User talk:BBJJKK
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, BBJJKK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Timurid Empire did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
[edit]
Hi BBJJKK! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Timurid Empire several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Timurid Empire, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tang dynasty in Inner Asia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. I understand the concern. My intention was not to edit war. I made changes based on reliable sources (Profile Books preview PDF and Seshat database), and I believed they improved the accuracy of the article. I will refrain from making repeated reverts and will wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you. BBJJKK (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Why are you lying about sources?
[edit]C'mon now. Why would you present such an obvious and easily-disproven falsehood about this source as saying that it says that the Portuguese Empire reached an area of 10 million km2, and then doubling down on it? Surely you must have known you would be called out on it? TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I admit, I apologize, Taagepera did not say that the Portuguese Empire was 10 million km², I was deceived by the number ".10" on the last page of that book, in fact it is 0.10. And below you have the 5.5 million mm² you showed. But think logically, Portugal occupied all of Brazil, the area of Brazil is more than 8 million km². BBJJKK (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not buying it. The
.10
is clearly labelled as referring to the year 1470, yet you saidTagapera wrote in 1815 that it was 10 million km²
—1815 does not appear on the page at all. As forPortugal occupied all of Brazil
, that's addressed by Taagepera right there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not buying it. The
- https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8vx325vq
- This is Taagepera's previous book on the area of empires, and many of the area data in it do not match those in his other books (I won't give you examples, you can see for yourself). Taagepera's data is not as amazing and reliable as you think, his information is unstable and not close to reality, unless you consider the area of the Portuguese Empire, which occupied all of Brazil (more than 8 million km²), to be 5.5 million km². The most interesting thing is that in the article on the Portuguese Empire, you put a map of the Portuguese Empire with Brazil included in its entire territory, which is at least 5.5 million km². Strange. And the Tang Dynasty is 5.4 million km², so how close to reality is this, not at all. I am a cartographer and have 4 years of experience in this field. The area of the Tang Dynasty is clearly larger than the Ming Dynasty, which was described as more than 6 million. Moreover, the Tang Dynasty reached Central Asia. The strangest thing is that in the book by Taagepera that I have shown now, the Seljuks are 4 million km², the Timurids are also 4 million km², and even stranger, the Roman Empire is also 4 million km². This is more than enough. I am not saying that Taagepera's data is all wrong, but there are a lot of confusions and uncertainties. Peter Turchin, who noticed this, reviewed the Empire's areas again, he took 70% of the data from Taagepera's data, but corrected such minor errors. What I am trying to say is that it would be much clearer if we used the Sheshat .Com site and the book The Figures Out more widely. The reason is that Seshat.Com is a map site and everything is correct and you can see every year and area in front of your eyes. On the Seshat.Com website and in the books The Figures Out, almost nothing has changed: the British Empire area is the same as the Mongols, Spain and the Qing Dynasty, only he corrected some serious errors in some small and medium-sized empires. Please, every time I go to the Wikipedia article List of the largest empires, I am saddened to see that there are many mistakes, because I am a cartographer with sufficient experience, so what I am asking you is that we should combine the sources of the Seshat.Com website and Taagepera. It is possible to do this from a logical and cartographic point of view, as well as from a historical point of view. Please do not ignore this idea, think deeply BBJJKK (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Taagepera's 1978 article focused on the methodology was in some respects superseded by his 1997 article focused on the data. That's fairly unremarkable.It's also worth noting that the subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is a niche topic—if it weren't niche, we would expect to either see multiple competing data sets similar to Taagepera's or a single canonical/consensus one that a large number of authors have collaborated on. But we don't—the sources largely rely on Taagepera's work, occasionally making some adjustments (as Turchin does). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the academic mainstream. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. As a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the one other sources rely the most heavily on, it is the WP:BESTSOURCE.It is also worth noting that quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is by no means an exact science with an objectively "right" way to do it—what the area of a historical polity was isn't a question with a "correct" or "true" answer, it depends on how strictly one chooses to define what counts towards it, be it fairly inclusive or fairly exclusive. It's always a judgment call. There are different possible approaches to handling territorial disputes, Antarctic claims, sparsely populated or entirely uninhabited areas such as deserts and rainforests, and so on. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. Perhaps the WP:Academic consensus will at some point favour other figures than Taagepera's, but I see no compelling evidence that this is already the case. So for now, we have to make do with Taagepera's figures, imperfect as they may be (as of course any figures would be, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you very much for your answer, I have seen many sources in the article "List The Largest of Empires". Interestingly, there are two sources for the Mongol, Russian, Qing (Dynasty), Xiongnu, Ming (Dynasty), First Turkic Khaganate, Golden Horde, Western Han, Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ottoman, Roman, Tibetan empires, one is from Rein Taagepera and the other is from Peter Turchin, and both sources give the same information. Now, both of them give different information about the area: Maurya, Byzantine, Khworazmian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Ayyubid, Gupta, Khazar, Qara Khitai. The area of these empires is written separately in two. What still amazes me is that I also asked you to change the area of the Timurids in this way, because I also cited not one but two sources of Turchin: Seshat.Com and Figuring Out the Past. And you flatly refused to do this, please reconsider. You also said that we will only use Taagepera's source as much as possible, even if it has shortcomings, and only if there are two different sources, we will use Turchin's source. But I did not cite any other source than Turchin and only cited this source. To me, this seemed a bit unfair. Of course, I understand you correctly, you need to thoroughly check each edit, and this is extremely responsible, if there were open editing for everyone, Wikipedia would be filled with false and misleading information. However, please also consider that I am citing a source from Turchin, who has enough space on Wikipedia. I hope that you will reconsider the Timurid area. I believe in it. Yes, I almost forgot, the link to the book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", the source of the Empires that I cited above, which contains both Taagepera's and Turchin's information, does not work in any of the two sources mentioned above. Maybe this is a mistake or the link is outdated. Perhaps this is the same Turchin I mentioned above: Seshar.Com and the book Figuring Out the Past are the sources I should use. In any case, I would like to ask you to double-source your review of the Timurid Empire, just like you did for the Maurya, Khworazmian, and Ayyubid empires. I hope you won't refuse this time. Thank you for your time and good luck. BBJJKK (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not what I said. We use the WP:BESTSOURCES. This is a rather niche field, where Taagepera is the central scholar. That being said, there are a handful of sources of somewhat comparable quality: there's Taagepera, of course, but also Turchin et al. and—possibly comparable depending on who you ask—Scheidel. Those other two rely very heavily on Taagepera, however, and it is not clear that they apply a consistent approach as they do not outline their respective methodologies as Taagepera does. Those other datasets are also far less comprehensive than Taagepera's (a point Scheidel makes:
Attempts to measure the amount of land claimed by imperial powers have a long pedigree: the most comprehensive set of estimates, produced by Rein Taagepera from the 1970s to the 1990s, forms the basis for this section.
). We present a range of estimates only when we have sources of comparable quality that give different estimates (citing sources of unequal quality would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE). As I have outlined before, I find the proposition that seshat-db.com is of comparable quality (in this specific context) to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities quite dubious. And just to reiterate a point that seems to have passed you by: sources need to provide a year for the area estimates to be usable, which means that Figuring Out the Past by Turchin and Hoyer is unusable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, I don't understand. The Wikipedia article List of The Largest Empires is taken from a book by Turchin, the author of which is a world source. And you say that even if I cite a site that Turchin personally wrote and founded, you won't be able to do it. This is very strange, at least if I cite the evidence of some other foreign scientist. I cited his book "Figuring Out The Past". Just like you cited his book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" in your article "List The Largest of Empires". At least you are talking about another year. And you are doubting Seshat.Com, maybe you don't understand, in your article "List The Largest of Empires" you also cited the book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" by Turchin, the founder of Seshat.Com. About Seshat.Com: Seshat: Global History Databank is a scientific project founded in 2011. Founders: Peter Turchin, Harvey Whitehouse, Pieter François. Purpose: To analyze historical societies and empires using structured data. Sponsors: John Templeton Foundation, Horizon 2020, Evolution Institute. Reliability: Data coded by scholars, widely cited in academic publications. “Seshat” is named after the ancient Egyptian goddess of writing and knowledge. Overall, considered reliable by the academic community. This is unfair. Please reconsider. Don't you think this is unfair and illogical? I hope you will reconsider. BBJJKK (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not what I said. We use the WP:BESTSOURCES. This is a rather niche field, where Taagepera is the central scholar. That being said, there are a handful of sources of somewhat comparable quality: there's Taagepera, of course, but also Turchin et al. and—possibly comparable depending on who you ask—Scheidel. Those other two rely very heavily on Taagepera, however, and it is not clear that they apply a consistent approach as they do not outline their respective methodologies as Taagepera does. Those other datasets are also far less comprehensive than Taagepera's (a point Scheidel makes:
- First of all, thank you very much for your answer, I have seen many sources in the article "List The Largest of Empires". Interestingly, there are two sources for the Mongol, Russian, Qing (Dynasty), Xiongnu, Ming (Dynasty), First Turkic Khaganate, Golden Horde, Western Han, Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ottoman, Roman, Tibetan empires, one is from Rein Taagepera and the other is from Peter Turchin, and both sources give the same information. Now, both of them give different information about the area: Maurya, Byzantine, Khworazmian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Ayyubid, Gupta, Khazar, Qara Khitai. The area of these empires is written separately in two. What still amazes me is that I also asked you to change the area of the Timurids in this way, because I also cited not one but two sources of Turchin: Seshat.Com and Figuring Out the Past. And you flatly refused to do this, please reconsider. You also said that we will only use Taagepera's source as much as possible, even if it has shortcomings, and only if there are two different sources, we will use Turchin's source. But I did not cite any other source than Turchin and only cited this source. To me, this seemed a bit unfair. Of course, I understand you correctly, you need to thoroughly check each edit, and this is extremely responsible, if there were open editing for everyone, Wikipedia would be filled with false and misleading information. However, please also consider that I am citing a source from Turchin, who has enough space on Wikipedia. I hope that you will reconsider the Timurid area. I believe in it. Yes, I almost forgot, the link to the book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", the source of the Empires that I cited above, which contains both Taagepera's and Turchin's information, does not work in any of the two sources mentioned above. Maybe this is a mistake or the link is outdated. Perhaps this is the same Turchin I mentioned above: Seshar.Com and the book Figuring Out the Past are the sources I should use. In any case, I would like to ask you to double-source your review of the Timurid Empire, just like you did for the Maurya, Khworazmian, and Ayyubid empires. I hope you won't refuse this time. Thank you for your time and good luck. BBJJKK (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Taagepera's 1978 article focused on the methodology was in some respects superseded by his 1997 article focused on the data. That's fairly unremarkable.It's also worth noting that the subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is a niche topic—if it weren't niche, we would expect to either see multiple competing data sets similar to Taagepera's or a single canonical/consensus one that a large number of authors have collaborated on. But we don't—the sources largely rely on Taagepera's work, occasionally making some adjustments (as Turchin does). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the academic mainstream. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. As a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the one other sources rely the most heavily on, it is the WP:BESTSOURCE.It is also worth noting that quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is by no means an exact science with an objectively "right" way to do it—what the area of a historical polity was isn't a question with a "correct" or "true" answer, it depends on how strictly one chooses to define what counts towards it, be it fairly inclusive or fairly exclusive. It's always a judgment call. There are different possible approaches to handling territorial disputes, Antarctic claims, sparsely populated or entirely uninhabited areas such as deserts and rainforests, and so on. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. Perhaps the WP:Academic consensus will at some point favour other figures than Taagepera's, but I see no compelling evidence that this is already the case. So for now, we have to make do with Taagepera's figures, imperfect as they may be (as of course any figures would be, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.