- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- ... that the conquest theory of state formation in anthropology has its roots in work by Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in the 14th century?
Created/expanded by AbstractIllusions (talk). Self nom at 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, certainly new enough and big enough, a very nice looking article. I've hit a problem with my first spotcheck though - Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 532. is used twice - I've read the referenced page about three times and it's not saying anything that I can see to support the statement "the decrease in the prevalence of warfare after World War II..." Simon Burchell (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Otherwise, all the sources certainly exist and I've checkes against Carneiro, all OK there. Hook fact supported by article, and by Google Books ref (Gross, p.5.). All images licensed OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed? 1. So the first Barkey and Parikh ref got transcribed wrong (523 became 532). I fixed that. 2. The second one was also off (531 became 532). But also it was not precise enough, quote from B&P "First, the essence of a major aspect of the state-formation hypothesis was the importance of warfare in the development of the state's administrative and extractive machinery, but the present international norm of nonintervention makes this avenue less likely" (pg. 531). I've now changed the sentence in the article to: "Although warfare is primary in many theories of state formation in Europe, with the development of the international norm of non-interventionism this process of state formation has decreased in relevance." So, think that is good now. I did a second check of a few sources to see if similar problems exist for other sources and couldn't find any, so it may have just been low coffee when I was going through Barkey and Parikh, but do let me know if others are located. Thanks for all the additions. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's great - I suspected the numbering was the problem. Nice article, good to go. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)