Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:French colonial empire

Area

@ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ: As you say, INSEE is a WP:Primary source. Wikipedia prefers WP:Secondary sources. This is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. That's just about the highest-quality source you're going to find for the area of a historical polity. We should use the latter, not the former, per WP:BESTSOURCES. TompaDompa (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:
  • There's a misunderstanding about WP:Primary source and WP:Secondary sources here. What these say is that primary sources subject to interpretation shouldn't be used, and scholarly secondary sources that interpret primary sources should be used (quoting a scholar book about Louis XIV that itself used original archives for example, instead of writing some personal research by quoting primary original archives). But here what you reverted were land areas and population figures. Land area is land area, it's pretty straightforward and not subject to interpretation. If the national statistical office says the land area is X, then surely it must be X, unless demonstrated with other sources that somehow the statistical office got it wrong. What's the point of a secondary source here? If we follow your logic, we would never quote population figures from national statistical offices for instance (because primary sources), but we would only quote population figures from secondary sources, even if outdated or wrong. I guess you can see the silliness of this.
  • Your particular source (Rein Taagepera's article) has two big problems:
    • First of all, it doesn't list the land area of colonial empires, but it lists the land area of "empires". In the French case, the figures contained in Rein Taagepera's article are not those of the French colonial empire (i.e. colonies, protectorate, mandates), but are those under French sovereignty, i.e. including Metropolitan France, which was never part of the French colonial empire, and is therefore not the subject of this article. So for example, when Rein Taagepera says 11.5 million km² in 1920, the extent of the French colonial empire properly speaking would be 11.5 million - 0.5 million = 11.0 million km². You may want to correct this for the extent of the 1st French colonial empire by the way, as the figure quoted in the article includes Metropolitan France, and not just colonies.
    • But then even that figure (11.0 million km²) appears to be grossly wrong. Here you can find the land area of all countries and territories of the world published by the United Nations: [1]. Adding all the former French colonies, protectorates and mandates + all remaining French overseas departments and territories, one gets 12,413,000 km² (feel free to double check). To that should be added Kerguelen + Adélie Land, which is included in the SGF source from 1938 (the 1936 land area I wrote in the article), which results in 12,852,000 km² in total. That figure is slightly larger than the French colonial empire in 1936 because it includes both Spanish Morocco (now part of Morocco) and the Southern British Cameroon (now part of Cameroon). Removing these, we would get something like 12,761,000 km². The French colonial empire in 1936 also included the Sanjak of Alexandretta (now in Turkey). With it we would get 12,766,000 km². This is far closer to the SGF figure from 1938 (12,465,000 km²) than to Rein Taagepera's figure (11.0 million km²). Even if we remove Adélie Land (supposing Rein Taagepera did not count it as part of the French "empire"), that would still be 12,334,000 km². So Rein Taagepera's figure is a gross underestimate. The figure from the Statistique Générale de France (SGF) also underestimated the true extent of the colonial empire (probably due to incorrect estimates of true extent of French Sahara and Equatorial Africa), but it's definitely closer to the actual figure as per UN land areas linked above. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, land area is not straightforward and very much subject to interpretation. There are such things as territorial disputes, for one thing. When it comes to the land areas of historical polities, estimates tend to vary a lot. Indeed, you yourself came up with a different figure than the source you cited. I think that in itself amply demonstrates that it's not as simple as "land area is land area". There are of course other reasons that estimates vary, including differing assessments about which areas were de facto part of the polity as opposed to solely de jure. The point of a WP:Secondary source here is that sources disagree, and when that happens we use the WP:BESTSOURCES available. In this particular case, that happens to be the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. If you think it's a problem that Taagepera's figures include Metropolitan France, just add "(including Metropolitan France)". TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote beyond point 1? It doesn't seem so. Your secondary source is 1.76 million km² lower than the real land area of the French colonial empire. That's a massive 14% of the French colonial empire that is somehow missing. And that has nothing to do with de facto vs de jure or with territorial disputes. The only part of the French colonial empire whose sovereignty was disputed was the tiny Sanjak of Alexandretta (4,700 km²), so obviously not the explanation for that massive 1.76 million km² difference.
What is your point here? Misinforming readers about the extent of the French colonial empire just for the sake of defending a secondary source that you introduced in the article some time ago? Is that just a question of ego on your part? ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did read past your first point, but your personal WP:Original research calculation about what figure one "should" arrive at is indeed WP:Original research and consequently immaterial. You say that the discrepancy has nothing to do with de facto vs de jure or with territorial disputes, but how on Earth would you know that? Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. If you find a higher-quality source than the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, feel free to use that source instead. In the meantime, we should use the WP:BESTSOURCE, which certainly isn't the WP:PRIMARY one. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added other sources for the land area, articles in peer-reviewed journals. They either strictly confirm or are very close to the figure published by the Statistique Générale de France. These ones plus other sources (e.g. [2]) that I'm not adding in the article in order not to clutter it are all in the same range (12.1-12.5 million km²). Your source (11.0 million km²) is a clear outlier. What's more, your source is not even a secondary source, it's actually a tertiary source. For the land area of what he/she calls the "French polity", Rein Taagepera says the actual source of the figures is Encyclopedia Britannica (but without saying which edition, so it's impossible to double-check). ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you have confirmed that different sources come up with different figures. So it's not just "land area is land area". For good measure, here are some additional sources that say eleven million square kilometers[3][4][5][6][7], and here's one that says ten million square kilometers[8]. Of course, it doesn't really matter that I found a bunch of sources that give figures more similar to the one you call an outlier. What matters is quality of sources, not quantity. The source by Taagepera is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology. That's the WP:BESTSOURCE we have for this right now. TompaDompa (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and for the French "polity" it only says it drew figures from "Encyclopedia Britannica", without stating which edition so cannot be double-checked. It's circular reasoning really. If different sources differ as to the land area of the colonial empire, then surely the source from the Statistique Générale de France, the authority in charge of compiling this figure in the first place, should be the authority. Especially considering they detail how they come to that figure (colony by colony), instead of just giving a figure for the total without further explanations. The detail colony by colony is here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65806080/f272.item ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If different sources differ as to the land area of the colonial empire, then surely the source from the Statistique Générale de France, the authority in charge of compiling this figure in the first place, should be the authority. That might seem obvious and intuitive, but it's actually the opposite of how Wikipedia works for stuff like this. Territory is and always has been a politically sensitive subject. We don't want the official figures and we don't want to rely on primary sources for this. We want figures that come from independent, non-primary sources that have taken a critical look at the issue—such as, in this case, a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The territorial extent of the French colonial empire between both world wars was not a politically sensitive subject. With the exception of the tiny Sanjak of Alexandretta, there was no part of it which was in dispute. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter that you think this should be entirely uncontroversial. The fact of the matter is that it isn't, it involves quite a few judgment calls. This is true in general of the area ascribed to polities. You brought up one such example yourself: Antarctic claims. Different sources treat those differently. Another issue is territorial disputes, which I brought up earlier. A third is sparsely populated or entirely uninhabited areas such as deserts, rainforests, and so on. Different sources take different approaches. There isn't a single "correct" way to go about it, it's always debatable. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. You don't have to agree with them, but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on sourcing that are pretty clear on this: we don't take primary and/or non-independent sources at their word for stuff like this, and where sources disagree, we use the WP:BESTSOURCES. In this case, the best source happens to be the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I see here is you insist on using solely YOUR source, as if it was the holy grail. I've indicated (and placed references in the article) there are other "peer-reviewed scientific articles" that greatly differ from your source and agree with the Statistique Générale de France. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize that being peer-reviewed is not the only relevant factor here? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGEMATTERS, and so on. A peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities is just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could get here, short of a review article that explicitly states what the WP:Academic consensus on the matter is. If you happen to find another peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities (such as this one, which provides area estimates for some other historical polities but not this particular one), that would be great—we could then provide a range of estimates from equal-quality sources. If you find an up-to-date review article that explicitly states what the WP:Academic consensus on the matter is, that's even better—we could then just cite that source and be done with it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I see here is you're doing what lawyers call pettifogging. Using all the subtleties of rules to impose your source. Because of course only your source is a valid one.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, so it would be better to hear from other people. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was the only valid source, you know I never said that, and I'll thank you to lay it off with the accusations. But yes, let's restore the status quo ante per WP:BRD and wait for further input from others. TompaDompa (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your source doesn't show the land area of the French colonial empire. It shows the land area of what the author calls the French "polity", which includes Metropolitan France, and is larger than the French colonial empire. This article is about the French colonial empire. It is misleading readers to give only the land area of a "polity" that also includes Metropolitan France. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, that is trivial to address by writing "including metropolitan France". I have done so. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. By adding "including metropolitan France" you still do not say what's the land area of the French colonial empire. Besides, I've challenged the validity of your source (gross underestimate, rounded at the 100,000 km², itself derived from an unnamed edition of Encyclopedia Britannica as per the author of the article, and greatly different from the official figure of the Statistique Générale de France). ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment that the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities has provided a "gross underestimate" is your personal WP:Original research, your implication that the precision being limited to 100,000 km2 somehow makes the source less credible reveals a lack of understanding of how scholarly assessments of the territorial extents of historical polities work, and your insistence that we should rely on the "official figure" reveals a lack of understanding of how sourcing on Wikipedia works. Of course, there is a simple solution to this issue: remove the figure altogether. That's what we do for some other large historical polities where the precise figure is in dispute, and it is in line with our policies in cases like this. TompaDompa (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rule about original research refers to edits (in articles), not to personal assessments of the validity of sources on talk pages. The tone of your last comment is borderline ad hominem. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ is right. This is Wikipedia:CALC, which is not original research and the ISQ article is clearly not actually "about" the area of the French colonial empire (it just quotes a convenient reference work for a ballpark figure). Furius (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The International Studies Quarterly article by Rein Taagepera is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology, and the series it is part of (see also [9][10][11]) is probably the most comprehensive research on that topic ever published. Your assertion that it just quotes a convenient reference work for a ballpark figure is simply incorrect. As for WP:CALC, the only time a calculation is not original research is if it is a routine calculation where there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. This, however, isn't a case where we can simply add up figures to arrive at a "correct" sum, for reasons explained in a fair amount of detail above. Lest we go over it all again, suffice it to say that there isn't a single "correct" way to go about it. We currently do not include any figure. What is it you are suggesting, exactly? TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Aid, Arms, and Armies - The Politics of Intervention in Africa

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleksander Ramirez (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cwn24, CalWilNyc.

— Assignment last updated by ProfWellman (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is a broad interpretation useful?

we have a very long article on lots of themes--I think a 350 word summary of main trends in 7 short paragraphs is useful (based on a leading survey by See Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (1996) and ten other scholars) The point is that the article itself goes place by place to cover lots of colonies in lots of decades. Editors interested in a particular subtheme are free to edit their points -- and people who don't go for generalizations can skip over it. But erasing it wholesale is pretty extreme. I did not "invent" the themes--they all have a serious scholarly literature, and each subtopic is now footnoted. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the benefits of a section on broad themes, but it can't be based on a single source. Apart from anything else, Aldrich is over 25 years old, so unlikely to fully represent scholarship today. I find it striking that he hasn't noticed economics as a theme of the empire (outside of slavery).
I also worry that "a 350 word summary" is to some extent duplicating the purpose of the lead. Several of the themes are already introduced in the lead and discussed further in the article (expansion, wars, cultural influence, decolonisation, continuing legacy); a better course of action in my opinion would be to delete this section and incorporate the missing themes (most importantly, slavery) into the lead. Furius (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
each of the themes now has a citation to more recent scholarship than provided by the Aldrich book. As for overlap, this article is so long and so complicated that a little overlap is a small price for making sense of a huge topic spread over multiple continents in multiple centuries. Wars are separately mentioned a hundred times in the article, for example, and decolonization thirty times. Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Length is no justification for overlap between the lead and the immediately following section. Furius (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2 1400-present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Graceagbessi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Carlosjimenez3 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_colonial_empires