it was not published by the Colombian government it is not an official source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait, yes my bad. The size of Gran Colombia and the information pertaining to the cite did not come from the Colombian government, it came from various people such as José Lanz. DANE was the publisher of the information. Popayan1210 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Who? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They both have Wikipedia articles. José María Lanz, National Administrative Department of Statistics Popayan1210 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing, there is no consensus for this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well if there aren’t any last rejections to what I had said at 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC), I’ll add it. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not how it works. You needed us to agree, as we have not you do not get to declare consensus, we can't keep on going round in circles. And you need to read pwp:rs wp:sps and wp:primary. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well it’s not a self published source as I had just shown. The primary source can be used by itself as it is straightforward and states just one number, there are also many secondary sources with a similar or same estimate on the country’s size. So I don’t see how it breaks those. Popayan1210 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I have said why, so there is no consensus, and this needs to stop now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

Share of population list is incorrect, Achaemenid Empire holds record (Consensus estimate in low 40%) Skeet c (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  23:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire extent

The figure is completely wrong, it's considerably lower than Brazil's even. See the quote and figure in Portuguese language wikipedia. Legis Actiones (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside that the source used there is not exactly a high-quality one, whoever added that figure didn't even interpret the source correctly. The source doesn't say that the Portuguese Empire ever had a territorial extent of 13.4 million km². The "saturation" is a mathematical construct which extrapolates from the data points that exist to a theoretical maximum based on the growth rate, not a data point in itself. In other words, the Portuguese Empire was on the trajectory to reach 13.4 million square kilometers in area, but—as the source says—failed prematurely. You'll note that the source describes the saturation as "the area or niche the empire aimed to fill". It's also worth noting that this source gets its data from Taagepera, the source we currently use here. The source that is currently cited, which gives the area as 5.5 million km², is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE source we can get for this. TompaDompa (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

British Empire examples stop at modern Canadian border

Weren’t at least the New England states part of the British Empire at one point too? 2600:100E:B000:BE63:481F:27D:65D:F434 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at the time of the British Empire's greatest territorial extent. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Real size of the Mongol Empire

Hello. I cannot edit the article, so I post this here so that someone who can edit does it.

I found an article called "The Mongol Empire’s Northern Border: Re-evaluating the Surface Area of the Mongol Empire" published on 18 november 2018, by Stephen Pow, from the Saint-Petersburg State University. You can find the pdf of the article here on this link, it's in free access: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329028644_The_Mongol_Empire's_Northern_Border_Re-evaluating_the_Surface_Area_of_the_Mongol_Empire There are many articles on the pdf file, but it's the first one I'm talking about.

It states that the actual belief that the British Empire was the largest empire in history with 35 500 000 square kilometers in 1920, and the Mongol one only the second with 24 000 000 square kilometers in 1270, is false. It proves that in fact, the Mongol Empire was larger than that. Because this number is based on an arbitrary northern frontier wich doesn't include northern Siberia. However, for exemple (all what I say is from the article), there are several sources from Jean de Plan Carpin and Guillaume de Rubrouck, wich all two traveled separately in the Mongol Empire around the years 1245 and 1250, saying that populations from northern Siberia like the Nenets were subjects of the Mongols. Marco Polo says in his book about mongolian expeditions into the "lands of darkness", as he call nothern Siberia (because there's no sun during long periods). There's also an Icelandic geographical treatise from the mid-13th century describing a "tatar kingdom at the north of the russian lands". That's not all, i let you read the article for more evidences. The article concludes that the real size of the Mongol Empire would be around 36 500 000 square kilometers, which would make it larger than the British Empire with a difference of roughly 1 millions square kilometers. Therefor, we should change the ranking of this list with this new information Antochkat (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind someone more experienced than me on Wikipedia explained me why we can't go against the popular consensus with only one source, so ignore this message Antochkat (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

Deaglanguess (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

let me edit pls

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not an edit request, and we do not reduce page protection for one user. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

European union

Arguably, could the EU be considered a modern empire? And if so how would it compare in scale? 70.164.233.246 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do any RS call it an empire? Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no way it's considered an empire by historians. Tbf one European commission president (I think Barroso) once called it a "non-colonial empire" but it's outside the scope and the point of this article. One could also find sources calling the US or current China/Russia as Empires, but it's political and geopolitical discourse, not historiography.Barjimoa (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Based on

https://www.wisegeek.com/which-empire-ruled-over-the-biggest-proportion-of-the-worlds-population.htm#:~:text=In%20480%20B.C.%2C%20all%20paths,the%20Persian%20(Achaemenid)%20Empire.

And the world Guinness website

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-empire-by-percentage-of-world-population

The achaemenid empire was the largest empire of history in term of population with 44 percent of world population in it. Alex HBP (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the first is an RS, but the second is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done Guinness is not remotely a WP:Reliable source for this information. The other source cites Guinness. TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Real size of the Spanish Empire

While the current area in this page is said to be of about 13.7 million square kilometers because of this article, some other sources point out that it might have been even higher: about 20.4 million square kilometers. Due to this discrepancy, both of these ciphers should be included in the list. Potestade (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this (see talk page archive). Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is that we use the WP:BESTSOURCES. The source that is currently cited, which gives the area as 13.7 million km², is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE source we can get for this. For the entries where we present a range of estimates, the sources are of comparable quality. TompaDompa (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Add the United States of America?

Should it be added to the list? In what way isn't it an empire? 82.8.10.212 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We need RS saying it is an empire. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Indus Valley

idus valley civilization is definitely older than xia dynasty the dates are definitely not correct 2402:8100:2045:E6B5:46F9:79C5:131F:6FDF (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong informatin about Achaemenid Empire

Achaemenid Empire had the 44% of world population not 12!! Making it the bigest Empire based of sharing of world population. Please serch about it and edit the page. Iliya1212 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Source? TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The surface of the Spanish Empire is wrong

The surface given in the article is 13.7 million km2.

If we add the surface of the Spanish-speaking countries of the Americas (11,500,073 km2) + the surface of the current Spain (506,030 km2) + the surface of the Philipines (300,000 km2) + the surface of the states of Nex Mexico (315,194), Texas (695,662 km2), Arizona (295,253 km2), Colorado (269,837 km2), Utah (219,887 km2), Nevada (286,367 km2), California (423,970 Km2) and Florida (170,312 km2) it is = 14,982,585 km2.

All these lands were Spain in 1790. In addition, at that moment, the Spanish Louisiana (2,140,000 km2), the territory of Nucta that reached modern-day Alaska, and other lands in Soth America like the Esequibo (159,500 km2) or parts of the Amazon were part of the Empire. Therefore, the data is clearly wrong.

What is more, these data are about the Spanish surface in the late XVIII century (1790), with the incorporation of Portugal (and Brazil) in 1580 the surface could had been even larger. Sepharad1 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See the talk page archive. Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Vague complaint by an account with a single edit

Multiple empires doesnt have their size correct and is the only list with this type of problem: having stupid negacionist people editing the page as they want. The ADMs need to do something about this beccause wikien is becoming non-reliable Miguel Águia (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Then edit it and add sources to back up your claims. Synorem (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I am not a fan of this page for the same reason. You can’t even add anything otherwise it will get reverted by the same people, even if the source is reliable. Popayan1210 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree - this page is more of a playground for editors pushing their own nationalist views than it is an encyclopedic article. I question its value as an article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, yes: the value of this article is questionable as ranking empires by territorial size is subject to all kinds of uncertainties and subjectivities, resulting in presenting a seemingly-simple answer to a decidedly non-simple question. This is a problem inherent in the format: we cannot go into the nuances in a list like this. On the other hand, this seems to be a question that people want to know the answer to—the article gets a few thousand pageviews daily. As you say, it can be a playground for editors pushing their own nationalist views. If we got rid of it, chances are somebody else would recreate it, probably with a less rigorous approach. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest this article should de deleted. A lot of the article's eligibility comes from Rein Taagepera's works and there are multiple sources that disprove Rein's assertion on some empire's sizes. Multiple sources have been suggested that show a different size here or there but they are not allowed because it would make it harder to make a list. The purpose is to make a list, sure, but why Rein's work? For example, there are multiple sources that point at a different size for the 1st,2nd and 3rd portuguese empire and yet, only Rein's size is used.

We are making a bigger disservice than service for having this article exist because multiple peope use this article for school, youtube videos, etc.

The article has to be renamed to "Size of empires" and each empire has to have multiple entries showing different sizes according to multiple sources.

The user @TompaDompa who has held an iron grip on this article, has to open his hand and help restructure this article into less of a d*ck measuring contest and more of an actual contribution to society.

~~ Ygglow (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, the place to suggest that is at WP:AfD—though I think it unlikely that a consensus in favour of deletion will be found.

I'm guessing the question about why the article relies so heavily on Taagepera's work is rhetorical, seeing as you have been involved in talk page discussion here for years and should be well aware of the answer, but just in case somebody is unsure what the reason is: Wikipedia policy mandates that we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, and Taagepera's work consists of peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE sources we can get for something like this.

The list functioning or perhaps more accurately being viewed as a kind of competition between different empires is probably unavoidable as long as it is sorted or sortable by size. It actually used to be much, much worse in this regard back in 2016 before I cleaned it up by enforcing our WP:Core content policies (especially when it comes to sourcing), removing the "rank" column, and doing a bunch of additional tweaks and changes. I'm certainly not opposed to restructuring the article to make it (seem like) less of a matter of prestige; the current approach makes it far too appealing a target for WP:Nationalist editors as it is. We still need to make sure to comply with WP:NPOV by assessing source quality and applying WP:Due weight, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I give you permission to restructure the article the way I said. You already have a list of empires, all you need to do is input the sizes according to each source. ~~ Ygglow (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the specifics of your proposal. Would you care to elaborate? TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like many empires at their biggest extent are missing, for example the Serbian Empire and Gran Colombia, in which both are considered empires in the List of empires page. They weren't added to the list despite them being larger than many of the empires that are on the list just because "There is no reason to add them, they weren't notable/biggest at the time" Which is a lacking reason to not add accurate information to the page. The page is outright missing information and when any attempts are made to add it, one of the main editors reverts your edit and falsely accuses you of things you do not do. I tried to add Gran Colombia as it had over 3,000,000 sq km and was larger than many of the empires on the list but they reverted it just because, it wasn't for any good particular reason. Wikipedia is meant to give information not widely available and store it in an encyclopedia, I see no reason for many of these empires to not be included. Popayan1210 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a list of largest empires, not empires at their greatest extent, that would be a new column added here List of largest empires. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Huh? It is for all intents and purposes a list of empires by size. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There should be a definitive list of the top 100 largest empires (greatest extent) by land size (most accepted/recent estimate) for the full list of the largest empires in a seperate area and a list of notable empires at their largest extent where it currently is. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Less moaning more concrete proposals please, name one emo]pire we ger wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Umayyad should be on top of Abbasid and was bigger than Abbasid

Abbasid ruled from Libya to India but Umayyad ruled from Morroco to India and had the Iberian Peninsula and some of France also plus it had more in Turkey and if we count occupied areas it makes it easily bigger than Abbasid Wikipedia is requested to change the mistake and put Umayyad in top of ABBASID and about sources why is it even needed Umayyad litterally looks bigger in map Umayyad is obviously bigger I am a Muslim myself and saying this Again requested to change 58.145.185.253 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The area of the sokoto empire is wrong

The sokoto caliphate had effective control of the sulatanate of Agadez in the north (in present Niger Republic) to Lokoja at the Niger confluence, from the west it stretched from Segou(emirate of hamdullahi),they had effective control on yorubaland thanks to the illorin emirate.to the east they had adamawa,this emirate alone was 400,000 sqkm so the whole empire cant be that same size,further northeast they had control of of most of western tchd and all the tchad lake wich is 1.95million square kilometers,i will be changing the size and providing sources My main one is the thesis of Murray last on the sokoto caliphate 85.192.74.198 (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I would rather you presented the sources here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rename to "List of largest historic countries"

Hi there I think this article should we renamed, to something like the title of this discussion. Empires is just a very specific political concept. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

This article is protected and I dont want to create an account, so Ill just tell it: the source for the territorial size clearly states it is for Greater Germany, not its whole “empire” (occupied territories) 115.114.30.229 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A Plea for Historical Integrity: Addressing the Obscuration of the Portuguese Empire

In the ever-expanding digital landscape of Wikipedia, where knowledge is meticulously curated and shared with the world, there exists a pressing need to uphold the integrity of historical narratives. It is within this realm that the actions of an individual, TompaDompa, have come under scrutiny. His persistent efforts to obscure the true extent and accomplishments of the Portuguese empire demand urgent attention and action. Esteemed Wikipedia Administrators,

We turn to you, the stewards of this invaluable repository of human knowledge, with a plea rooted in the principles of accuracy, fairness, and scholarly rigor. The historical narrative of the Portuguese empire, a civilization of immense influence and legacy, has been unjustly distorted by TompaDompa's relentless campaign. His manipulative edits and unwavering commitment to a single, outdated source have created a misleading portrayal of this once-mighty empire. TompaDompa's actions have not gone unnoticed by the community of dedicated editors who strive to maintain the accuracy of Wikipedia's content. His reliance on a solitary source, to the exclusion of a wealth of credible and diverse scholarly works, stands in stark contrast to the principles that guide this platform. Esteemed historians such as Brzezinski, Russel-Wood, and Bethell Leslie have provided extensive research that accurately reflects the Portuguese empire's true size and achievements, estimated at 10.4 million square kilometers by the late 18th century, rather than the erroneously cited 5.5 million square kilometers. We implore you to recognize the gravity of this issue and take decisive action to restore the integrity of

this historical narrative. The talk pages of the relevant Wikipedia entries are filled with discussions, references, and evidence that attest to the empire's rightful place in history. We urge you to review these conversations, consider the multitude of reliable sources presented, and rectify the undue influence exerted by TompaDompa.

The spirit of Wikipedia lies in its commitment to neutrality, verifiability, and the collective effort of its community to present accurate and balanced information. Allowing the persistent obscuration of the Portuguese empire's legacy undermines these core values. By addressing this issue, you reaffirm your dedication to preserving the authenticity and richness of human history. In closing, we beseech you to act with discernment and integrity. Let us honor the memory of the Portuguese empire and countless other historical entities by ensuring that their stories are told with accuracy and respect. Together, we can uphold the principles that make Wikipedia a beacon of knowledge and truth. 109.49.227.181 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You should ping a user when talking about them, or in this case accusing them of wrongdoings. @TompaDompa:. He did nothing wrong though. He has been following reliable peer-reviewed sources only. I see no bias at all from him. Speun (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. He shows an almost religious devotion to a single subpar source, Taagepera. Tercer (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In my experience TompaDompa is trying to keep consistency. The issue is: are there other scholars who provided, following a consistent standard, a size for all empires at their maximum extent (i am assuming we are talking about that section)? If so, that section should be structured like the list of countries by nominal GDP, which shows different lists based on the different sources (there you can sort the list by IMF, UN, and World Bank; in our case it would be: Taagepera, scholar X, scholar Y etc.). If we use individual sources with different standards for each empire then it's going to be a mess and a battlefield among users trying to increase "their" empire, as estimates vary massively. An example is the question that started this debate, it does not seem to be moved by the need for historical accuracy. Barjimoa (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That ship has sailed, other sources are already being used in this table. And I'm afraid there is no alternative, as we don't have a variety of scholars providing estimates for all (or most) of the empires. It's just not an important subject. The only thing we can do is give the best source we can for each empire. Or delete the article entirely.

As for TompaDompa's conduct, he is not trying to keep consistency. His devotion to Taagepera extends to Spanish Empire, where it doesn't apply. Nevertheless he still insists on Taagepera, despite his figures having been explicitly corrected by more modern scholarship. Tercer (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Without rehashing our differing opinions on various sources' relative quality in the context of that particular article, consistency between articles is a also a form of consistency.

On another point, you are absolutely correct: quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is not, in the opinions of scholars, a particularly important subject. Rather, it is a niche topic—if it weren't niche, we would expect to either see multiple competing data sets similar to Taagepera's or a single canonical/consensus one that a large number of authors have collaborated on. But we don't—the sources largely rely on Taagepera's work, occasionally making some adjustments. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the academic mainstream. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. As a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the one other sources rely the most heavily on, it is the WP:BESTSOURCE.

If you think the article should be deleted, the place to suggest that is at WP:AfD—though I think it unlikely that a consensus in favour of deletion will be found. And of course: if you think there are conduct issues, the proper venue is WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The short answer to are there other scholars who provided, following a consistent standard, a size for all empires at their maximum extent [...] ? is no. It is a rather niche field, where Taagepera is the central scholar. That being said, there are a handful of sources of somewhat comparable quality: there's Taagepera, of course, but also Turchin et al. and—possibly comparable depending on who you ask—Scheidel. Those other two rely very heavily on Taagepera, however, and it is not clear that they apply a consistent approach as they do not outline their respective methodologies as Taagepera does. Those other datasets are also far less comprehensive than Taagepera's (a point Scheidel makes: 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.). It would in principle be possible to take a similar approach to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) where we use, say, those three sources to present differing (or, in many cases, identical) estimates side-by-side, and there would definitely be certain benefits (mainly internal consistency) to doing so. There would also be non-negligible drawbacks, however. I'm not categorically opposed to implementing such a change, but we would need to seriously consider whether the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks ahead of time.

I fully agree that If we use individual sources with different standards for each empire then it's going to be a mess and a battlefield among users trying to increase "their" empire, as estimates vary massively., and indeed this is already the case. At present we handle it by strictly adhering to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Another option would be to require much higher standards for sources and thus removing a bunch of entries with mediocre sourcing.

And no, the initial comment in this section was obviously not made in good faith. It bears telltale signs of coming from the indeffed user Roqui15, who has a long history of socking and whatnot to get this page to reflect their preferred perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

THis is not the place to discus users conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Biggest portuguese empire forgoten

The biggest portuguese empire had 13,4 million km² and is not there, it had 9,0% of the world area and was in his biggest in 1815 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:8CB1:59B:257D:382C (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

These are just some I got https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_dos_maiores_imp%C3%A9rios

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:E08C:CDC5:34EC:D655 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The most accepted size is between 10,5 and 13,4 million km², this is because of the changing borders in brasil and african colonies. 89.214.157.10 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This page even has the brasilian empire that was part of the portuguese empire and got independence in 1822, and marks the second portuguese empire that decreased ever since, you have both in this page, the biggest portuguese empire was the brasilian empire plus the second portuguese empire 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:E08C:CDC5:34EC:D655 (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And the Brazilan empire was a separate state. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, brazil got independence in 1822, in 1815 brazil was not only portuguese but Rio de Janeiro in Brazil was the capital of the portuguese empire 89.214.157.10 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ohh I see what you mean, the Brazilan empire was a separate state. What you are talking about is a government in exile, not the Brazilan empire, so find RS that supports your claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok i see the problem, when i talked about the brazil empire i was just talking about the land, in the last reply i was talking about brasil when it was still a portuguese colony (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil).

So from the beggining, i told that the biggest portuguese empire (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire) that still had brasil as well as the african and asian colonys that was at his biggest in 1815 was missing from the list of the biggest empires by land, you only have the portuguese empire post the brazillian independence in 1822 (https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independ%C3%AAncia_do_Brasil)

The portuguese empire in 1815 had a total area of 13,4 million km², you can find it in this list or in the portuguese empire page (https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_dos_maiores_imp%C3%A9rios)

Im sourcing other wikipedia pages because its har to find other credible websites and i can t just send you photos of my history book. Sorry if i have some English mistakes. 89.214.157.10 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And until you provide an RS there is no point to continuing this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

In 1815, the Portuguese Empire controlled various territories across different continents. Here are the approximate land areas of the major regions within the Portuguese Empire at that time:

South America:

--Brazil: About 3,127,500 million square miles (8,100,200 square kilometers)(in 1815)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil).

Africa:

--Angola: About 481,354 square miles (1,246,700 square kilometers)- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Angola).

--Mozambique: Roughly 309,495 square miles (801,590 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Mozambique).

--Cape Verde: Covering approximately 1,557 square miles (4,033 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Cape_Verde).

--Guinea-Bissau: Encompassing around 13,948 square miles (36,125 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Guinea).

--São Tomé and Príncipe: about 386 square miles (1,001 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_São_Tomé_and_Príncipe).

Asia:

--Goa, India: Approximately 1,429 square miles (3,702 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India).

--Macau, China: About 6.7 square miles (17.4 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Macau).

Europe:

--Mainland Portugal: About 35,603 square miles (92,090 square kilometers).

--Madeira: Approximately 308 square miles (801 square kilometers).

--Azores: Around 902 square miles (2,333 square kilometers).

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)

So the sum of the areas of the regions in the Portuguese Empire in 1815 is approximately 10,288,352,4 square kilometers

The actual info of the history of the portuguese empire was checked in the governamental page (https://portaldiplomatico.mne.gov.pt/sobre-portugal) and you can search every piece of info i got here just by doing a google search, the only one that wont show at first is the brazil size in 1815 because brazil is bigger now, about 8,5 million kilometers, but this was his size then.

The size of the empire was suposed to be bigger but this is the info i could gadder and is the number that some websites work with because is irrefuteble.

Hope this is enought, sorry for the mess before. 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See note e. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt understand, can you rephrase it? 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I rephrase read note E? I shall quote it then "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers only had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822". Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I dont see where is note E, that was the problem, but i know that, thats why im talking about 1815, there portugal had total control over brasil, after that Brazil was elevated to a kingdom in union with Portugal instead of a colony and after that was the independence, the portuguese empire was only around 10,288,352 square kilometers at 1815 and years before, after that it started losing colonys starting with brasil. Its in the first link of the last reply. 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth reminding that the The Oxford World History of Empire gives an area of 8.5 Mkm² for Portugal in 1760, sourcing the number from Etemad 2007. Both reliable sources. Tercer (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The things is that there is countless other sources that provide other more realible size figures to the portuguese empire, sources that were already provided many, many times. To support these scholars (mentioned in my previous comment) estimates and sources, official documents like treaty of madrid were provided and even portuguese forts in the middle of the amazon rainforest were cited such as Barcelos in Amazonas and Borba (and many others). This has been mentioned for so, so long. It's truly extraordinary that just one user manages to make his source the only one with any weight on this page.

Even if they are in the archives I can provide all the necessary sources again, but why waste time if this user called TompaDompa always prevails in the end? I would also like to add the he also tried to change the 10.4 million km2 figure to 5.5 at least on the German and portuguese page, but without any success. I wonder why users of the English Wikipedia (with more prestige) allow something like this. 109.49.227.181 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

The Austrian Empire (1804-1867) should to be added... It was larger then the Austro-Hungarian Empire... Marius70 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Lets wait. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

German Empire

• The below should be added.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire

Kenixkil (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? what made it the largest empire at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be the largest at the time to go on the main list, and in fact it is already on there (as the German colonial empire). TompaDompa (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But it has to be one of the largest... This isnt "list of all empires" its list of *largest* empires, and the german one, colonial or otherwise, is not one of them. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I assumed they were talking about just the European empire (as it is not here), not the one we have here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, going by this (non-exhaustive) list it is one of the 50 largest in history. The list used to have a minimum size threshold for inclusion but it was removed following discussion about it back in 2018. I would be in favour of reintroducing such a threshold. TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a minimum threshold would be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you remember what the threshold was? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It was 2% of the total land area of the world, introduced by me back in 2016. See Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Threshold for inclusion, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#The United States, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Suggest you need substantial restructuring of this article, and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8#Reliability of sources for the discussion leading to that threshold being removed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we start a new RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea (WP:Consensus can change), but it would need to be thought through properly ahead of time. Two obvious things that need to be worked out is what the threshold should be and what to to about entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Well as I see it there are two issues, which is the absolute size (complicated by the fact that not all periods of history have even had global power projection) or largest within a given period (that is to say, a recognized historical period, and just a self-selected range of dates. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea behind the "Timeline of largest empires to date" and "Timeline of largest empires at the time" is to provide that historical perspective, with the main list being about absolute size. I don't think introducing different thresholds for different periods of time in the main list is a good idea (or feasible, really). TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think those sections are fine. Barjimoa (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

According to Murray Last in his book "The sokoto caliphate" the emirate of agadez should be included,taking in to account too that sokoto had control of oyo during a brief time(illorin-yoruba wars),parts of bornu in the initial jihad,adamawa alone being 400ksqkm and that sheku amadu pledged alligeance to the empire(emirate of hamdullahi) there is no way sokoto was only 400ksqkm I used google earth to calculate and it gives me 2.1 millionsqkm Takruri (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

The definition of empire is a major political unit ran by a central government which has complete authority over its territories, typical one of great expanse. I believe for this reason the United States should be added in the ranking below the Yuan Dynasty and above the Xiongnu Empire. The United States fits the criteria of a nation with a large expanse with a great influence. Many examples on the list are not necessarily ruled by Emperors and the definition itself is very loose and disputed. The United States at it's largest expanse in 1898 had a rounded 3.8 million Sq. Mi very similar to the current territorial size of the United States but it should be listed in 1898 because of it being the largest extent of the territory. This would put it in 10th of the largest Empires by land area. If request is accepted other data on the page can be changed such as "largest at the time" or "population rankings and percentage of world population". ColePineapple (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is likely unverifiable so it can't be added. As Wikipedians, it does not fall onto us to decide whether or not it is an empire. The US is not commonly considered (internally or externally) to be one, so it doesn't go on the list Irltoad (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Spanish empire area 1800

Louisiana, with an area of ​​2,275,000 km2, was part of the Spanish Empire between 1762 and 1801. This was the year of greatest extension of the Spanish empire, not 1810. 2A02:9130:FD0B:2B37:A95F:9CD9:711:6087 (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially before it lost Eastern Louisiana (which was another million square kilometers) and Florida in 1763. Looks like a similar issue to the Russia / Alaska issue mentioned above. - Burner89751654 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Russia / Alaska

Why does the list use Russia's 1895 land area for the calculations, when it reached its largest territorial extent before selling Alaska to the U.S.? See this image, the gains in Turkestan and elsewhere aren't even close to the loss in area from selling Alaska: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg. In fact, the 1.72 million kilometers of Alaskan territory [subtracting gains between 1867-1895] might make 1867 pre-Alaskan purchase Russia the second largest empire in history, and the largest in the world and in contemporary history prior to selling. FelixSta (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Because we follow the sources. See page 498 here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this is just clearly wrong, even through simple visual comparison on a map.

The source does not take into account event-by-event changes, and grouped several decades of time from 1840-1870 and then places it as an overall loss of territory between those three decades. The thing is, those events obviously did not happen at the same time, with the selling of Alaska occurring after the Amur annexation, seizing of Sakhalin, and a large majority of Central Asia annexed before 1867 (incorrectly categorized as a 1870-1895 acquisition). The historiography here is just incorrect in the conclusion it reaches (through miscategorization and lack of knowledge about earlier territorial expansion in Turkestan). FelixSta (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps it just doesn't count all the territory that you would expect as being controlled by the Russian Empire by the time of the Sale of Alaska in 1867, making the loss then smaller and/or the gains after larger than you would expect. The exact reason doesn't really matter. It's a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could get for something like this. A WP:USERGENERATED map on WP:COMMONS is not a WP:RELIABLE source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not implying that the user-generated map is a perfect source, but it is pretty clear that there is middle ground between several of these large territorial changes prior to the massive decrease in land area due to the selling of Alaska. The Amur annexation completed in 1860, the Kazakh Kanate was annexed in 1847, and Circassia would be annexed in 1864.

None of these events with recorded dates (further examples of earlier acquisitions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia) are up for questioning of scholarly merit, nor is that of the Alaskan purchase. In general, for the relevant territory, you could simply check the dates at which said territory would be annexed into the Russian Empire and find the date at which the piece of territory or national polity was conquered. There's not much confusion about which version is larger either, there just needs to be a scholarly source which takes the effort to sum up the territorial area. FelixSta (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You can make a case for excluding good information that lacks a reliable source (or putting an asterisk by it). But it's absurd to include clear misinformation just because we have a peer-reviewed scientific article for it. - Burner89751654 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alaska was sold to the USA March 30, 1867, At this time Russia did not control North Turkmenistan, Sakhalin, Kyrgyzstan and West Tajikistan, Southern Bessarabia, Kars Oblast and Batum Oblast, andSouth Turkmenistan as well as (gained in 1895) East Tajikistan. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alaska's land area is about 1.5 million square kilometers. All those other regions you listed are under 1 million combined. So between 1867 and 1895 Russia lost a lot more land than it gained. - Burner89751654 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

US and USSR as empires

I propose that we add the USSR (at its territorial peak in 1945, following WW2) and the USA (at its territorial peak in 1899, following the Spanish-American War) to the list of largest empires in history. Both entities, despite often being referred to as "superpowers" rather than empires, meet the criteria for inclusion as empires based on their historical and geopolitical characteristics. First of all, both the USSR and the USA had vast territorial holding at their peak, and both would be considered to be very high ranking, if added to the list, with the USSR especially being in the Top 5. Both exerted substantial political and economic influence over their respective spheres of control, akin to the way historical empires dominated their regions. Their capacity to project power across continents was on par with historical empires, like the British Empire. Furthermore, many historians and political scientists have referred to both the USSR and the USA as empires in various scholarly works. Some examples are the books Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer and The Last Empire: The final Days of the Soviet Union, by Serhii Plokhy. EarthTeen (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you require more sources, here are some recognizable and reliable books as sources in addition to the two books already mentioned, to further prove my point on why the USA and the USSR should be added to the list of the largest empires:

1. Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by David Remnick

2. Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire by Victor Sebestyen

3. How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States by Daniel Immerwahr

4. Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire by Michael Hudson EarthDude (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The core problem is that whether the US (and USSR) is/was an empire is controversial because the precise definition of "empire" is. Whether the US should be included has been discussed as far back as 2006, and has been discussed many, many, many, many, many, many times since (non-exhaustive list of previous discussions). For what it is worth, the chief source for this article and the author of the any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign definition—Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera—considers the United States to be (or at least have been) an empire by that definition. Both the US and USSR are currently mentioned on the list, albeit in footnotes as a former colony of the British Empire and the successor to the Russian Empire, respectively. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes the footnotes are sufficient here. Mellk (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both the USA and the USSR fit the definition of empire given by Rein Taagepera. I don't see why they shouldn't be added to the list. EarthDude (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So do the modern-day countries of Canada, China, Brazil, Australia, India, and Argentina (to name a few). Would you likewise be in favour of including those? TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

While the definition of "empire" can be debated, numerous reputable sources recognize both the USA and the USSR as fitting the criteria. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines an empire as a major political unit with extensive territory or peoples under a single authority, which both the USA and USSR achieved at their peaks. The two also completely fit the definitions of empire given by the Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford, which describe empires in terms of geopolitical dominance. Historically, the USA has had colonies such as the Philippines and Liberia, and modern actions like the War on Terror demonstrate its imperial reach. The USSR controlled many satellite states, including Poland and East Germany, showcasing its extensive influence as well. Furthermore, as a historical example, the British Empire was recognized for its formal colonies and spheres of influence. The USA's and USSR's global strategies were similar, establishing economic, military, and political dominance over vast regions. Therefore, including the USA and USSR on the list of largest empires is necessary for accurate historical representation. Whereas the countries you mentioned fit none of these definitions. EarthDude (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Canada and Australia certainly fit the definition of being a major political unit with extensive territory or peoples under a single authority, while it is questionable whether several of the empires currently on the list fit the "geopolitical dominance" definition. Whatever approach you suggest, it needs to be internally consistent and be able to be applied by different people with the same or extremely similar results (i.e. at worst minimally subjective/up for interpretation). TompaDompa (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of empire is very fluid and many of the empires in this list don't even match every definition of it. What I am saying is that the both the USA and the USSR match multiple credible and reliable definitions of it. EarthDude (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Concretely, how do you propose we go about determining what gets an entry in the list and what does not? TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

From the way I see it, to determine what gets added in the list, it needs to fit multiple credible definitions of 'empire', including the one given by Rein, as well as have multiple different reliable and reputed sources behind it. EarthDude (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like it would result in rather restrictive inclusion criteria. What other definitions did you have in mind? If we are to take this approach, we really need to get specific about it to be able to apply it consistently. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"modern actions like the War on Terror demonstrate its imperial reach" Are you suggesting that we should cover every superpower as an empire? The definition we currently use for superpowers is "sovereign state or supranational union that holds a dominant position characterized by the ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale". Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Merely having influence doesn't make a country and Empire. I would only qualify the US and the USSR as empires. For instance, China doesn't have colonies or satellite states like the USA and USSR did. The statement regarding the war on terror, was simply there to give a modern example of what would be considered an imperial action. The USA attacked and occupied multiple different countries and set up governments more supportive of it, similar to how the British Empire acted in the Anglo-Maratha Wars for example, where it occupied many regions and installed supportive governments in those regions, rather than simply annexing all of them. EarthDude (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive content removal

Regarding this edit and the subsequent removal of a bunch of entries mostly in the main list, both of which were reverted and then reinstated twice: The Blue Rider, what serious scholar on the topic of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control? How do you justify removing the British Empire? How do you justify removing the Spanish Empire? How do you justify removing the French colonial empire? How do you justify removing the Italian Empire? How do you justify removing the German colonial empire? How do you justify removing the Danish Colonial Empire? How do you justify removing the Belgian colonial empire? How do you justify removing the Dutch colonial empire? And so on. TompaDompa (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

For starters, the way you are phrasing the question is fallacious (see Begging the question): serious scholar. Claiming that Rein Taagepera's paper is specifically on the topic of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is wrong, as one can immediatly deduce this by merely reading the subtitle Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia, he uses the models to explain Russia's situation and certaintly doesn't dwelve into the Portuguese Empire's size.

I only meant to remove the Portuguese Empire, I don't know how the others got removed; I have reverted myself. The Blue Rider 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Taagepera's article is primarily about the territorial extents of historical polities and how they change over time (as are the other three articles in the same series: Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size, Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C., and Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.), with Russia used as a device explaining why this might be an interesting thing to look at. This is impossible to miss if one actually reads the article, and not that difficult to pick up on even if one settles for reading the abstract, which says that the article gives tables and graphs of area versus time for all major polities since AD 600. [....] The prospects of the Moscow-centered state are discussed in the light of these findings. You know this already, because it was explained to you over two years ago. I don't understand why you would claim otherwise. TompaDompa (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There is, however, a large flaw in this discussion: neither of these edits are actually original. They were, by me (co-authored by an army of alts for self-defence if things go horribly wrong, though they will not purposefully engage in malicious activity). You may also notice I reinstated the latter edit for the sake of WP:BOLD. Shatter the empires, as I would say (or rather, shatter the non-empires instead, however defined that might be). Alas, another delightfully cryptic belligerent joins the foray... However, all this ruckus begs the question: What is an empire, really? Time to shift focus to that brain-melting question, I suppose. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps keep out if you have nothing to do with these contentious edits? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I do, my revert was the last one, and you do have to make sense (and read wp:npa and wp:agf). Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume good faith. It may seem as if I am attacking [the article or an editor], however I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia.

I was rushing to get that reply through in time for me going to bed for the night, which explains why it might look like a personal attack; not to mention my ADHD/autistic brain is cooked Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Æ's old account wasn't working: I should really like you to clarify what you meant by They were, by me (co-authored by an army of alts for self-defence if things go horribly wrong, though they will not purposefully engage in malicious activity). TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

These alts are not malicious in any way; I may bring them in if I am unfairly scrutinised (blocked or banned, or just plain harassed). Right now, this discussion about particularly reversive editing risks any of us being unfairly blocked for supposed "disruptive editing". Concerning an edit and reversal of a revert by me, I am not disruptively editing, rather using logic to filter out the non-empires (e.g. the British never considered themselves an Empire per se, as it was {and still is} a kingdom). Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TompaDompa, The Blue Rider, and now Æ's old account wasn't working, are all players in this discussion. Best get to work, us lads, in deciding: What the hell even is an empire? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide, but for the sources. As the article said until just recently, Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera, who published a series of academic articles about the territorial extents of historical empires between 1978 and 1997, defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives. And to answer the question posed in that edit summary: Taagepera is not the world's sole expert, but when it comes to quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, he is the foremost one. TompaDompa (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not the one to go looking for sources. I also did not intend to alter the sources in any way. Maybe go look for someone else to squabble with? Anymore of this reverting may bring dire consequences to any of us, and we could be looking at a potential edit war brewing. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a squabble, I'm explaining my position: what an empire is (the question you posed) is for the sources to decide, and this is what they say. TompaDompa (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why Rein Taagepera is the only sourced used to define what an empire is, he is clearly from the school of effective control. Why not bring other sources that provide different definitions? The Blue Rider 18:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you have anyone in particular in mind? Taagepera is used as the central scholar on the rather niche subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There having been no further reply in almost a week by now, I have restored the long-standing version of the WP:LEAD that gives Taagepera's definition. As noted above, Taagepera may not be the only expert, but on the specific subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, is actually the foremost one. If there are other experts whose views would be WP:DUE, surely it would be preferable to add those rather than removing this one. TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree again. Barjimoa (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. As you said, it's a niche area. The average historians mostly care about whether a political entity goes from this city, to that city or that mountain. They don't tend to really care enough, to go into details about the precise size in numbers, like Rein does. Speun (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sokoto Area

@TompaDompa the article by Murray Last indicates that the area covered was approximately 1,000 miles from west to east, and about 450 miles north to south. Isn't that 1,165,503 square kilometers? the second citation by Lovejoy also supports this claim, asserting that it was over a million square kilometers. Both of whom are among the leading historians on the Caliphate. BlueSahelian (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We need the sources to state the area explicitly rather than calculating it ourselves, and the maps show that the shape was not a rectangle (so even if we were allowed to do that calculation ourselves we couldn't simply multiply one distance by the other). Moreover, neither source gives the specific year, which is required information. TompaDompa (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll try to look for better sources. Thanks. BlueSahelian (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

There are no reliable and verifiable source provided to prove that Xiongnu empire was that large as is shown here. So kindly remove it from the list or atleast reposition it. Emperorofworld123 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There appear to be two sources, why are they not reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources are WP:RS. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why count deserts as british empire?

Desert land in australia, ice in canada and effectively uncontrolled territory in India already make the claim of England as the biggest empire ever false 2001:818:E924:D000:D825:D488:C6A1:9CA8 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Find an RS that backs this up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

I would like to add an empire which is not famous but is apart of my heritage this is about in 1075 - 1220. The Mapungubwe which was around 0.045 million sqkm. Many people believe that empire is less than the size of Birmingham University but the is just the hill which was also the ca 2A04:4A43:8D1F:F8EC:C8A7:CCAD:E446:81AC (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you kind of made the argument why not yourself, it was the same size as a university. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)