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

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

The result was merge to

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

Modern empires' loss of European territory

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

The title is confusing and unclear. I have no idea what this page would be about without looking at its contents. It is unsourced, which raises issues about

WP:NPOV. The page makes no sense. The "modern empires" are predominantly European ones, so why is their loss of "European territory" a worthy topic for an article? The use of modern states as some sort of baseline is anachronistic. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The article does not cite one single source. It is your accusation that is baseless. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that is unreferenced is a completely separate issue from
Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That is more acceptable than the status quo, but even that article is, to me, of dubious value. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I looked for a list like that but could not find it, changing my vote accordingly.
Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yugoslavia was not an empire. USSR is successor state to the Russian Empire. That is the difference - it is described in the article itself. The article doesn't deal with all separation/independence/statehood/sovereignty/etc. events - it deals only with the dissolution of the Empires of the modern time (decolonization). The articles for the other continents are called 'Decolonization of Asia/Africa/etc.', but as 'Decolonization of Europe' and even 'Decolonization in Europe' do not reflect the speciality of the case (as most Empires had their origin/mainland in Europe) it was renamed, but maybe we should rename' to a different heading? (Timeline of dissolution of the Emires of the Modern Age on the European continent) Alinor (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, your answer greatly worries me and I am now considering changing to delete. The reason for this is that I now see the article is not a mistitled list with some bad entries as I originally thought, but an
Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course San Marino got independence not in modern age - this is clearly stated in the article - gray entries (Belgium, etc.) are included only for historical context and it is clearly stated that they are not related. They could be even removed, but I'm not sure that this will be an improvement.
Read the Decolonization article - it covers Europe (Ottoman, Austia-Hungary, British, etc.) - so decolonization did occur in Europe, but not all-over-Europe as some/most of the Empires are european countries and vice versa.
For the other continents there are only a few "historical context" entries (1 in Africa, 8 in Asia), but in Europe there are more, that's why it has coloring/font changes and different article name. Alinor (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about decolonisation, why not call it that? Because of a previous deletion request, that's why. The problems with this article are too deep to be summarised succinctly. Europe was not colonised by the Ottomans, by the "Austro-Hungarians", by the British, or by the Russians. Why force all history to fit into one paradigm? (I'd have a problem speaking of the "decolonisation" of South America, and I cannot say I have heard the loss of Portuguese and Spanish sovereignty described as such.) And what makes the USSR more of an empire than Yugoslavia? And why isn' the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire covered? And why do we need historical context about events in the Middle Ages? I think almost every line in that table is misleading.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
UK formation is not a subject of this article. The gray entries (such as UK) are only for context. I think it is better to improve the description of the complicated cases (with some footnote or a link to appropriate article) or in the worst case delete the gray entries altogether, but the article is in no way covered in
List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty - they describe different, albeit related events. Alinor (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The list is based on the Decolonization definitions. It is a compilation from the "History of ..." articles. As described multiple times on the talk page - Yugoslavia is not considered Empire - neither for Macedonia, nor for Croatia. The empires are the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman. As the first independence of Macedonia is in 1991 it is listed as Ottoman->Serbia (as the territory of present Macedonia was acquired by Kingdom/Principality of Serbia from the Ottoman Empire). All this is described in the notes and Yugoslavia is not in the list at all. "Subjective and inconsistent" - if there are such issues they should be raised on the Decolonization talk page, where the definitions originate, not on individual continents lists. Alinor (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And we are right back to it again. The page is not a
WP:SYN independent of which editors judgement prevails or how consistently applied. Agricolae (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, again. Macedonia is listed, not because it separated from Serbia/Yugo, but because its territory was part of the Ottoman empire and was "lost" by that empire. If you want to point out that Macedonia should be "gray"/"non-decolonization" (like Belgium for example) then I agree. And this can be easily fixed. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Alinor (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Macedonia is included because it represents a territory lost to the Ottoman Empire in 1918, why would you insist on listing it in 1991? Because that is when the Nation of Macedonia dates its independence - a further example of why the list is not what the title claims it to be. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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