Misplaced Pages

• 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)
• 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)