Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Britannica

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 keep. No need to drag this travesty out any longer. Shii (tock) 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Britannica

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

They used ground troops in their opium wars, and they lost thousands of soldiers fighting in the Crimean War among others listed. I see no evidence this is a real thing. Do any college level history books include this? Dream Focus 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See for example this discussion on the origin and usage of the term. Also a longer discussion in Rebecca Berens Matzke's "Deterrence Through Strength: British Naval Power and Foreign Policy Under Pax Britannica" (2011, ISBN 0803235143) and at least one book on the topic: Muriel Chamberlain's "Pax Britannica?: British Foreign Policy, 1789-1914" (1989, ISBN 0582494427). Given that this article has existed on Wikipedia for over 10 years with a wide variety of editors in that time and a number of discussions on its Talk page, might any concerns not have been better raised there first rather than bringing this straight to AfD on what looks like a query? AllyD (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these books or their authors notable? The talk page has people bringing up at different times how ridiculous the article is. So no need to have the same discussion had multiple times there. AFD is the right place to bring this. Dream Focus 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are notable books. Matzke's is based on her dissertation (meaning it was peer reviewed/scholarly written) and Muriel Chamberlain is a well respected historian of the time period, who is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and was formerly a Professor Emeritus of History, an the head of the History Department at the University of Wales, Swansea. Ravendrop 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) A search on Questia (subscription reqd) also shows that the Washington Times seems very partial to using the term: "China Reality Check" (2 May 2001: [1]), "Shouldering Empire's Burden" (25 April 2004: [2]), "Managing Decline; Pax Americana Is Winding Down" (1 November 2010: [3]), "Thanks to King George; America and Mother England, the Relationship That Matters" (4 July 2012: [4]). AllyD (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Washington Times writer says "Peace can be sustained, historically, either by a power willing and able to militarily dominate its world (Pax Romana,) or by a power that uses its relative advantage to subtly manage its world (Pax Britannica)." This is the only mention of it in the article, and that article is a ranting opinion piece. Dream Focus 20:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As H.W. Crocker III writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire, "When Britain could no longer maintain the Pax Britannica, it became the Pax Americana." One of the articles you link just quotes a book. None of these give any definition as to what it is or anything about it. Dream Focus 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very common term, widely used in Academia. I agree that the current article needs a lot of work, but the term it self is definitely notable. In addition to the books mentioned by AllyD, both of which are notable, see my note above, other notable scholarly works addressing the subject include two called "Pax Britannica" one by Fritz Voigt (1949) and another by B G de Montgomery (1928) - showing its not a new term, but one used widely in the past, "Economic elements in the Pax Britannica: studies in British foreign trade in the nineteenth century" by economist Albert Imlah and "Hegemonic peace and empire: the Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana" by Ali Parchami. The term also appears regularly in encyclopedias, such as the "International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences", the "Britannia Concise Encyclopedia", "Encyclopedia of Geography", "Encyclopedia of Power", etc. Whether it is an accurate term, or whether its use in certain circumstances is appropriate, are not reasons for deletion. Ravendrop 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. Not only is the term included in books, journals and other reliable sources, it is the title of a well known (at least within the field) book and the series to which it belongs[5], as well a whole load of other products. To suggest it is not notable just sounds ignorant. Try doing some research before wasting people's time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Previous commentators have already established that the phrase is amply documented in WP:RS, so WP:GNG is easily met. The nom's opinion about the inappropriateness of the phrase in light of Britain's 19th century wars does not constitute a valid deletion argument per WP policy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably notable and not just a popular journalist's phrase. AllyD has pointed out that it goes back at least to Joseph Chamberlain. A list of books using it has been offered, including James (Jan) Morris's history of the British Empire (1968), where it is used as the title of the trilogy and its second volume as Wiki-Ed points out. Dream Focus wonders how the term can make sense when Britain was constantly fighting in different parts of the world; the derivation comes from Edward Gibbon's Pax Romana, very familiar to the classically educated elite of 19th century Britain. It was based on the theory that peace comes from eternal vigilance and a demonstrated willingness to intervene firmly and aggressively in response to any disruption to the established order. Think of it like 'zero tolerance' in policing. It also has parallels in UN peacekeeping policies, or those of the US State Department since WW2. That academics and journalists use a term without always bothering to explain it is often evidence of notability because it demonstrates that the writer assumes that readers will be familar with and understand the reference. If they are not, that is what WP is there for! --AJHingston (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the keepers. You'd have to be horribly ignorant to nominate this seriously, and Dream Focus definitely isn't. This is simply a late-in-the-day April Fools' joke. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I was quite serious. I think whoever wrote the article was doing a joke though. It says that Pax Britannica is Latin for "the British Peace" and was the period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914). Where it says "the period of relative peace" it links to List of wars 1800–1899 which is quite a full list. It then states what major conflicts Britain was involved in during this time of British peace. Dream Focus 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team KEEP: Holy crap, it's not that we can find a zillion cites: it's that there are quite literally dozens of books with the damn phrase in the title [6]. This is one of the all-time "What the hell was the nom thinking?" AfDs, and I'm flabbergasted to the point of bewilderment at seeing this from Dream Focus, someone whose user page is well known for saying caustic things about knee-jerk deletionists. Ravenswing 03:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.