File talk:Ethnic map of 11th century.jpg

The usage of this map

The usage of this map is invalid because it is based on one vague source(one source only - WP:Fringe) and the important part where the Vlach population lived it is marked as "Beech and pine forest"???

• Among sources used for this map there is another 13th century map([1]) that contradicts this one (it states that in these areas there was Romanian population)? I fail to see the logic in that too. I did`t know that Vlach second name was pine tree :).
• Map based only on 1 source WP:Fringe. And that source is not very solid. When making this kind of controversial maps it should contain several solid sources.
• Also this map is in direct contradiction with another 11th century map that is referenced by many sources ([2]).

Don`t know what to make of this map but if used it seems to me as POV pushing. I suggest deleting this image. Adrian (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully endorse Iadrian yu's comments. This map smacks of Pál Teleki's infamous Red Map, which also showed most areas inhabited by Vlachs/Romanians as blank or forest. The archaeological and documentary evidence for a Vlach presence in Transylvania in the 11th century is convincing. The map should take that into account by including some more balanced sources and changing the label "beech and pine forests". Otherwise, it shouldn't be used, and ideally deleted from Commons as original research. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The map is a valid presentation of the ethnic situation as it is suggested by early place names and names of rivers. It is based on reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose the moving of this conversation to: commons:File talk:Ethnic map of 11th century.jpg. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Codrinb you are right but since the discussion is already started here let continue here if that is ok, when it`s finished we can move it there too. I guess you could copy your comment here too? Adrian (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I fully agree Biruitorul's point of view. Saturnian (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Borsoka it is based on one source only. You can consider the best source ever it is still only one sourceWP:Fringe and it is in direct contradiction with this([3]) 11th century map which has at-least 5 sources. When making this kind of controversial maps it should contain several solid sources. This map is everything but a valid presentation of the ethnic situation.Adrian (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no contradiction between the two maps, because the subject of the two maps is not the same. This map presents an ethnic situation suggested by hydronyms and other geogrephical terms, while the other map is a graphic representation of a theory. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let analyze it then:

• A representation of a theory according to you? I guess this map is a representation of a theory according to me? Let`s just stick to the facts and avoid personal interpretations. The "theory" I talk about is confirmed by a number of scholars.
• The subject of these maps are not the same? But both speak about ethnic composition of this area. If you take a closer look, the map in the middle is a representation of the ethnic map and it is from the 11th century.
• This map has only one source and it is in direct contradiction with others. Clearly a case of fringe theory.
• This map presents an ethnic situation suggested by hydronyms and other geogrephical terms - This is why this source is vague and not reliable, it suggests. Adrian (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The map is properly sourced, this is roughly the Hungarian Academic point of view. If you have a problem with it design an other map and demonstrate the Romanian POV. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a POV of one Hungarian scholar. I don`t need to make an unencyclopedic map based on some vague and unreliable sources because that is not according to the WP:RS and WP:Fringe. We have one that is reliable and in direct contradiction to this one. Please don`t insert this map anywhere since it is obvious there is a lot wrong with it.Adrian (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant difference between the two maps. This map refers to the fact based on which it was created: "toponymy suggests that this was the situation". The other map is a declaration: "this was the situation, because this was the situation". Nobody denies that the other map represents a widespread POV shared by generations of Romanian historians from the 1930s (as it is represented by the sources added to that map). However, there is no ban on other views, especially, if that view is based on an internationally accepted approach (that is on the use of place names in order to determine ethnic groups living in a territory). Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

True, there are a lot of Romanian scholars in this map but there are foreign also ( Thede Kahl, Alexandru Rosetti, Karl Sanfeld). You are right, there is no ban on other views but there is if a theory represents WP:Fringe. The difference is that on sourced map there are many Romanian scholars among others, which can`t be said for this newly created map.Adrian (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New reliable sources were added to the map. A map based on reliable sources can be presented according to our community rules. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I only noticed "see also" not as sources. If that are sources that support this map, can I please see them? Since I can`t find the existence of this books on google. Adrian (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this 2 new sources but in no connection to this map.

• The map "Etnikai viszonyok a XI. században [Ethnic situation in the 11th century]" in: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza ["Atlas for the History of Transylvania"]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. (page 51)
• The map "Settlements in Transylvania and in the Eastern Great Plain between 1003 and 1172 (Prepared by Sándor Csonka and Lajos Palovics)" in: Köpeczi, Béla et al. (1994). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-6703-2. (page 140). Adrian (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Yes, I fully understand you. The use of searching tools was also difficult for me some years ago. Reference to the first book can be found here, and a reference to the second book here. Why do you think that maps presenting (in reliable sources) the ethnic situation of a part of the Carpathian Basin in the 11th century are not connected to a map presenting the ethnic situation of the whole Carpathian Basin in the same century? There is no contradiction among these maps, therefore all of them can be used as a reference for the map. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are connected, I did`t expressed myself correctly, but I don`t believe that they support this map in the sens that "Pine Trees" are in the exact position where Vlach population lived. And that the Hungarians and Slavs settled around it but on that empty spots they did`t? Why? By simple logic they would if that was uninhabited.

Because, they could not live in the special ecological niche of mountain pastures. These pastures were first used by Vlach sheep-herders everywhere in Central Europe (even in modern Slovakia, Moravia) from the 13th-14th centuries. For further details, I could refer, for example, to Frühe Schicksale der Rumänen: Acth Thesen zur Lokalisierung der lateinischen Kontinuität in Südosteurope in: Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter (R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 3-486-56262-2. Pages 275-343, especially pages 326-343).

Thank you for the links but I still can see the maps in question that should support this one. You must understand my distrust on this 2 new sources because if that were so, why did`t the author of this map initially used this sources? I doubt that it will support the "pine tree" theory. I would be very grateful if I could see this maps in question to put aside any doubt. Adrian (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from visiting a library or buying the two books to read them. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So if I do the same as the author of this map, I should say that to you when you can`t check my sources? Even if they are in direct contradiction with others?Adrian (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For example I could make a identical map only depicting everybody else as "pine trees" and when the map was challenged to add some sources that can`t be checked while there are a number of sources that are in direct contradiction with that data. Adrian (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know you, I do not know what you could do or could not, therefore I cannot decide whether you are ready to falsify sources or not. I never do it. So if my understanding is correct, the debate is over, because our distrust, suspicions, fears and other similar emotions are out of the scope of this project named Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to falsify data even if you discard some important things I tried to explain. The debate may be over but not in that way because according to WP:RS , Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. - The other 2 sources that are spouse to support this map can`t be demonstrable to other people and as such it is not a reliable source. Also fringe is still not out of the way since there are many other sources that states otherwise.Adrian (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we can`t reach a consensus maybe we should see what other users have to say. You can`t create a map and later if there is a problem to "remember" some obscure references that can`t be checked. Adrian (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I am still ready to help you if you again need technical assistance. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

We have 3 sources for this map and since sources that can`t be checked are accepted I will list them here to see the ratio see if there is a case of WP:Fringe.

Would you clarify what the expression "source that cannot be checked" mean in this context? Are they existing sources or not? Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For this map:

• The map "Magyarország népei a XI. században (tervezte: Kniezsa István és Glaser Lajos) [Peoples in Hungary in the 11th century (Designed by István Kniezsa and Lajos Glaser)]" in: Kniezsa István (1938, 2000). Magyarország népei a XI. században (Kiss Lajos bevezető tanulmányával) [Peoples in Hungary in the 11th Century (Introduction by Lajos Kiss)]. Lucidus Kiadó. ISBN 963-85954-3-4. (attached to the book)
• The map "Etnikai viszonyok a XI. században [Ethnic situation in the 11th century]" in: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza ["Atlas for the History of Transylvania"]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. (page 51)
• The map "Settlements in Transylvania and in the Eastern Great Plain between 1003 and 1172 (Prepared by Sándor Csonka and Lajos Palovics)" in: Köpeczi, Béla et al. (1994). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-6703-2. (page 140)

• Total = 3 sources.

Please find google search for the second map here, and for the third map here. They are existing reliable sources that can be checked by anybody. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Books are valid, they exist and they are genuine, but how do we know that in that books there is a map, or data supporting this map in this present state?Adrian (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Especially since this sources were added after the map was made.Adrian (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Against this map:

• Atlasul istorico-geografic al Academiei Române, Bucharest 1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0;
• Alexandru Filipașcu, Istoria Maramureșului, Bucharest 1940, 270 p.;
• Neagu Djuvara, Cum s-a născut poporul român?, Humaniatas, Bucharest, 2001, ISBN 973-50-0181-0,
• Dinu Giurescu, Istoria ilustrată a Românilor, Sport-Turism, Bucharest 1981, pp. 72-121; G.I. Brătianu, Cercetări asupra Vicinei și Cetății-Albe, Univ. din Iași, 1935;
• Florin Constantiniu et al., Istoria lumii în date, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 1971;
• Petre Gâștescu, Romulus Știucă: Delta Dunării, CD-Press 2008, ISBN 978-973-1760-98-9;
• Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor, Partea II, Vol. 2, Oameni ai pământului (before year 1000), Bucharest, 1936, 352 p. and Vol. 3, Ctitorii, Bucharest, 1937, 358 p.;
• Thede Kahl, Rumänien: Raum und Bevölkerung, Geschichte und Gesichtsbilder, Kultur, Gesellschaft und Politik heute, Wirtschaft, Recht und Verfassung, Historische Regionen;
• Constantin-Mircea Ștefănescu, Nouvelles contributions à l’étude de la formation et de l’évolution du delta du Danube, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1981;
• Gheorghe Postică, Civilizația veche românească din Moldova, Știința, Chișinău 1995;
• R. Rohlfs, article Valachie, Valaque in : Dictionnaire étymologique PUF, Paris, 1950 ;
• Alexandru Rosetti : Histoire de la langue roumaine des origines au XVII-e siècle, Editura pentru Literatură, Bucharest 1968;
• Karl Sanfeld, Linguistique balkanique, Klincksieck, Paris 1930, et George Vâlsan: Opere Alese (dir.: Tiberiu Morariu), Ed. științifică, Bucharest 1971.
• [4] - this file, that also carries a number of references.
• [5] - this file, sourced.
• [6] - this file, sourced.

• Total = 16 sources.

How could we know that there is a map in these books which supports the map? How could we know that there are data in these books supporting the map? None of them can be read online. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this and the obscurity of the "last minute" sourcing I suggest that this map is a case of WP:Fringe and unreliable sources WP:RS since it can`t be demonstrated and the overwhelming number of contradicting sources.Adrian (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Adrian, your maps may present a widespread POV. However, there is no ban on maps presenting other POVs, especially if they are based on properly cited reliable sources. In order to suppress your concerns, I think you should visit your librarian or book-seller. But if you need technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me, I might help you. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I agree but it bans the usage of Fringe theory and unreliable sources since this is a controversial subject and none of this sources can`t be demonstrated to anyone. About technical assistance thank you for the offer but If the sources can`t be checked I doubt that you can help me in this case. Adrian (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I could search libraries for you where you could read those books. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How did the author of this map checked this info if they are not available on the internet? Does he have this books? If he does, why doesn`t he scans one page and demonstrate to us all ?Adrian (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you suggest that only online sources could be used in WP? I am afraid you misundarstand WP policies. None of the sources you cited above can be read on the internet. My dear Adrian, have you ever heard of copyvio? I cannot copy them for you, because I am not the copyright holder of those books. The books exist, they can be read. All the same, you taught me something, because you are the first editor I have met on these sides who are always thinking of cheating or of falsifying sources. It is interesting. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am suspicious because he added this sources AFTER he made this map. Why did`t he added them in the first place? How does he knows that those sources support this map? How do you know? How can I know? It is not available on the internet, and if he added them them he must have this books OR I must assume he is falsifying data. You must admit that for now, this seems to be the case. I would gladly recognize that I made a mistake but with evidence, not on "blind shooting" sources that can`t be verified. He made this map yesterday and uploaded it, he added the sources today, according to this, he must have this books. If so, it is not unprecedented to demonstrate it by simply scanning the page in question for a demonstration and delete it afterwards.Adrian (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to WP. You know this is a community experiment. One editor begin to write an article, other editors add, delete or modify something. The map was designed according to our community's accepted rules: (1) a map was made (2) a source was added to the map (3) the map was challenged (4) new sources were added. I do now want to shock you with new and new pieces of information, but there are many editors who use their own books when editing WP articles. This is an accepted approach in our community. None of these editors are required to put their books or parts of their books on the internet. You know it is forbidden. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand you completely and you have said nothing wrong but you must admit something is strange. You don`t make a map and afterwards find sources that supports it, it usually goes the other way around if you would respect the sources. Adrian (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, remember WP is a community experiment: (1) a map is made (2) source is added (3) the map is challanged (4) new source(s) is (are) added - these four actions may be made by four different editors. This is the normal way of editing WP, there is nothing strange about it. Otherwise, the original source of the map can be read online, because it can be used free. By the way, none of the sources you listed above can be read online. How do you want to verify them? I am not sure, but I guess that those from the 1930s, 1940s are not protected anymore, but those from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might be problematic. I am happy that I helped you to realise that your earlier practise of copying protected material on WP is dangerous. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the circumstances that this map was presented, I don`t think my doubt is out of order.

The source I presented some of them can`t be checked online (I did`t checked but I think there must be some of them) but there are major differences between this maps.

• It did`t added controversial data with one source and later found 10 more that just as happens identically supports it`s data exactly.
• It has non-Hungarian, in this case non-Romanian sources. I know that in a number of cases some of our nation`s scholars can be trusted on this matters due to the government they served at the time.
• If that map was in question, and the author at the time of the creation could`t not demonstrate the sources he used I would expect nothing less than to be removed.

After all, as I said, it is not unprecedented and forbidden in the way that the author can`t upload 2 pages of 2 books just for a brief verification and delete it after a few hours, or simply let wikipedia delete it for him.

Especially if the map is controversial and created/added sources under this circumstances.Adrian (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the books (mostly from the period between 1940s and 1980s) can be read online. I tried all of them, but I could not. I do not want to repeat myself, but there is nothing strange in the process of creation of the map: an editor made it, an other editor checked it and added further sources. Please also understand that if a book was not written by you, you cannot distribute it or its parts on the internet. Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Borsoka please stop this non-sense playing. As Biruitorul mentioned, a map based on a source from 1938 Hungary, an authoritarian regime that was actively engaged in attempts to revise the Treaty of Trianon, is hardly to be considered a reliable source for an image on this project! Saturnian (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saturnian please try to understand that there are many views on history. Please see the sources of the map, there are two modern works (from the 1990s and from the 2010s). Please also see the sources of the other map. Most of them are from the period between 1930s and 1980s when the Romanian government was working on hindering the Hungarian government's actual or supposed attempts to revise the Treaty of Trianon. Borsoka (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Borsoka I had the chance to ask one of my friends about this book and on page 51 there is no map. Anyway to avoid any accusations or possible problems (maybe my friend got the wrong book since I have given him only the author and that it is an atlas), I have asked for an administrator for opinion on this matter. I will paste the answer when I get it.Adrian (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a map. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the edit history of this talk page. Your first version was the following: "I have actually had a wild luck to get information about this book The map "Etnikai viszonyok a XI. században [Ethnic situation in the 11th century]" in: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza ["Atlas for the History of Transylvania"]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. (page 51). I have actually "pulled a string" and had a favor for one of mine friends(he is Hungarian by the way) in Timisoara check this book, this book doesn`t support this map, on page 51 there is no map. Now how can we trust that the other source does? I am really starting to doubt the 2 new sources that was added after the creation of the map!" I think you should decide what did you do: did you ask your (of course) Hungarian friend of this book or not. I am more and more convinced that it is not by chance that you suspect that other editors tend to falsify sources. By the way, would you verify the sources you cited above? They cannot be read on line either. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked him, but I haven`t given him the full info I copied here, as I said I have given him the author and that the book was something like Atlas type. I wasn`t by my computer when I talked to him and I had given him the information I could remember. He found one book that matches this author and atlas type, from 2011 and on page 51 there is no map. I have deleted my previous comment in case I am wrong so that my comment would not be a direct accusation. There is no need to paste it here, everyone knows to look into the history and now a serious doubt on the 2 new sources!Adrian (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand: you just copied here the full reference first, because you forgot what you had forgotten before, but later you could remember that you had not been able to remember to the exact title of the book. And the wording of the first version of your memories proves that you did not want to accuse nobody of falsification, since you did not claim but stated that he/she falsified a source. Borsoka (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If this map does not get deleted on the commons, I will start a thread on reliable source or fringe theory(don`t know yet) noticeboard about the sources provided here and especially about the manner where somebody makes a map and the later finds refs to support it. That must be a very precise map making technique. Adrian (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Adrian, please feel free to take any proper actions. By the way, would you please verify the reliability of the dozen sources you listed above which all are said to be supporting the same map but none of them can be read online? Otherwise, please try to enjoy WP experience: there are many articles, maps made by many editors cooperating with each other. You seemingly did not have the chance to improve articles written by other editors. Borsoka (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone is making a controversial map, based on virtually one source I can`t take that seriously. I don`t know how can you take this for granted under this circumstances because you are a serious wikipedian. Thanks for the info, I am aware that I can edit other pages(I am actually a wikipedian for more than 4 years) and I will according to my time, I invite you and Fakirbakir to do the same. If there would be a discussion on that map, by me, we can analyze it of course. Don`t forget that the map you are asking about wasn`t made first and added sources later , "as needed". After all, nobody stopped you from challenging that map when uploaded.Adrian (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we both will get our answer here [7]. As soon I get an answer I will inform you. Adrian (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have got the response and apparently even on controversial things offline sources can be used. You can check the whole discussion on this link [8].Adrian (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your information. So, Roma locuta, causa finita est.... Borsoka (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like the case about validly of this sources is closed. I have to trust them until proven otherwise.Adrian (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I am confused why is this added as a source? What connection does this map [9] has with this one [10] ? Adrian (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can not use or upload the original Kniezsa's map without the authors written permission. However you can design another map based on Kniezsa's map. I used a public domain map for designing. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Adrian, You should check this:[11]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. I have opened the map you inserted now, I see it but do not understand it. It is a map of Transylvania representing what? In what period of time? Adrian (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the third source that is available online now, but I still don`t understand it nor what it should represent. I will put verification needed tag until that clears up since I can`t see that source sporting this map.Adrian (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Adrian, the map is verified by two reliable sources. Why do you think it is to be verified again? Borsoka (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The map is verified by one source only (the first one). It is supported by the second one. I don`t think that it needs to be talked again, but since Fakirbakir added the online access to the third source, as you can see, I noticed that it actually doesn`t support this map. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How could you notice that that map does not support this map? (Actually, this map is verified by three reliable sources.) Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you see any resemblance of this map [[12] with the created map? Adrian (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

damned burocrats... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.239.8.69 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Fringe. The map does not reflect the current state of archeological research in the territory of Slovakia, mainstream works focused particularly on its destiny after fall of Great Moravia, its integration into Kingdom of Hungary and early Slovak-Hungarian contact zone. See works of several mainstream authors and recognized experts on early Slovak history like Ján Steinhübel, Ján Lukačka, Matej Ruttkay, Matúš Kučera and others. Except archeological evidences, it contradicts also linguistical evidences (see e.g works of Ján Stanislav). Regardless of works cited after 1938, structure and content of the map are closer to mid war Hungarian revisionism trying to prove right of Hungarians on neighboring countries than serious scientifical research available in 2015.Ditinili (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, you may misunderstand this map. The map is not based on archaeological research. It is based on place names and names of rivers. The study of toponymy is far from being a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, I already gave you reference to another complex analysis of toponymes performed by recognized Slavist, which completely refutes this theory. Let me summary:

1. Kniesza István (alias Štefan Knieža) published his map in time, when e.g. Stanislav's work was not published yet.

Please read the above discussion. Kniezsa's work is not the sole source of the map. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if you found newer works, there are other works of mainstream authors documenting right opposite. Therefore, it is highly controversial and this must be very clear for its every usage.--Ditinili (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this is again a declaration. Who are those mainstream authors? What did they write and in what books? Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I will not continue in discussion in style "A: here is list of mainstream authors dealing with problem XYZ. B: Who are those authors." I added some full citations in text bellow. Actually, you have ZERO relevant references. The first of "three" references is Kniezsa from 1938 and then two publications focused on Transylvania, not Slovakia.--Ditinili (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

2. Further than, it is not compliant with current state of knowledge and in any case, it cannot be accepted as relevant analysis of toponymes, because there are available data proving right opposite.

Sorry, I think that the making of declarations is not the best way of communication. For instance, I can also make a declaration: "The map is fully compliant with current state of knowledge, moreover, it must be accepted as a relevant analyisis of toponyms, because there is no data which prove right the opposite." :) Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You cannot, because I am able to document that opinion like "there is no data which prove right the opposite" is obvious lie.--Ditinili (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not documented your view. You have made several declarations without citing scholars.

Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, I did not? If we talk about toponymes, I gave you full reference to Stanislav's work.

However, let's look on something more general (sorry for my English):

Slavic population

The historical research has been long time influenced by misconceptions about low numbers of Slavic population in Slovakia. This assumption had several main points. One of them was theory about peripheral position of Slovakia within Great Moravian State. The second was assumption about concentration of settlements only in lowland areas. The third one was an idea about catastrophic attack of old Hungarians, massive decimation of Slavic and permanent and sharp Slavic-Hungarian confrontation in 10th century. The progress in archeology and in particular the processing of settlements in Slovakia in the early Middle Ages allowed to create map of settlement from the whole area. Slavic settlement grew from early Slavic era (cca before 670) in several territorial units. The demographics grow is significant high particularly in time of Great Moravia. Based on rectification and estimation of the whole Great Moravian population, it is possible to assume that in the last quarter of 9th century, cca 120.000 people lived in territory of Slovakia. We had an opportunity to confront knowledge about structure of the population with image of the settlement since 10th until the first half of 13th century. During population mapping, material and written sources were used, what includes more than 2,300 settlement units.

Hungarian graves

In 10th century, Hungarian graves presents new, strange and specific phenomenon, indicating a chronology and geographic scope of their penetration also to the northern part of the Carpathian Basin. The oldest layer of Hungarian graves dated to turn of 9. and 10 century is currently documented only in eastern Slovakia. Graves from region of Medzibodrozie however proves only relatively short stay, without direct continuation in settlement. In the other most southern parts of Slovakia, the oldest old Hungarian graves are dated to 920-925. This include isolated graves or smaller groups, mainly of horseman and warrior character. Between 930-940, it is possible to take into account movement of other, bigger groups of Hungarian population. Even this wave of immigrants did to cross approximately line Bratislava, Hlohovec, Nitra, Levice, Lučenec, Rimavská Sobota. On eastern Slovakia, this horizon of Hungarian presence is not documented. The area with old Hungarian graves as a proof of presenced of Hungarian warior groups and later also ordinal classes of Hungarian population has size cca 7500km2, cca 1/7 of size of Slovakia, or 1/4 of land suitable for agriculture.

Population density

(...) If we follow the trail of Hungarian presence in the indicated Hungarian settlement it is remarkable that the Hungarian cemeteries of the first and second wave lack the majority of the most fertile regions (Trnava board, Povazie north of Hlohovec, Ponitrie north of Nitra, Eastern Lowland), at higher altitudes and mountain basins which were settled by the Slavs from the 8th-9th century. In the second half of the 10th century, Slavic and Hungarian population get closer, which led to characteristic burial grounds of Bjelo Brdo type. In the first half of 11th century ethnically significant attributes completely disappeared, Bjelo Brdo cementaries bind specifically to the southern part of Slovakia with documented Slavic and old Hungarian population, in the eastern Slovakia they are still missing.(...) Slavic ethnic areas were still preserved on southern Slovakia.

Continuity of Great Moravia

The continuity of Slavic population in the territory of Slovakia cannot be challenged by any argument, the attention should be given more to its participation on formation of the Hungarian state. This includes the persistence of the power centers, the continuity of the church organization, the problem of servant settlements but also participation of local leaders on the side of the ruler to suppress opponents of Christianization or the defense of northern parts of Slovakia against penetration of early Hungarian army." The rest of the article describes how Slavs reorganized, how their culture was continuously preserved, the part of Slavic aristocracy found their place in the new state, etc.[13]

Shortly, the map shows Hungarian population (more or less) as a dominant population in Slovakia, but there is not any archeological evidence for such interpretation. Slovakia had relatively large Slavic population and it was not catastrophically reduced with arrival of old Hungarians. Where are these people on the map? Are they hidden in small cyan "sparse Slav" islands? Probably not, because they are sparse. Are they hidden in blue slices? Hm... maybe part of them. The rest had to be in "mixed" areas. By the way, ratio "1:10" is mixed or not? Ditinili (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of where they were "lost": "If we take into account all of available knowledge about history of the settlement in this area, we have to say that the population density in lower Ponitrie was relatively high. Regarding the ethnic composition - based on latest research, we have to declare without no doubts that the territory was ethnically mixed, contrary to Kniezsa's national map of Hungary, which presented it as inhabited by the Hungarian ethnic group."

Maslíková Ľ. (2011): Vývoj osídlenia dolného Ponitria do polovice 14. storočia [Evolution of settlement of lower Ponitrie until 14th century] in Historia Nova I- 2010-2, Comenius University, Bratislava. ISBN 978-80-8127-118-2. p. 8.Ditinili (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a scholarly POV. Of course, we can present it. However, this is only a scholarly POV. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's up to date scholarly source based on extensive research directly in region. We can return to this discussion when you replace your outdated and general publications by better sources.--Ditinili (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

3. In the case of any doubts, it is not compliant with archeological research and modern works of authors who specializes on early history of territory of Slovakia. It means, that it is not some kind of alternative hypothesis, but this theory is obviously wrong or at the best case highly controvert.

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. To what archaeological research do you refer? Do you refer to Šalkovský's hypothesis which "should be reviewed and verified by further research", according to Šalkovský's own summary? Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have already documented that this sentence is used out of context (you know it well, because we discussed it already on other discussion). More, I gave you list of several other authors dealing with this topic. Shortly, archeologic research of 'belobrd type' culture in Slovakia documents where Slovaks and Hungarians coexisted. --Ditinili (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the author's own summary written in German: "Der Artikel befasst sich mit der Terminologie, Verifizierung, Erstellung und Chronologie der frühmittelalterlichen befestigten Siedlungen (Burgen) auf dem Gebiet der heutigen Slowakei. Es enthält eine Liste der archäologisch ernsthafte Beweise oder evidenzbasierte befestigten Siedlungen von 8-10. Jahrhunderts und ihre freie Interpretation, welche durch zukünftige Forschungen überprüft und präzisiert werden." Why do you think that the above summary is out of context? Do you refer to Bijelo Brdo culture? It also flourished in Transylvania, Banat, Slavonia and in other territories far from Slovakia. 12:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)

I have already translated main parts of the original article on different discussion (you misunderstood the abstract). Yes, I mean Bijelo Brdo culture. At the beginning, Hungarians were obviously culturally completely different than Slavs, so it is very easy to recognize early Hungarian outposts and settlements from Slavic. We don't have to cheat where who lived. Than, they started to coexist and created this mixed type of culture and again, we can follow this line. Only after cca 11th century they culturally merged together to such extent that we cannot distinguish between their artifacts.--Ditinili (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not translated the main part of the article, you summarized it and your summary seems to contradict to the author's own summary. Yes, there is a scholarly theory which states what you say above: Hungarians were always riding their horses while Slavs were cultivating their lands. However, I still do not understand why should not we present this map? Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

4. The presentation of this map on wikipedia is highly misleading. Do you want to explain for every its usage, that it is against the modern archeological research and other available analyses of toponymes?

Please, read my remarks above. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

5. Regardless of its disputable factual accuracy, I have serious objections against methods used by author of the current map. He simply used (intentionally or accidentally) well known methods to optically manipulate data, e.g. to show data supporting his theory with bright hot colors (Hungarian population, "inhabited" locations"), then dark red for Slavic-Hungarian mixed population to emphasize similarity with Hungarian areas instead of some kind of neutral color what even more optically increased Hungarian areas and then light cold colors to even more optically decrease non-Hugarian areas. These methods are not serious, they are typically used in propaganda and follows worst tradition of infamous Teleki's red map (as somebody already noticed).Ditinili (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not good at aesthetics. I could accept any colors. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

None of my objections above is related to "aestethic". --Ditinili (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili Why does it hurt to feature different POV-s in the article? The Slovak POV is dissimilar from the Hungarian POV.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili The discussion is still ongoing, it usually takes WEEKS. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not talk about POV, but about current state of research. As I already wrote above, we can continue in discussion, when your outdated or general sources are replaced by something better.Ditinili (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, So, Makkay isn't a modern scholar? You do nothing but do vandalism. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You simply ignore Hungarian scholars!!! Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I documented by scholarly source that the map does not respect current knowledge. I don't care about nationality. You are using map from 1938 which should be somehow nowadays "authorized" by other authors who are not experts on history of particular region and their indirect (!!!) "authorization" contradicts available data and research results of scientists who deals especially with this topic. Do not chat and give me up to date publications from somebody who directly deals with the discussed area a did there modern research.Ditinili (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You provided the Slovak scholarly POV, however the Hungarian POV is different. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it does matter if you are able to provide requested references. It is question of up to date scholarly sources and their relevance, not question of nationality. Do not chat and give me sources, currently it is proven to be wrong. Ditinili (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will provide more references if I have time. Actually I have already provided Makkai's quote. The map is properly sourced (e.g. Bereznay). You have no right to remove it. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lajos Kiss (academic, Slavist): "Kniezsa's results are still unsurpassed and give the basis for toponym research" " A XX. század közepének kiemelkedő magyar nyelvtudósai közé tartozik, akinek legelvitathatatlanabb érdemei a helynévkutatás terén vannak. Ilyen kérdésekben az " eredményeit nemhogy mindmáig nem lehet megkerülni, hanem egyenesen belőlük kell kiindulni.” [14] Fakirbakir (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, the quoted sentence is a general statement and cannot be used as a "proof" for validity and accuracy of the map under discussion. Sources should directly confirm your theory. It is only your own and incorrect conclusion: "Kiss said that Kniezsa is valuable author so I have to accept his work as it is." This is completely wrong assumption. If you rely on such general and indirect statements, you can easily quote Lajos Kiss to prove that Kniezsa's map cannot be accepted.

Example:

10 years after Kniezsa's work, another recognized Slavist Jan Stanislav (already mentioned above) published fundamental work about Slavic and Slovak toponymes on Southern Slovakia (Slovensky juh stredoveku/The Slovak South in the Middle Ages). Stanislav clearly documented that while many of Kniezsa's observations and conclusions are correct and valuable, he worked also with very incomplete data and in some cases he made wrong assumptions. So, where Kniezsa documented only 2 Slavic villages, Stanislav documented plenty of them (it's a normal progress in research). So, Stanislav found only 25.7% (p. 13) of Hungarian settlements around Nitra in 12th century. Whose name is on the cover of reprinted Stanislav's work ? "Lajos Kiss: The Slovak South in the Middle Ages is a significant work" (Slovensky juh v stredoveku je velmi vyznamne dielo). As you can see, Kiss recommended publication which is against the map.

Summary of "reliable sources":

* Lajos Kiss: the quoted sentence is a general statement, not a reliable source for the problem under discussion (!)

* Laszlo Makkai: died in 1989, he can hardly react on results of the modern research or to take them into account. Not a reliable source for challenging current state in archeology. More, the quoted sentence is also ony general statement and the book is about Transylvania, not Slovakia.

* Andras Bereznay: cartographer and map maker, who is not an expert for discussed area. He has zero track in research of medieval territory of Slovakia, Slavic studies or whatever at least a little bit similar but contributed to works about Third Reich and British history. Unreliable source to challange research in concrete area under discussion.

* Istvan Kniesza: 77 years old publication.

Conclusion:

Even after 2 years, you have not provided any reliable source to document accuracy and validity of the map published in 1938. The number of direct, up to date sources, from relevant authors confirming its validity is ZERO (if we talk about Slovakia). I will proceed as for any other material without reliable sources which is proved to be wrong (what I also documented). I have no problem to use map in the correct context e.g. like this map Ptolemy's world map. Ditinili (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand this map and misunderstand Wikipedia. Kniezsa's map is based on his monograph (1938). This monograph on place-names is an excellent work and a basic study for toponymy researchers according to modern linguists ("its results are still unsurpassed"). Even if Kniezsa's map was obsolete we could still use it on Wikipedia to demonstrate his POV. His map is widely known in academic circles and his work wasn't regarded as fringe theory. Regarding the 11th century ethnic situation in Kingdom of Hungary (based on place-names), nobody restrains you to upload your own map based on works of Slovak linguists. Anyway, you will find many more interesting maps on Wikipedia[15] [16]. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, try to read. I have no problem to use the map in the correct context e.g. like this Ptolemy's world map, or chronicle Gesta Hungarorum or whatever. However:

* Currently the map is NOT presented in this manner and you knowingly mislead readers.

* You just repeat your theories instead of providing sources. Number of direct, up to date sources from relevant authors who directly say that this 77 years old map made in 1938 (in time when Hungary prepared elimination of Czechoslovakia with Nazis and revisionist moods in Hungarian society were at the peak) really represents ethnic situation in 11th century is currently ZERO, see the post above. You did not extend it even now.

* The number of direct, up o date sources from relevant authors who oppose results of modern archeology in Slovakia is currently ZERO (no references provided, it's just your opinion).

Proposal:

1. Rename map to something neutral like "Kniezsa's ethnic map of Hungary in 11th century (1938)".

2. Use it according to its new name - exclusively as a historical work from 1938. You will prevent discussion what all is wrong with this map (uninhabited places settled from eneolit, density of Slavic settlements on "Hungarian" territories, compliance with other works, etc).

3. Scholar views on the accuracy of Kniezsa's work, his contribution to science and maybe obsolete theories belong to the article István Kniezsa.

The manner, how the map is used now is clear manipulation and POV pushing. Ditinili (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I'd like to know Fakirbakir's opinion on this. Azure94 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)