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"??? 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)
 * Among sources used for this map there is another 13th century map 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.


 * 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 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)