Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:44, 17 October 2024

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. There is an overwhelming consensus to delete albeit there have been improvements towards the end of tje discussion period. I considered whether this would have markedly changed the views of the editors who commented before these changes but did not see significant evidence of a change of direction in the discussion to permit me to consider discarding earlier delete votes or relisting this Spartaz 06:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe

• Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has 2 very major flaws:

• Firstly article is blatant case of WP:SYNTH. It provides no reliable source which would combine together all included battles and explain their common macrohistorical importance. Europe is defined randomly: Hunnic Empire was practically fully in Europe, Carthage had notable territories in Europe and Hasdrubal's army came from Spain, Ottoman Empire had large territories and its capital in Europe. Should we include any battles against Russian Empire/USSR, Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, early Hungarians, or Vikings too? What about Normandy landings? Etc.
• Secondly article has serious WP:NPOV problems. "...foreign forces from various parts of Asia and Africa threatened the existence of European settlements by invasion...", and obviously 5 battles are Muslims vs Christians, not to mention that all battles are "European" victories.
  

At previous AfD in 2007 one of the main "keep" arguments was also to give people time to fix article. Now there have been no edits in last month, and no notable changes in content in last 14 months. Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, for some reason previous AfD isn't listed under "AfDs for this article:".

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
• Wow, that last debate was tl;dr. Delete. The premise of the article is that "there were eight distinct conflicts that greatly affected the history of Europe, ranging from the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC to the Battle of Vienna in 1683." Oh, really? Absent any sources that describe these battles in this way, this article is improper synthesis. Fences&Windows 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. It also pointlessly gives descriptions of each of the battles; pointless because we have dedicated articles on these battles. Reduce it to the (unsourced) lead and deletion is pretty obvious. Fences&Windows 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. In Thermopylae: the battle for the West (1979, 2004), Ernle Bradford discusses the battle in the context of occuring "during the years in which the fate of Europe was decided." (pg. 54). Here an author of another book asserts that "Bloody battles that decided the fate of Europe were fought on the Danube's banks. Twice the Occident withstood the onslaught of the Turks at Vienna (1529, 1683)..." Checking Google Books reveals such reference for pretty much all of these battles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Please put your decision in the beginning as I did so I can tell easily :P I tried to improve the article's sourcing a long time ago for GA status, but the concerns over synthesis are totally valid in my mind. I have been unable to find any sources that tie these battles together. I must support this AfD fully based upon the reasoning above- I sincerely doubt these battles will lose any importance or status if the article is deleted. As much as it pains me to see a history article go, it must. Monsieurdl 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Complete Synthesis and not a valid subject for an encyclopedia, as it reeks of Original Research - there are so many battles that haven't been included for whatever reason, and most importantly there are no Reliable Sources actually talking about the subject as a whole; there might be a source calling one battle important, but none including them all and academically debating the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

*Delete Straightforward synthesis--The article may have been inspired by one of the references used, the classic work, Edward Shepherd Creasy, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo. London: Richard Bentley, &c 1851. and dozens of later editions. . Unfortunately, it has it at 15. The number is obviously a matter of opinion and basically just a hook to write a book around. The Creasey, however, might be worth an article. DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Creasy's book already has an article The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. ;) --Staberinde (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all text and substitute a list. All the important battles will have their own articles, so that a list would be as much as we need. Which battles were the most decisive is inevitably a matter of WP:POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

::The list wouid not be under this title, for there is no particular reason to limit it to eight. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC) :::On reflection, Delete entirely -- WP works best when there is one article on one subject. The selection of battles is inevitably a POV issue. Creasy's 15 battles, or any one else's list would provide the basis for a useful category, but a synthesis, such as this is not useful. If there were common features to several battles, an article drawing out those similarities might have been useful, but I very much doubt there are any, except their perceived importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. there is no reference given for the text of the lead, so there is no source stating these 8 are key. this pains me, the material here is serious research, and well intentioned, but of course it just doesnt belong here. to creator(s): write a book. I could see a list of battles between european and non european forces, which, by the way, would probably have to include some allied battles in ww2 where the US was involved. not sure why we would want such a list, but if someone wants to try to create it, fine. but its gonna be more than this 8.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Well, the subject itself can be encyclopedic. I've seen very good descriptions of the importance of the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Tours; and somehow, authors like Creasy were secure enough that they saw no need to use words like "macrohistorical". However, this article shot itself in the foot from the beginning by using a grandiose title and writing in jargon, and actually got worse. The original opening sentence explained the criteria for inclusion, a smarter-than-thou explanation, but still an explanation -- but it got removed along the way: "This is a list of battles which at least two historians have written were of macrohistorical importance between European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces," which at least is a definition. As with sarcasm, most people should not attempt sophistication-- because most people are no damn good at it. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, I take offense at "most people should not attempt sophistication-- because most people are no damn good at it." LOL Not really, but it would help to have improvement in prose, but just not in THIS kind of an article, where it seems like a massive sales pitch in the lead. I'll overlook your 'keep' this time... :D Monsieurdl 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; pretty clearly synthesis and redundant to the articles on the battles. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• No !vote, but a request. If the decision at the end of this is to delete, then please could the closing admin userfy this article to me. There is a great deal of sourced content here, and I would like to consider the possibility of merging reliably-sourced material to relevant other articles.—S Marshall /_Cont 11:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I have been working on something similar at User:A Nobody/List of decisive battles for which this article could be merged with, i.e. an article on the concept of the "decisive battle", which is indeed something multiple historians have written about and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, we could definitely use some of the citations in this article's edit history for such an article. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, there might be references worth using, userfying is a good idea. Interesting list, A Nobody. A list is much better than a repetition of material about the battles in question, so long as it can be well-defined. You've probably already seen Decisive Battles? The term "decisive battle" is bandied around a lot in the press, especially at the time of the conflict, so the sources would need to say why it is a decisive battle rather than just saying it is. Fences&Windows 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete pure synthesis, weirdly skewed and not a topic that exists anywhere in academia.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That is actually not true per Eds. Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster, Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe: Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe. Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Vienna, Battle of the Metaurus, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (Alphascript Publishing, 2009). 120 pages. The book can be purhcased from Amazon.com even. Sincerely, --A Nobody 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That a book exists with this precise wording, that some individual has their own thesis about the most "macrohistorical battles" does not make it a topic. Perhaps an article on that book might be acceptable (if it's notable and so on) -- that would at least limit the scope for the junior historians amongst us to litter what masquerades as an encyclopedia article with their own synthesis and views.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remaking this article to be about the book instead is a reasonable alternative to me. I wonder, to be honest, if the authors who the book also first wrote this article as the more I look, the article seems almost as a summary of the book? Best, --A Nobody 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worse. According to User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, these "authors" just republish Misplaced Pages articles as books. This is actually freely admitted by the company itself: . Using this as a validation for this article is obviously circular reasoning, and the book should not be used as justification for or as source in the article. The book laso probably doesn't deserve a separate article, unless it passes WP:N. Fram (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll order the book. At 120 pages, it has to be more than just this article and so I want to see how similar and how much more extensive it is. It was published on October 10th, 2009 so reviews may not be in. I do, nevertheless, still believe that some of the references in this article could be of potential value to an article on "decisive battles" or even to the individual battle articles covered here. Best, --A Nobody 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had the misfortune to encounter these books before, Nobody. They're put together by a bot, I think, slamming together baguely related content and then it gets published in a poorly bound book. They're in no way reliable, just literal reprints of wikipedia articles - the one I saw had citationneeded tags still scattered about. Skinny87 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good lord. I just assumed it was a publisher i'd never heard of. Turns out, it's not any kind of reliable publisher at all. Lets not have a meta discursive article on a book whose title was generated by a bot that crawled wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR applies. The book was copied from Misplaced Pages. Fences&Windows 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is a complete ripoff! I already noticed it and did the research on the company- they do sell Misplaced Pages texts as books. SHAME! Monsieurdl 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, wikipedia articles sold as books? I was also unaware of such thing, but I truly feel sorry for anyone who actually pays real money for such crap. Not to mention that calling such things "books" feels like insulting any proper publishers. Btw, gotta love how same "authors" publish on topics varying from Croatian Wines to Nuclear Power, and from Assyrian people to Ion Antonescu.--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that book can't be used as a reference, but we should remember that our license and mission practically begs people to do what alphascript is doing. They are outright misrepresenting the content and the authorship, but the actual binding and publishing of WP articles for profit isn't bad in itself. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete If this were a list, it would be remiss in not including the Battle of the Bulge where invading American armies saved the entire world from evil, and thus someone would say it's a list that could never have well defined criteria. It's not a list, though, and obvious omissions make it clear that it's just a case of SYNTH. As a further demonstration of googling for sources does not equal notability, the book is a mirror - not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

World War 2 had a white Christian nation invading them, so it doesn't count. Only listing those invasions from outside the European continent, seems rather odd. Were there not just as many major conflicts between the eight conflicts, which were between European states? You could just have an article called List of invasions of Europe from elsewhere which significantly changed history then. Or just one for major conflicts that shaped Western civilization, or significantly changed the world. Is all the information already listed in the various battle articles linked? All the battle articles could have an aftermath section, and quote various historians there. Dream Focus 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious question - do you read the things you quote? "It does not include the battles where both opposing factions were European, but may contain battles where both opposing forces belonged to a similar culture." Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone above mentioned the religion of those involved. That was mostly a joke, about them not being white Christians. And I see no reason to just list those battles from non-Europeans though, as I have stated. Dream Focus 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as this is a personal essay based on a dubious hypothesis that "foreign forces from various parts of Asia and Africa threatened the existence of European settlements by invasion". I concur this is a terrible example of synthesis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Massively notable topic on a theme addressed by at least hundreds , probably tens of thousands of sources. There's no more danger of synth here than there is with our article on heterodox economics in the absence of universal agreement on which branches are covered by that umbrella term, or with our article on sexual positions where no single source is used to decide which of the hundreds of variations to include. We're actually better set with this article in that as described in the lede we only talk about the battles that at least two historians agree have macrohistoric significance.

Here's an extract from Worlds at War: The 2,500-year struggle between East and West by distinguished professor Anthony Pagden and published by Oxford University Press. ( this source now added to the article)

"to later generations it seemed obvious that Poitiers represented a moment in the history of the West in which the whole of Europe had been saved from the forces of barbarism which were forever poised to engulf her" -- here we have the concept of macrohistorical importance in all its overwhelming significance.

"in the subsequent western historiography ... the battle of Poitiers {i.e. Tours} was represented as another Marathon.*" -- here we have analyses on different macrohistorical battles. Secondary sources dont come any better than Oxford University Press!

(Marathon and not Thermopilae is actually the key battle from the Persian War "the battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of hastings" - John Stuart Mill "{at Marathon} the interest of the whole worlds history hung trembling in the balance" Hegel )

Granted the OUP source is about the ideological struggle as well as battles of macrohistorical importance. As an example of a source concentrating on battles there's History's Greatest Battles by Nigel Cawthorn where the first line on the dust jacket is "Great Battles mark historys turning points" or the best selling Carnage and Culture. There are at least several hundred more where these came from!

There are a few issues before we can restore the article's GA status. Theres no universal agreement on which battles to include and certainly not on there being exactly 8. The lede has been altered to reflect this. Definetly we should include Marathon and the successful invasion of Constantinople. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It is WP:Synthesis, and rather old-fashioned. I understand the urge to point out which battles had as their potential outcome the conquest of Europe by the Satrap or the Turk or the Hun or the Mongol. But the place for pointing out that these battles were important is the articles themselves. One could even put a comment in an article that "Europe had not been so threatened since..." since I am sure sources say this. Abductive (reasoning) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as at worst the article undeniably has cited material that can be merged to articles on the individual battles or a new article on "decisive battles". One might also say to keep per WP:IAR as the article is just plain interesting and these sorts of fun and interesting articles are big reason why so many people come to Misplaced Pages in the first place. Moreover, the idea that encyclopedias do not include essays is bunk. Look at any of the book of the year updates for Britannica to see many thesis-driven essays based on so-called primary sources. Finally, the article serves a navigational function akin to a table of contents by listing these battles and providing readers with quick links to their respective articles. And as a list the article is clearly discriminate: only battles, only battles of macrohistoircal importance, only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions, and only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. There is therefore absolutely zero pressing need to redlink this article, whereas by contrast we could unquestionably salvage some of its contents for use elsewhere and we never delete when that is the case per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Even ignoring the fact that it is not a list and the included and excluded battles are very debatable (How can one invade Europe from out of Spain and Portugal?), the whole concept is very dubious. Why is invasion of Europe somehow a separate concept? A battle involving the Eastern Roman Empire only gets included when it is close to Europe, not when it is in Near Asia? Half of Russia is in Asia, so is it an invasion when they occupy the Baltic States or not? If not, then why are the Huns included? There isn't that much geographical difference between the Hunnic Empire and the USSR. Why are only invasions from outside Europe included? The Sack of Rome was equally decisive for the future of Europe, but didn't include people from outside Europe. So? The Romans weren't focused on Europe, but on the Mediterranean, and the division between inside-outside Europe was not important in their days. When you don't keep the contents and don't keep the title, delete. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This article contains Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#References that absolutely can be used elsewhere, which is why we will keep this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We'll keep an article because the references may be used elsewhere? That's a fairly novel interpretation... If this is the only purpose left and people feel the need to keep this list of references, the article can be moved without a redirect to a subpage of the milhist project. Fram (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
        • If we are indeed here to build a reference guide not for ourselves, but for our readers then we will indeed keep this article's edit history because the references are useful and relevant to those readers. I have actually linked to this article in my course webpages as it is a fun one for students to consider some of the big invasions of Europe and whether or not these battles are indeed as important as the article suggest. Put simply, from personal experience this particular article has great value in an educational setting, which is after all the whole point of an encyclopedia anyway. Best, --A Nobody 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • "I have actually linked to this article in my course webpages" Omg, WP:COI :P Anyway all those good references belong to articles about individual battles, and if some of them are still not in those individual articles, then they should be simply moved before erasing this. There is no need to keep this one purely for reference storage. And you may give your students simply list of those 8 battles and suggest them to check out separate articles, only thing that they would miss would be crappy lead that this article has ;) --Staberinde (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
            • It is far more convenient and logical to have a ready made list here than having to essentially recreate the same list elsewhere. If the content's of any article have any value or possible value to other articles or to our readers and are neither hoaxes, libelous, nor copy vios, we keep their content per WP:PRESERVE and redirect somewhere per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, selection criteria are not logical, even for a list. A list of the major battles in the history of Europe may be feasible, but the idea to take only those battles involving "invasions of Europe" is highly POV and selective. It doesn't matter whether the battles involve countries or tribes from within one continent or from different continents, both can equally shape the future. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a call to redirect to List of battles at worst. There is no reason/need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, we don't redirect such extremely unlikely search terms. There is no reason not to redlink. 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Given all the editors who worked on the article and who are arguing to keep it, it is a pretty obvious search term and again, no reason whatsoever why we must protect the public from having a redirect at worst. Best, --A Nobody 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That begs the question as to how the users in this AFD found it. Allow me to posit that it's possible they were not searching for this article, rather they are imports from WP:ARS. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • How did you find it? I did a search a while back of something like "battles involving invasions of Europe" and had it watchlisted ever since. It gets a couple thousand hits a month (I am going with October rather than November as the month of the AfD could be prejudicial in my favor, i.e. with more views as people debate during an AFD and I want to be fair rather than inflate things to help my stance), incidentally a year ago in October, it had a few thousand hits even. Somehow or other people are finding it. I do not know how to check what articles link to this one, so we have to figure people are finding it by some kind of search of something like "European invasion battles," which even then, perhaps this could still be merged/redirected to something like List of invasions of Europe. Best, --A Nobody 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
            • "pretty obvious search term" Erm, lets be serious, practically nobody uses such search term. People who have found this article before AfD on their own, have most likely came from one of the links to it that are in "see also" sections of articles about individual battles, as far as I can remember I found it originally long ago same way as this article's unorthodox title catches attention. Also article hasn't got much work recently, as I said then nominating this: at time of AfD's beginning no edits had been made for a month and no notable changes in content for 14 months. AfD's participation is probably also boosted because I listed it in Military and History related discussions as I was actually pretty worried about getting no proper participation here otherwise.--Staberinde (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Which articles link to this one? As for as your second comment above, see Misplaced Pages:NOEFFORT. Best, --A Nobody 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Uh, I mentioned lack of edits are direct reply to this: "Given all the editors who worked on the article...". If you claim large number of editors working on article, and I then make counterargument that there actually hasn't been so much working on article, its not particularly nice to reply with link to essay which claims that actually amount of previous work isn't relevant anyway. Now about articles linking this, in toolbox there is this nice thing "what links here", ignoring various userpages, redirects, and other crap, we can still find there: List of battles, Battle of Tours, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, Battle of Lepanto (1571), Battle of the Metaurus, Battle of Toulouse (721), Culture of Europe, Battle of Vienna, Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573).--Staberinde (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • According to this, multiple accounts and IPs have worked on this article since 2007. Given that S. Marshall asked above for this article to be userfied, it is inconsiderate to our colleague to say to delete rather to say to userfy at worst. Best, --A Nobody 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • I don't have any objections for userfying it, if someone wants it then its totally okay for me, and I don't see any reason why such request would or should be denied.--Staberinde (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems people are arguing over the title not the content. The battles are significant and well referenced. It seems that the "macrohistorical importance" is what is subjective. What is wrong with an article on Invasions of Europe by foreign powers? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not the title, it's the fact that it's a completely unreferenced synthesis (and mishmash of content forks littered with subjective claims).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Richard Authur Norton makes a good case. The name perhaps could be changed. A well referenced article listing the major invasions the European continent has had, from those outside it, makes sense. Wouldn't both World Wars count though? The German empire had conquered much of Europe, and only an invasion from the distant continent of North America was able to change that, significantly affecting Europe. Dream Focus 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the article is focusing on invasions where the invading power is there for conquest, not as allies. That can be explained in the first paragraph. Again there is no reason to not have an article on Invasions of Europe by foreign powers, it isn't covered in another article. All the other objections, are on editing, and can be discussed on the talk page. AFD is for discussing whether the topic is encyclopedic. Content is discussed on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, are the Huns a "foreign power"? Or are they as European as Russia? Was Al-Andalus a foreign power invading Europe? How long does one have to live in Europe before one becomes European? Why is one empire with Constantinopel as its capital considered as a European empire threatened by invasion, and another Empire with Constantinople as its capital a foreign power invading Europe? This article is filled with a 19th century based romantic view of the Christian, superior Europe defending itself against the barbarian unbelieving hordes from the South and the East. Not the kind of POV that should support a current article. Fram (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is bizarre that this article, which cites so many famous historians, should be under assault so that a comparatively flimsy article like Decisive Battles can hold the field. It seems ridiculous WP:RECENTISM to prefer a series on the History Channel to historians like Delbruck and Oman. There is, of course, much scope for improvement but this material is much too weighty and substantial to be casually deleted. Our editing policy requires that we keep this good material and make something of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious original research and synthesis. We already have articles about the battles; the attempt to combine a particular number of them into an article of this sort cannot be justified, no matter how hard the ARS tries. Deor (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is unoriginal research as the references are overwhelming secondary sources and a discriminate list in the manner of a table of contents or gateway to other articles cannot justifiably be called a synthesis. Despite two nominations, there is still no compelling reason to redlink rather than redirct, merge, userfy, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be synthesis and tenuous relationship between elements. Largely per nom. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This article that no more synsthizes these battles concerning only invasions of Europe with importance beyond the conflict between the two combatants than an article listing tall buildings synthesizes those buildings has twice been upheld as a Good Article (see "Milestones" at Talk:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe) and has also been transwikied to wikia:list:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe and again, so it is not lost in the mix, a user (not me, but S. Marshall) has requested the article at worst be userfied for him. It is extremely discourteous to say to this established editor "delete" rather than at least userfy. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - as I've argued on the talkpage, this article is a very clear and serious case of WP:SYN. To quote my comment there: 'If it is to exist at all, then the sources should make it clear that these eight battles, in particular, are widely considered by historians to be of great significance, and are generally associated with each other and studied alongside each other. I don't think the current sources establish this... Although this article meets our good article standards, and is certainly well-written and well-referenced, I'm not convinced that it isn't ultimately a carefully-constructed piece of original research.' Robofish (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • They do indeed appear lumped together in such books as The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World and its many imitations, which is why I recommend refocusing it onto an article on decisive battles instead. We unquestionably have the basis here from which to do just that and if something meets Good Article standards, it means it is salvageable in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • But we have the article on the 15 Decisive Battles. It shows the real deal; the notion of swarthy enemy hordes, of implacable barbarian warlords, of decisive battles in general, is very much an 1851 worldview. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • As such, that is a call to redirect to that article or even merge to it as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be synthesis. As with almost every article at AfD, any user is free to request that an administrator userfy it. I'd be more than happy to do it myself, and no special "userfy" vote is necessary here. AniMate 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep and clean up lead. Very well referenced article. It was a good article at one point for godsakes.Ikip (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - synth and as per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed, a valid point to make (as well as the fact that this is a policy violating case of WP:SYNTH. From WP:PERNOM which you soo handily linked to, says in part: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom"." Sincerely.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • This article passes WP:SYNTH and the nomination has been challenged. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's see what PERNOM says: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". If you want to quote your favorite essay, then at least try to follow it completely, instead of acting in a way discouraged by it... Fram (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It doesn't change that using a "per nom" vote when the nom has been challenged is also discouraged as well. Best, --A Nobody 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • It is discouraged by an essay which many people disagree with (in part or completely). However, since you obviously agree with the essay (as evidenced by the number of times you have linked to it), you should be following it. You can't expect other people to take your argument seriously if you don't even follow the same essay. Fram (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Deleting this article is discouraged per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Which has nothing to do with the comment you replied to. Fram (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment User:A Nobody has restored this article's old content under an old title , which was agreed to be turned into redirect in discussion back at 2007 already. He hasn't mentioned this action highly relevant to this AfD anywhere, and I would describe the edit summary he used for such major edit as "insufficient".--Staberinde (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As you can see my edit summary got cut off. And if we're going by discussions from 2007 as a test case for anything, then by that logic this is still considered a "good article". Best, --A Nobody 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have reverted the sweeping change made with the misleading summary. He will need to seek consensus for that.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I have note as much on a talk page (as of the time of typing this, no one has replied to me yet). Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • (as of the time of typing this, no one has replied to me yet) Yeah, obviously nobody has replied to it, because you entered notice to talk page 15:00, just one minute before entering this comment here. I am starting to run low of good faith here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
          • It does not appear that WP:BEFORE has been followed, i.e. clearly information from this former Good article could/should have been merged and at worst it redirected elsewhere prior to the AfD. Please remember, deletion is an extreme last resort and certainly not something to do when other options exist. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Merged to a non-existant article? How would one do that? Wouldn't it be better if you first identified which info in this article is not already contained in other articles (like those on the different battles or on the history of Europe) and of sufficient quality (relevance, reflecting current historical insights, ...) to be retained (in a merge)? A redirect is useless, as this is not a reasonable search term. Fram (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
              • It is a reasonable search term for some as it is totally reasonable for someone to search for something like "Battles involving invasions of Europe", which I personally have used as a search term. And I doubt I am the only person to ever do so. As for what is mergeable, consider Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Battle_of_Vienna and Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)#Religious_significance. Hanson's quotation that "To sixteenth century Christians, the sudden muster and vast size of the Christian fleet at Lepanto were proof of Christ to resist the Muslim onslaught" demonstrates the religious significance of the victory to the comabtants and would help flesh in that short section of the main articles. The entries on this list contain various such examples that indeed are not duplicative of the main battle articles and for which we can actually augment those battle articles. I realize now that this discussion is becomming heated, but I just cannot imagine why on earth we would be so bent on deleting this article at the detriment of improving another? Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as synthesis per DGG and others. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  nb: DGG has struck his original statement; *I* still feel this is synthesis and original research, as do others. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Aside from obviously not being a synthesis, notice references that appear in this article at Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Notes, but not the individual ones:

• Battle_of_Thermopylae#References: Grote and Grant from this article could be used in the battle article, which does not cite them.
• Battle_of_the_Metaurus#References: The battle article has few references. The content cited from Davis in the list article is different from the citation in the battle article. Thus, this and possibly the other reference from this list would add new content/sourcing to the battle article.
• Battle_of_Chalons#Notes: The list article uses Fuller and Davis, which again, the battle article does not. Merging these items would certainly strengthen the sections of the battle article on importance/aftermath.
• Battle of Toulouse (721) contains NO internally cited statements, whereas the list article features SIX citations that can be used in the battle article, thereby taking an article on a major battle with no footnotes and adding at least six to it.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment about merging: yes, some of the sections have material not in the individual battle articles. I do not think a delete decision here means we can not add that material as appropriate. I've modified my !vote accordingly to !delete and merge selectively, which can be done by merging the histories as needed.

I remind people that the point is not the content on the individual battles, but rather whether an article with any precise selectivity of this sort can be included in the absence of clear outside sourcing to that effect. How can we assert on the basis of sources that these are the 8 most important battles, and that it should not be 7 or 9 or 15? Does A Nobody wish to say on the basis of his professional reputation that there is consensus among historians that there are eight principal ones, and only eight? If so, where's the reference. to such consensus--or even to any outside source giving precisely eight? Could I do an article on "The 8 most important US presidents?" Could someone else do an article on " the 7 most really important presidents?" I am aware of the straw man fallacy, but I propose these as exact analogies in the same field. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would stake my reputation on the basis of an article covering something like "presidents considered the greatest" as having value as it is indeed a topic of book-length inquiry as seen here and here. Again, my argument with regards to this article is per Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete and WP:PRESERVE, we have content that can be used to improve other articles, that is not duplicative content. As for whether or not this article should stand or be redirected after a merge, I am not opposing an additional merge and redirect to something on Decisive battles in general, which I have been working on earlier at User:A Nobody/List of decisive battles. Yes, this article is titled is indeed disputable and even I dispute its current choices at Talk:Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Replace_Thermopylae_with_Salamis, but historians have indeed written about certain battles as having what could be called "macrohistorical importance", from The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World to Decisive Battles and in such book and TV show listings, we do usually see a handful of the same battles almost always appearing and as such just as Historical rankings of United States Presidents is a valid subject, perhaps a reworking along the lines of Historical rankings of important battles or something to that effect is as well? My concern here is that we have not yet brainstormed all possible alternatives to redlinking at this time. Thank you for your thoughts. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Many excellent points there ANobody, I think following improvements we could keep the article as a whole but maybe change the name slightly and add a few more battles to round it off? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as blatant synthesis. We are encyclopedians, not historians. Yilloslime _C 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • An objective look at the authors of many print encyclopedias reveals that the authors on historical subjects are indeed historians. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • A Nobody: I'm requesting you to refrain from commenting on my !votes from now on. 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a discussion not a vote and in discussions editors challenge incorrect statements, but if you do not comment after me in any further discussions, I will gladly not show up in any AFDs and reply to you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• question What is the reasoning behind the bizarre title? Artw (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• delete or merge - Apparently there's some sources that could be used to argue against WP:SYNTH, though I don;t see them in the lede, and the various sections have some material that could be used elesewhere without problem, and possibly a rename or a change of focus could result in a problem free article, but as it is it;s the WP:NPOV thing that sinks it - why that particular grouping of conflicts? It feels like some weird POV fork take on Europe Vs Islam that's hiding under an overly convoluted name. Delete, let whoever wants it userfy it, and if it spawns new articles that don't have the ick factor then good on it. Alternately make good on some of the merges discussed on the talk page. Artw (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All above reasons for deletion now moot following improvements?

• Synth and OR addressed

This was a reasonable nomination as in its previous form the article did indeed violate our synth and OR policies. We've fixed this by. 1) Taking out the claim that their are only 8 specific battles regarded as macro historically significant. 2) Adding a section dealing with the general theme of battles as a macro historic event , well supported with sources. (PS its well accepted practice not to have sources in the lede as long as claims made are validated later on) 3) Adding further quality sources where a major or principal theme is specifically on European / Western Civilisation being saved by decisive battles.

• POV addressed

1) The lede has been amended so it doesnt mention Asia and Africa. 2) The fall of Constantinople has been included where Europeans were defeated. 3) Criticism of the overal theme is now included from probably the most formidable ivy leauge opponent of these views , professor Hamid Dabashi . 4) Even reading the web link from Hamid Dabashi , will show that far from being a 19th century view, the position that Europe and the West owe their existence to these key battles still has considerable currency. There are tens of thousands of sources for this, including some that are very recent and high quality like the 2008 work by eminent professor Judith Herrin now added to the article. 5) Neither most of the sources nor the article takes the position that European civilisation is superior - the closest premise to that is that there's something unique about European Civilisation that would have been lost to the world if the continent had been conquered by people with a very different outlook such as the Persians or Muslims.

Having said all that, the concern raised by editor Artw remains valid, historical facts being what they are there will always be a risk of this article being used as a coat rack for anti Muslim propaganda. So I dont mind if its deleted for that reason. But if it gets deleted for synth that will be surreal even by wiki standards! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article has definitely improved, but some problems remain. Most major is obviously whole "invasions of Europe thing", as probably only Persian invasion of Greece and Arab siege of Constantinopole qualify as clear cut "invasions of Europe". In many other cases those "invaders" had very solid presence in Europe, and invading armies themselves often came from another part of Europe. De facto current content of article can be summed up roughly as "invasions of Greco-Romano-Christian territories by forces from other cultures". I think POV issues with that are pretty obvious. Although I would note that I don't see any general problem in concept of article about battles with macrohistorical importance like for example Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe or maybe even Battles of macrohistorical importance for development of Europe etc., and if someone is interested in developing something along those lines, then this article could be userfied as good starting point.

Few comments about modified lead too:

In that sentence what I quoted in AfD nomination I didn't object Asia and Africa part, but actually "threatened the existence of European settlements" part, which practically implies that if battles had ended differently, then some major towns would had been eradicated Carthage style.

Also next sentence about "turning the tide" definitely doesn't apply after you added capture of Constantinopole, ;) although it was problematic for some cases(like Thermopylae) already previously.--Staberinde (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Renaming the article: I agree this would help address the POV concerns, but it would raise other, more serious issues. If the article were renamed to something like 'Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe', then some of the omissions seem rather odd. In that case, shouldn't it include the great battles of the 19th century, like Austerlitz, Leipzig and Waterloo, or indeed of the 20th century, like the Battle of Stalingrad and Invasion of Normandy? There's no obvious reason why such an article should end in 1683. Perhaps it could be renamed further, to something like 'Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe in the pre-modern era', but I think that just further highlights the WP:SYNTH issues. I understand the idea of this article, and perhaps there is a legitimate concept behind it - but I don't think the current article makes a brilliant case that this is an encyclopaedic list, and not a piece of original research. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Having found a cut and paste move from March 2007 in this article's history, I listed it at the WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Flatscan (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The histmerge has been completed. I investigated the page histories after recent edits to the original article were pointed out by Staberinde above. Flatscan (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Comment. So people are completely rewriting the article, and renaming it, and changing the scope, just so they can claim that it was kept? Bizarre. If you don't have the old scope, contents, or title, then the original is deleted and a new, somewhat related article is created. Anyway, the rewrite isn't complete enough by far, all the fundamental problems outlined above still exist. What set these eight battles apart from others? They are not about invasions of Europe (only two to four of these could be labeled so with some accuracy), and there are a number of other battles that could just as easily be included. Things like "The salvation of Europe by key battles" (section header) are extremely POV, it is very debatable whether something like the Battle of Toulouse "saved" Europe or held it back for the next five centuries or so. One side won, the other lost, but Europe wasn"t saved or damned, it just had a different history. If this article wants to have a future, it needs a much more thorough rewrite as a whole (the individual parts may be good, but the overall concept is in need of serious rethinking) and a change of title anyway. Deleting and restarting from scratch, while keeping the sources somewhere (preferably a subpage of a relevant project) is still the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I concur with Fram. While this article has some useful content that has potential for being used elsewhere, its scope would need to be fundamentally redefined and you would basically need to write whole new article.--Staberinde (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I, too, concur with Fram's above comment. This whole long-term pattern is bizarre and is more about battling the Evil Deletionists, and 'saving' articles from 'them', than any suposed value the content has. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ditto. Two historians, not named or sourced, call ALL of them "of macrohistorical importance"? Where is this "macrohistorical importance" with regards to Europe? The importance of the battles in certain ways are defined in Decisive Battles, but not enough to be all lumped together in an article and defined with a synthesis that could never be fixed. If the material is that valid, then let it be merged with their respective battles. At the minimum, the term 'macrohistorical' needs to go. Monsieurdl 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is still a textbook case of synthesis.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Monsieurdl, sources linking the battles together are listed in the The Battle as a macro historical event section , and there are quotes and analyses from historians on why a particular battle was of macro historical importance in the individual sections of the listed battles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Excellent improvements, Feyd! We now have an article that is clearly no longer mere synthesis and the basis from which to move forward as well as material that can still be used to improve other articles. Congratulations on rescuing this article and for going beyond just commenting in the AfD, but for putting in the time and work to find and add sources! You are a model editor! Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats very kind of you to say so! Id already read several of the sources from cover to cover so it was no hardship. More improvements on the way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Great job Feyd, just keep in mind, no matter how this article is improved there will be some editors who will not change their mind. Really fine job. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• POV

Its been great to have the additional feedback on the POV issues. The objectionable section heading has been changed. There's no denying the subject is inherently POV, however its a topic which has been the principle theme for many mainstream works. Our policies dont prohibit us addressing POV topics - as long as we respect NPOV by including views from all significant perspectives. It would be great to have further criticism added - I was considering a reference to Guns, Germs, and Steel but havent read the work so arent sure whether it counters the importance of battles or if its just against the bias that Europeans have superior cultural traits.

As I understand it the prevailing view among those interested in macro history & geo strategy is that untill about 500 BC the East was unchallenged for the 1st 2.5 thousand years after civilisation arose, and then for about the same period the balance swung towards the west, though it has only enjoyed net greater capability to project power for about 300 years. According to Niall Ferguson the balance started to swing back towards the East from the early 20th century, and in the last 5 years or so, and especially in the aftermath of the financial crises, its expected the east will once again over take the west sometime this century. This is felt even more keenly on the streets of Chinese and Indian cities than it is by folk here in London. The sort of person who might be offended by the implication of Western superiority is going to know all this, so there probably isnt as much risk of the POV offending anyone as some might think.

• reply to Staberinde

On the point about not all the battles being against forces large enough to subdue the continent, this is true but the victories were sufficient to check the overall invasion plans. Around the 7th and 8th century Islam had enormous expansionary force, and their preferred direction of conquest was westward. They also expanded to the East, North and South - but to the east were the developed civilisations of India and China, to the North endless plains and savage nomadic tribes, to the south much of the land was desert. In western Europe they had a settled but undeveloped population, much of the worlds most fertile land, and ancient centres of prestige like Rome, so they directed much of their invasion efforts towards Europe.

• Synth

Its hopefully now abundantly clear that there are plentiful quality sources dedicated to the same topic, tying together the various battles with the common theme that they were pivotal events shaping the course of European history. Please can any folk who still feel there's a synth issue after the latest improvements identify specifically which novel or synthetic ideas the article imparts which isnt attributable to the sources? The article rescue squad will be delighted to do the legwork and make any needed improvements! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not abundantly clear, I'm afraid. Thermopylae is not sourced as being of macrohistorical importance. Marathon is the same. Metaurus is the same.

The sentence under Second Arab Siege of Constantinople that says it is of macrohistorical importance is unsourced here: "It has macrohistorical importance in that, had Constantinople fallen to this massive force of invaders, the Byzantine Empire most likely would have disintegrated and opened up new opportunities for Muslim expansion into Europe 700 years ahead of the Ottoman invasions."

This material in Chalons is not referenced- "Other historians such as Paul K. Davis agree that the Christian victory at Toulouse was important in a macrohistorical sense; it gave Charles Martel badly needed time to strengthen his grip on power and build the veteran army which stood him in such good stead eleven years later at Tours." OK, so where does he say it is of macrohistorical importance? What book or article? What page number?

In Tours, everything is as it should be, except the interpretation of the source does not support the text as being of macrohistorical importance, which is fatal. Here it is, straight from the article:

Other historians, such as William Watson and Antonio Santosuosso agree that the Battle was of macrohistorical importance as it brought the powerful Frankish army into the conflict, but are more nuanced in their interpretation of the battle's place in history; Watson writes:

"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."

Do you see where I am going with this? You may say it is in the article, but my examination of this article says that is wrong. I'm sorry; your case to keep is wholly unproven. Monsieurdl 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the extract from the source may be relatively more nuanced than some other claims, but its still very much of the POV that the battle had macro historical importance. I've took the liberty of bolding the key clause for you in your edit above. I agree it would be good to have more sources supporting the view that the battles significance has been exaggerated, but sadly the extract supplied doesnt help much.

Battles like Tours and Marathon are supported as having macro historical importance many times over. They are both featured for example in, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World and their significance is also treated in the Oxford University Press source Worlds at War: The 2,500-year struggle between East and West. It would be tedious to list all the cites for the battles, but heres an extract to the article asserting the macro historical importance of Marathon "the interest of the whole worlds history hung trembling in the balance" - original source Hegel , but quoted in a recent book by Tom Holland so cited to that. (I'll add a cite for a second modern historian who considers Marahon to be a pivotal battle for european history - there are scores available!) And heres a cite asserting macro historical importance for both Tours and the siege of Constantiople:

--quote above cited in the article to Byzantine , a book recently published by a university press and written by eminent professor Judith Herrin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have solved the POV section header by adding "alleged" to it... Doesn't make it any better though. Still, the basic problems stay, e.g. that many, if not most, of these battles do not even involve an invasion of Europe. Fram (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which specific battles do you consider not to involve an invasion of Europe? If there wasnt an actual invasion force on the field, one would likely have followed if the foreign force has triumphed- thats implicit, and indeed in some cases directly spelled out, in the sources that consider the battles to have macro historical importance.

For me the word alleged makes all the difference - the only other improvement needed is more sources like Dabashi to offer alternative perspective. But if theres a better title for the section please discuss or go ahead and make the change! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reprint of a post I made the 18th here: "As I said above, are the Huns a "foreign power"? Or are they as European as Russia? Was Al-Andalus a foreign power invading Europe? How long does one have to live in Europe before one becomes European? Why is one empire with Constantinopel as its capital considered as a European empire threatened by invasion, and another Empire with Constantinople as its capital a foreign power invading Europe? This article is filled with a 19th century based romantic view of the Christian, superior Europe defending itself against the barbarian unbelieving hordes from the South and the East. Not the kind of POV that should support a current article." Fram (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully there's no need to repeat the evidence that far from being confined to the 19th century, its a very current view. If you dont want to take my word or re-examine the numerous current sources, see the article from its harshest critic, which offers a great overview of how prevalent the view is, including reference to a resurgence of popular interest in the 1980s , more recent interest, and lots of reference to sources not mentioned in the article or on this talk.

As for the Huns, surely what really matters is how the sources view them? From the quote in the article by historian Paul K. Davis: "Roman defeat of the Huns stopped the Asian spread westward, setting up the collapse of Attila's empire two years later" I personally agree that the Huns are about as European as Russia. However, and this is important, historically the lands that now form Russia had a much more Asian character. Her culture was deliberatly shifted towards the west by Peter the Great. (To the worlds loss IMO and according to Spengler, as it delayed the emergence of a specifically Russian civilisation that would have launched a third great issue of Christianity with a more eastern character, based on the Gospel of St John and preaching the doctrine of universal Love.) A google on "Petrinism Russia" will turn up some good sources if you're interested in reading more on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (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.