File talk:A view on 6th to 8th century ethnic distribution in Romania.png

Title

Regarding the new title of this file, I do not think that it is appropriate one. Firstly, I did used Yugoslav sources for this file, but I do not think that these sources are representing purely "Yugoslav view" about this issue. Yugoslav authors probably took this info from some source, we do not know the real origin of that info. Furthermore, this is an PNG (not SVG) file and I do not understand why designation "svg" was added to new title. I am, therefore, proposing more accurate (compromise) title like "A view on 6th to 8th century ethnic distribution in Romania". PANONIAN (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the name, you have to agree this is a very Slav-biased, outdated view. Compare and contrast with this: File:Pontic steppe region around 650 AD.png for example. But the compromise is fair. Svg was a copy-past error, sorry about that.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, my basic intention with this map was illustration of a theory of Romanian continuity in the territory of present-day Romania. I found several sources about this (and they are listed on map page) and a question whether they are supporting certain bias (and which one) is at least disputed. The fact that similar map is published in Yugoslav edition of The Times Atlas of World History and in an very new Serbian history atlas from 2007 would not quite support claim that it is "outdated Yugoslav bias". Original source of this info is at least unknown since the fact that this info is published in Yugoslav sources does not mean that it was firstly introduced by Yugoslav sources. Opposite to this (regarding the question of Romanian continuity), I saw some maps of Hungarian authors that do not showing Romanians in this time and place at all and that much more supporting something that could be described as "Slav-biased" (see examples: [1], [2], [3]). If you think that I created this map as a some sort of "anti-Romanian Slav bias" then you do not know much about my work here: most of history maps that I created are illustration of historical, political and ethnical development of existing societies and I do not remember that I created some history maps that showing development of former societies that no longer existing. Therefore, I certainly would not draw a map of Romania that show historical development of Slavic society that do not exist as such any more on Romanian soil (Besides that, modern Romanians are, according to some opinions, some 30% Slavic by origin, so, this map show nothing else, but two historical ethnicities which are ancestors of modern Romanians). As I said, I only wanted to illustrate theory about Romanian continuity (and therefore also the historical development of Romanian society) and the fact that most of present-day Romania is presented as Slavic-populated in my map is only a question of accurate presentation of available sources. I could paint entire Romania as Vlach-populated, but then I would not had source that supporting such map and therefore that map itself would be without value. As for map that showing Avar Khaganate, I do not see that two maps contradicting one to another: my map showing ethnic distribution and other map showing political boundaries. My map does not claiming that these Slavs were not under Avar rule. On the contrary, they certainly were under Avar rule and nobody denying that. PANONIAN (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Panonian, first off, thanks for the detailed explanation. Second, I didn't mean it in a bad or 'incriminatory' way! By all means, I appreciate your work! :-) Regarding your example with the Avar map, you mentioned that they don't contradict each other, since one shows Avar leaders/empire/domination area, while the other the ethnic composition. That's fair. But here is the problem. The Slav map tries to present ethnic composition when in fact it is exactly the same situations as with the Avars. The base (majority) of population is actually Romance/Vallachs and the ruling class is Slavic or Slavs under Avars or Avars with the Slavs. Even if the Romanians have 30% Slavic today (I think 15-20% at most), it is unreasonable to assume in the 6th-8th century ZERO Romance population or maybe something in the mountains (and even that small population mixed with Slavs). By that logic, in the 21st century Romanians would be 100% Slavs and no Latin language would exist in the Balkans. But there are about 30 millions of them. So something doesn't makes sense here. In my opinion, the map can reflect a Slavic influence area, a Slavic empire, Slavs in their migration path but it cannot represent ethnic distribution. I would be speaking Serbian to you now. ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "A view" is just fine. But I can't help to note the bias, every region is populated by Slavs or by a population mix including the Slavs. I hope this image will be used only to illustrate a particular theory. Daizus (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All in all, we can only conclude that there are several theories about origin of the Romanians and I am not disputing that opinion about Slavic-ruling cast that ruled over Vlach population might be also the correct one. However, I made this map in accordance with sources that presenting ethnic situation in this way, and I can agree that this map should be used only as illustration of one of the theories and not as illustration of absolutelly accurate situation. If any other user want to create any other map that would illustrate other theories, he is free to do that. Existence of several maps that depicting several different theories about one subject is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policies. PANONIAN (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt it's more than a fringe view to find Slavs in every corner of that map. Conversely the presence of Gepids and Avars (both groups mentioned by many primary sources) is severely downplayed. At the same time Bulgars (another group mentioned by many primary sources) do not exist at all! Daizus (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, here they are: http://www.camo.ch/illiricum7.htm (notice name BUGARI on that map). They are obviously depicted among Slavs as already slavicized, which indeed happened in the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century. PANONIAN (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is "a view" (and that site is no reliable source. The Bulgars were not "Slavicized" in the early 9th century, the inscriptions from - say - the reign of Omurtag are in two languages: Greek and a Turkic language (conventionally called Proto-Bulgarian). Daizus (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, map from www.camo.ch is same as map from Yugoslav edition of The Times Atlas of World History, which was published by reliable publishers. As for remains of Turkic Bulgars, the inscription that you mentioned does not prove that in the time when it was created there was an sizable turkophonic Bulgar population or some ethnically mixed Turko-Slavic area. The inscription might be simply indication that one part of the Bulgarian upper class still spoke Turkic language, but that does not mean that Turkic-speaking people were sizable enough to be depicted on an ethnic map. Anyway, the map from the presented source only indicates that BUGARI (which could mean both, Bulgarians and Bulgars in Serbo-Croatian) lived among Slavs, but map does not actually say whether these BUGARI were Slavic or Turkic. Anyway, how exactly the issue of ethnic composition of Bulgaria could be related to an ethnic map of Romania? PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your so called "reliable source" mispelled the name of the Bulgars, and actually there's zero evidence Bulgars spoke Slavic in the 8th-early 9th century (it's certainly possible or even probable some of them did). The issue here (FYI Romania did not exist in 6th, 7th or the 8th century) is the map is counter-factual and at best it can be considered "a view", a view of some (surprise, surprise!) Slavic-speaking authors. Daizus (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the source did not "mispelled the name of the Bulgars" - there is no name "Bulgars" in Serbo-Croatian since name "Bugari" is commonly used for both, Bulgarians and Bulgars. And then again: 1. the source map does not say which language was spoken by "Bugari", and 2. this issue is unrelated to this map of Romania. Anyway, I am feed up with your hostile approach to my work and I will think twice before I draw any other map related to history of Romania. Perhaps I should just let some other users to draw maps that will present views of Hungarian authors, according to which, there were no Vlachs at all in the territory of present-day Romania in that time. You obviously have some ethnic phobia from Slavic authors (as you well demonstrated in English Wikipedia) and I do not see what constructive discussion I can have with such person. If you do not like this map, you are free to draw another one that will be "free from any influence of Slavic authors" and you can use your map in any article you wish. I had enough of this. PANONIAN (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it says. Check the legend, according to that map the Bugari were Slaveni, just like Draguviti, Sagudati, Hrvati, Srbi and all the other tribes. And it's not about 8th or early 9th century, but 6th and 7th. Your personal attacks are irrelevant. This encyclopaedia is universal and written in English, thus you're supposed to present widely held and informative views, using names known to English speakers (Vlachs, Slavs, Croats, Bulgars). A view which is only held by Slavic speaking authors (Serbs, Croats, Russians, etc.) is by definition just "a view" and such a map should at best support a particular theory. For instance there many books on Slavic nationalism and Early Slavs: [4] [5] etc. and you can use such maps to illustrate those views (i.e. Slavs everywhere). As for your maps, I don't like them, I don't see what's the benefit of having them here, so frankly I couldn't care less if you stop drawing them. Daizus (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I used existing academic sources for my work, while all your so called "objections" to its accuracy are based on your personal opinions and interpretations that are not backed by a single source (and the ones that you linked in your last post are unrelated to the subject). It is obvious who of us performing personal attacks here. As for my maps, I really do not care do you like them or not - it is just your personal problem, but I would kindly suggest that you try to do something useful for Wikipedia instead to waste so much time to disrupt work of other users. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I only see some Serbian/Yugoslav authors, nothing academic about them. As for your maps, whether I like them or not, many of them are not used and probably they will never be, so follow your own advice and try something useful. Daizus (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing academic about them? Is that your expert opinion or you have some evidence to support your claim? Besides that, do you want to say that ethnic origin of the authors is the thing what define are these authors reliable or not? I hope that you know that you will totally discredit yourself here if you say yes. PANONIAN (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not my expert opinion, you have to show your sources are academic and reliable. All those authors being Yugoslav/Serbian/Croatian, that makes their view fringe if you can't find any other scholars supporting such views, e.g. that Bulgars by 700 were Slavic speakers. Daizus (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My main source was published by the Institute for publishing of school books of the Socialist Republic of Serbia and therefore it is academic and valid. And please refrain from your opinions about ethnic origin of the authors. That is simply not an academic issue for discussion. By the way, exact meaning and ethnic affiliation of term "Bugari" from source map can have different interpretations. You just trying to discredit my sources by all possible means because of the simple fact that you do not like what you see there. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your source map shows "Bugari" as "Slaveni" (per legend in bottom-left corner) and if you can't read maps is not my problem. Also you can't stop me to post here my opinions, as long as they are relevant to the topic. You did not show that the "Institute for publishing of school books of the Socialist Republic of Serbia" is anything but fringe. As I said, this is just a view, let's show the world how history was taught in Communist Yugoslavia. I'm fine with that. Daizus (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can post your opinions wherever you want, but I see further discussion with you as obvious time waste. You mixing here very different things such are political borders, archaeological findings and distribution of ethnic groups. You can prove that one ethnic map is not correct only with another ethnic map from reliable source, and certainly not with a map that shows political borders and archaeological findings. Personal opinions of Wiki users about the question of possible connections of these different subjects and about validity of historical atlas officially published for the school system of Yugoslavia are only personal opinions and nothing else. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

For my 2 cents; I had an unfriendly discussion with Pannonian long ago about his maps, where he depicts things anachronistically and in a chronolologically confused way. In fact, he accused me of being a war-mongering diasporan for stating that a map of the 6th century should not depict Albanians because, ethno-politically, they simply did not exist. This concept seemed to go entirely over his head. I can repeat similar sentiments for large parts of this map here, although I accept that this is indeed a "common view" in eastern European scholarship. The only debate lies is where more "Slavs" are and where more "Vlachs" - when in actual fact, both views are wrong

This is not a critique on Pannonian, but an opportunity to establish some ideas amongst the Balkan history enthusiasts here. We cannot and should not create maps in a "kaleidoscope" fashion where we stick bits from different eras on top of each other. This is highly risky for creating a false picture. Eg certain polities-tribes which existed one century did not the next. Moreover, we cannot "infer backwards" about the 6th century from what we (think) we know from the 10th. This is OR. Rather, if we are going to construct 'political-ethnic' maps, we should follow only (broadly) contemporary sources, and also need to do several maps depicting important stages (eg 500 AD, 670 AD, 800 AD, 950 AD, etc)

If I may say, this is what a map of the mid 7th century period should look like Hxseek (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hxseek, my main objection to you was that you creating unsourced maps (and the last one that you presented here also does not recall any sources). Contrary to this, I always list sources for my maps (including external links) and you can clearly see from these external links that my map only depicting info from these sources and nothing else. The "unfriendly discussion" that we had about one of my other maps was simply triggered by the fact that you tried to convince me that I should disregard sources that I used and that I should accept that your personal opinion is more important than info from published sources. Therefore, if you have objection to accuracy of any of my maps, you are free to provide any reliable source that can support such claims. Without such sources, I do not see how we can have an serious discussion about 7th century period. PANONIAN (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Concern noted, however, I suspect I will not have any difficulty whatsoever finding sources about the Avars in Pannonia, Slavic tribes in the south-eastern Balkans, Lombards in North Italy. If I do, i promise to eat my words 121.209.233.46 12:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I spoke about Avar borders presented in that map. Is there any source that support such borders? I never saw history map that showing such borders of Avar Khaganate. PANONIAN (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Maps in these articles: [6] [7]. And also other maps: [8] [9] [10] [11] Daizus (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is my own mistake that I did not elaborated what exactly I consider unsourced when we speak about borders of Avar Khaganate. As you can see, Daizus, from sources that you linked (or from other sources), Avar Khaganate extended in an east-west direction, while in the map uploaded by User:Hxseek Khaganate extending in north-south direction. Can you find any source that show that Avar Khaganate extended in north-south direction? PANONIAN (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more important all those maps show the Avar Khaganate much larger than on your map. Daizus (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I already said that my map do not show Avar Khaganate, but ethnic area populated by Avars. PANONIAN (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read also the texts accompanying those maps, you'll find your map wrong. There are "Avar finds" outside your "ethnic area". There are "Gepidic finds" outside your "ethnic area". There are "Bulgar finds" not shown at all on your map. And so on. Daizus (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

To which source you refer exactly and where is evidence that such source is more accurate than published Yugoslav history atlases? And by the way, if you refer to this map as source for Avar findings, then I would be happy to inform you that this map originating from Wikipedia - it was created by User:Fz22 and was subsequently deleted because of copy violation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Carpathianbasin_late_avar.png&action=edit&redlink=1 Note that copy violation issue was related only to map relief background, but the info related to Avars is unsourced personal work of an Wikipedia user. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just go to the Eurasian Avars article and read the talk page discussion and the bibliography attached there. For maps of Avar finds see The Other Europe in the Middle Ages edited by F. Curta and R. Kovalev (Brill 2008). Daizus (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What bibliography? It is same if you told me to go to library. Please provide name of the author, name of the book, page number, exact quotation from the book, and evidence that such quotation contradicts to sources that I used. Otherwise, we have nothing to talk about. PANONIAN (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I already provided many maps. See also the book mentioned in my previous paragraph, page 77, figure 19 (no quote, that is a map with many Avar groups, one of them in Transylvania). You want quotes? Same book, p. 18-19: "other artifacts are directly related to the ties between the spiritual life of the Avar-age inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin and similar phenomena in the Merovingian world. [...] Burial assemblages with male skeletons in Pannonia as well as Transylvania produced belt sets typically including a buckle, a buckle counter plate and a rectangular belt mount. Such sets were very popular during the last third of the sixth century, particularly in the western areas of Merovingian Europe. [...] Whether “Lombards” or “Gepids,” the men buried in Pannonia and Transylvania with three- or four-piece belts were given the same treatment in death as their Frankish, Alamannian, or Bavarian contemporaries." and more on p. 27 about "Small buckles and strap ends found in Early Avar burial assemblages of eastern Pannonia and Transylvania" - so how are all these people Vlachs or Slavs as your map shows? Daizus (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that these sources are contradicting to my sources. Two Avar archaeological sites in Transylvania are not an evidence that they formed ethnic majority in that area. Besides, even if different scholars would provide somewhat different opinions about some subjects, I do not see that you have authority to decide which scholar is right and which one is wrong. Policy of Wikipedia supports presentation of all academic opinions about certain subjects. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't see because you don't know much about this topic and you're not reading the bibliography even when you were told to. There are hundreds of "Gepidic" and "Avar" finds in Transylvania (the map I cited shows more than 10 "Avar" sites in Transylvania). Also you're wrong about Wikipedia policies, tiny minority views and fringe views are often excluded. Read [12] and [13] (from the latter: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority"). Daizus (talk)

So, I am stupid and I am not reading bibliography? Well, what I draw here is an ethnic map and I used all available bibliography that shows distribution of ethnic groups. Bibliography that you presented speaks about completely different subjects such are political borders and archaeological findings. Guess what? Wikipedia policies are against original research and, according to these policies, we are not the persons who are encouraged to provide personal judgment about ethnic distribution based on our own interpretation of archaeological findings and historical sources. Contrary to this, authors of history atlases that I used are historians and their view about ethnic distribution is valid one. There is also no evidence that their view is a "minority view" because of the simple fact that we did not saw another reliable source that shows different ethnic distribution in that time period. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, guys! I wasn't planning to start such a debate, but some of it is very interesting as long as it stays civil, collegial and reaches some useful conclusions (hopefully resulting in corrections on some of these maps). I've seen a lot of conflicting maps on Wikipedia around Central and Eastern Europe. I've been working on organizing and categorizing them, so we can have a consistent database of maps to use in articles. We just need to try to make them as consistent as possible and bring the most up to date research on these maps. Old views, outdated theories should be simply marked as "views" and used with care in articles.. Panonian, on your side, you keep focusing on ethnic maps in such a dark period. I think it is a slippery slope to do that around Balkans, especially in the Early Middle Ages. Maps showing areas of domination, empire extents, migration paths vs certain ethnicity distributions are much "safer" and more fair I would say. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Codrin, I commend you on your map initiative 121.209.233.46 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And there are soo many maps! ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb, I do not understand what further problems we have here. I agreed that map is renamed to "view" and that it is used as "view" and I do not see further reasons for such behavior of user:Daizus. I only had goal to illustrate opinion about Romanian continuity and not some "Slavo-centric POV" (as user:Daizus is accusing me for) and I thought that an neutral foreign (i.e. Yugoslav) view would bring some additional data to Hungarian-Romanian dispute about Romanian continuity in Transylvania. I really did not had idea that some Indo-European Romanians would rather want that their country was populated by Turkic Avars instead by Indo-European Slavs (but, rational things are not always truth, as one can see). All in all, if you people do not like this map then, by all means, you are not obligated to use it in Wikipedia articles related to this subject. I spent some of my free time to draw this, and therefore, I will not propose it for deletion and I will not change it only because user:Daizus says so (especially because he did not provided any source that shows different ethnic situation than one presented in my sources). As far as Wikimedia Commons is in question, my map fulfilled basic criteria to remain here: it is free for use and it is based on valid academic sources. Whether this map will be used in some Wikipedia articles is not a question for Wikimedia Commons, but question for each specific article. PANONIAN (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Panonian, I think this map is fairly named and described and that it should be used with care, specifying that is a view. I think you misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that this map should be removed by any means. I commend your work on providing all these maps, your interest in history and the general effort. All of us are putting a lot of effort here. I think the best use of our resources and time is this:

* Upload history maps/diverse views including outdated scholarships and mark them as such. Use such maps in certain articles that talk about those views, stating clearly that they are a view or are outdated.

* At the same time, using all the information up to date, from multiple reliable sources, collaborate to create new maps with the latest knowledge (same way articles get created on Wikipedia). Then use these modern maps in most articles, as reliable, up to date maps.

My general comment was: don't focus on ethnic maps in a dark age, but rather on domination areas/kingdoms etc., unless we have good, solid sources for depicting those ethnic groups. And I don't think Romanians prefer Avars to the Slavs. That is silly but I take it as Balkan humor :-) The people then probably would have preferred to not deal with any invasion or migrations at all. Happy holidays!

Well, if you provide any source that showing example of "the latest knowledge" regarding ethnic situation in Romania in 6th-8th century, I would be happy to draw another map that reflects such "latest knowledge" (I cannot draw a map without sources). In fact, I do have one other source that shows ethnic situation in the 9th century (so, not exactly same time period as in this one) where mixed Vlach-Slavic area is much larger and includes entire Vallachia and half of Transylvania (and that source is an Serbian history atlas published in 2010). So, Codrinb, if you want, I will draw another map that reflects data from that source. Just tell me: yes or no? (I do not want to draw something that would be welcomed with negative reactions). As for maps of political entities, I am drawing these kinds of maps as well, but I do not see why I cannot also draw ethnic maps especially if I have sources for them? PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Panonian, I appreciate your offer, and I'll take you on it! ;-) I am personally more interested and know more about the ancient history sources. For example, I would love to see here some maps based on the work of linguist Sorin Olteanu. He has up to date research on Thracian, Dacian, and Moesian languages. The maps under his Toponyms article/PhD thesis are really great, showing up to date research and are hard to find. Especially this one: Linguistic map of the the Balkans, based on the distribution of Thraco-Daco-Moesian place names. I am trying to not get involved too much with middle ages, as I already have my hands full with antiquity work/w:WP:DACIA. I also don't claim the best knowledge on the topic but a map like this was really standing out to me, hence I started the discussions. For good sources, especially for later periods, I would really try to collaborate with Daizus. He is very good at validating up to date and reliable sources (he gave me hard times before and I have to admit he is is very knowledgeable and thorough and that he was right :-)). I think Hxseek and him are already collaborating really well. I would love to so all of us get along. Hvala lepa! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then I will look to draw another ethnic map of Romania when I find free time. As for users Daizus and Hxseek, it is very hard for me to collaborate with both of them since they both are engaged in personal original historical research and their personal opinions are often contradicting to my own sources. Contrary to that, Wikipedia policies are preferring sources and discouraging original research. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)