Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of western Eurasia


 * 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 Delete. Have paid careful attention to this complex debate and all present and past comments. I note that it has been said some of the content may be salvageable to other articles and the thought of that task has been described as being a nightmare - however I assume the keep proponents will assist in that task. I will be happy to assist in cut and paste to a sandbox if that has not already been undertaken.-- VS talk 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

History of western Eurasia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous AfD debate was closed as "no consensus" with the admonition: ''A conversation about merging and renaming can happen on the article talk page. Certainly the article seems redundant with other history articles, but that's easily dealt with.'' It has not been "dealt with", and the editor who is dominating this space to the point of WP:OWN has only more completely dominated this article in the past few months. The article is so perversely authored, nobody wishes to even attempt improving it. John Russ Finley (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Fundamentally a POV fork of History of Europe, History of the Mediterranean region, and History of the Middle East to highlight the theories of anti-establishment (though admittedly now recognized) historian McEvedy.  But setting aside the POV issues and the apparent ownership concerns (not themselves cause for deletion in most cases), the death knell here is the fundamental concept.  What is this article the history of?  Western Eurasia (or, before the pagemove, West Eurasia)?  Those are redlinked as I write this, for a reason -- the absence of multiple, nontrivial, reliable sources that use such terms to describe Europe proper plus the remainder of the Mediterranean region and bits of the Middle East.  Indeed, the article itself struggles to confine the region at hand (is Persia part of this "western Eurasia", for example).  Wikipedia cannot have an article on the History of, when we cannot define , or where itself fails to meet our standards of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  To do otherwise, as this article has done, is to build on a foundation of sand. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I read it ownership is related to the behavior of an editor towards others who wish to edit not to the percentage edits made. Do you have any reason to believe that any editor has behaved towards other editors in a way that shows ownership?  Second, please explain to me why you think McEvedy's atlases display an anti-establishment POV.  Have you read them?Dejvid (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The nature of ownership in this case would stem not from a hostile treatment of editors who are trying to help (you seem to be kind and courteous to a fault, Dejvid), but rather the creation of a stream-of-fact prose that is so off-putting to other editors, they would not even wish to wade into this owner's article. Example: At least the Byzantines no longer had to worry about the Avars who had lost control over their Slav vassals but as these Slav tribes had overrun all the Balkans (including most of Greece) this did not help the Byzantines much and their only really sizable territory was Anatolia.  I could not author a more incoherent set of nouns, verbs, and possessive pronouns if I tried.  People are running screaming from this article, and some are even making fun of it on sites critical of Wikipedia.  We can do better than this, but let's do it in History of locations that are more widely accepted (such as Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East) and have a more thriving community of authors, rather than this one author's narrative playground. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think you should reread the page on ownership but thanks for putting it in a way that it is impossible for me to be offended by.  I'm not sure how you define thriving.  History of the Middle East has had a request for sources for over a year and nothing has been done.  The same notice was placed on History of western Eurasia and it now has 45 reffs.  It would be better if more that one person had been adding sources but that is still better than zero.Dejvid (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete West Eurasia == Europe ; Western Eurasia == West Europe (Western Europe, Northwest Europe, Southwest Europe). So... this is the History of Europe. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an overview.  I find McEvedy's arguments for using this area as the basis for an overview convincing.  An overview based on Europe handles things like the Punic Wars and the Persian Wars awkwardly but there is room for several different overviews.  The topic, the history of this area, is highly notable and very easy to scorce.Dejvid (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that addressing the Punic Wars or the Persian Empire in the context of a History of Europe is problematic. That is why there is also a History of the Mediterranean region (which, admittedly, could be better) and a History of the Middle East.  Claims that there is a justifiable need for a combined article, especially since the base concept (western Eurasia) can't even seem to muster an article at all, is going to need some demonstrated sourcing from more than McEvedy. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The triangle conflict of the Avars, Byzantinium and Sassanid Persia is awkward within History of the Mediterranean region etc. It is the topic which needs to be notable not the term use to describe it. Hence it is irrelevant that western Eurasia is (I agree) not worth an article.  The reason why notability is important is that non notable topics are hard to source and has a danger of original research.  The topic of this page is by contrast very easy to find sources for.Dejvid (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The maps show North Africa too. Note the common term in business of EMEA.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that History of Europe is pretty much the same as History of western Eurasia.--DerRichter (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete due to notability concerns, in insufficient sources. While I still do not see the POV issue, there is not a lot of evidence that more than two scholars see this as a paradigm. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some Refs Note more than two.
 * The first great divergence : China and Europe, 500-800 CE (uses term western Eurasia to mean the area that is the focus of article)
 * ((Note: the word "Africa" is never used in this article.))-John Russ Finley (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is the other round. If you google for "western Eurasia" and Africa you get pages that refer to "western and Eurasia and North Africa".  The authors do not specifically mention north Africa because they assume that North Africa is included as part of western Eurasia.  But there is something more fundamental that the term used.  It is advancing the thesis that on there were two regions of advanced civilization that initially had similar histories but then developed in two quite different directions.  The eastern was China. Is it really so controversial that the western was not simply Europe but embraced north Africa and western Asia and it is worth having a page covering the history of that region on Wikipedia?Dejvid (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The authors do not specifically mention north Africa because they assume that North Africa is included as part of western Eurasia..." Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but is that your WP:OR, or is that documented in some other source? - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it make sense to say that the Abbasid Khalifate was an attempt to recreate Rome (as the article argues) and not have Africa in mind given it was the African bits of Rome that it held (and Syria of course)? But what is at issue here is not the tittle of the wiki page but topic that the article covers. That article deals with a specific geographical area which is defined and a number of historians have found that region a useful concept.  I  didn't cite this for the sake of a definition of the term. It is not the tittle of a wiki page that needs to establish notability but the topic. Dejvid (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dejvid (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The divergent evolution of coinage in eastern and western Eurasia
 * Italy and Euro-Mediteranian] (uses term western Eurasia to mean the area that is the focus of  article)
 * Thompson, William R. 1999. “The Military Superiority Thesis and he Ascendancy of Western Eurasia in the World System.” Journal of World History 10:143–178.
 * The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History,(+ Medieval +two later ones) Colin McEvedy Gives reasons  why the area as a sutible focus for historical study though he doesn't use the term West Eurasia
 * Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel Explicitly uses the term western Eurasia.


 * Keep but rename - this is a wide-ranging article of a kind that WP does not do well. It seems to be about the Mediterranean World and Middle East and their relationship.  I would prefer to see these appearing in the title, as the present title suggests a scope including Russia (which is not mentioned or hardly.  I have no problem over notability.  However, there are too few sources, and I am not clear whether those cited are the most authoritative (not being an expert on that aspect of history).  I would suggest that the final two (empty) sections should be removed, so that the scope would be limited to end with the medieval period, probably with "Renaissance" becoming "late medieval".  This would make it Ancient and Medieval History of the Mediterranean and Middle East.  This is perhaps a slightly clumsy title, but reflects is scope covering late BC to AD1500.  Some sections need linking with "main" templates to more detailed articles, but that is a matter of improving the article, and certainly does not warrant deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * McEvedy describes it as the Europe-Near East Area. Would you support a move to History of Europe-Near East up till 1500 or something?Dejvid (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. "In 453 Attila died in bed with his new wife. As a result, the Hun Empire collapsed." Anyone else get unforunate memories of Body of Evidence with these lines? Seriously, the article needs major work. Personally, I have to question whether the "region" even deserves a separate article. However, having said this, I am leaving a note at WikiProject History about this discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed any of this debate, nor am I very familiar with wikipedia's various "History of X" articles. So I don't feel like offering a support/delete opinion, but have a few thoughts and questions.
 * comment -

First, it seems most here agree that the term History of western Eurasia is not so great and is probably not worth keeping. As for a better term, I'm not sure one exists, nor is one needed. Rather than searching for a name I want to ask, as User:Serpent's Choice did, What is this article the history of? Reading the article it seems fairly clear. It is a history of the Mediterranean and surrounding regions, from ancient to modern times. Or, one might call it a history of Europe and surrounding regions, as Europe and the Mediterranean are so closely linked. The larger context includes a vast area reaching from the Indus River to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Sahara to the Arctic. Makes sense to me. How can you meaningfully describe Mediterranean/European history without this larger context?

Slight tangent: I understand why articles like "History of X" and "Geography of X" tend to be broken down by continent and country, but I hope people don't therefore think the "History of X" does not involve A, B, and C! I mean, take an overly silly example -- in European history there were a number of crusades during which armies traveled to a place outside of Europe (see History of Asia). Silly, yes, but the point is that the history of Europe, (north Africa), and (parts of) Asia are so deeply entwined as to be inseparable. I think, maybe, that is what this "western Eurasian" article is trying to address.

On the other hand, the History of Europe page already does a somewhat decent job of ignoring that invisible Europe-ends-here line and readily incorporates info about Egypt, Persia, India, Siberia, and so on. It is perhaps a bit lacking in the history of Islam, which deserves more attention if only for its profound effect on European history. The History of western Eurasia page may have a better start on that.

Finally, a thought on McEvedy and his geographic delineation. It seems to me that one of his goals was to create a historical atlas in which every map would cover the exact same area at the same scale. If I understand it, he hoped that this method would help convey a consistency to an otherwise chaotic and confusing history. You can compare any two maps and see at a glance the chances from place to place over time. That makes sense. But it seems worth noting that he was creating historical atlases, not mainly-prose articles. In an article there is less need to be strict about the geographical boundary of study. If suddenly you need to describes events in China it is not going to ruin the article focus.

Sorry for being so wordy, I'm done now! Maybe now I'll get around to writing that Maritime History of the Indian Ocean from Zanazibar to the Moluccas. :-) Pfly (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.