File talk:Alania 10th–12th c. according to Bzarov.png

The image suffers POV/OR issues. See File talk:Alania 10 12.png.--Kober (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply translated map from Russian Wikipedia, see here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Karta_alania1_VII-XII.jpg and this map itself came to Russian Wikipedia from www.iratta.com (see: http://www.iratta.com/atlas and http://iratta.com/2007/03/03/alanija_v_viixii_vv.html ). And user Kober should provide some better "proof" that this map is POV instead of his "opinion", thought. PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 

Let's make this less biased

Hello @PANONIAN: . I believe you really are interested in visualizing history as it is known best and not in promoting politically driven quasi scientists' rubbish. That's why I ask you to have a look on unbiased authors' works. Bzarov is really the opposite. See ru:Бзаров, Руслан Сулейманович#Критика. Please, see these maps by Ian Mladjov, Ph. D. candidate at University of Michigan who is a specialist in whole region's history which makes him consider much more available resources and is not ethnocentric. Do not you think that to apply some changes to this map would be reasonable? [1] [2] [3]

edit:links do not work. look for CAUCASIA999, CAUCASIA1040 and CAUCASIA1064 here instead

--Ercwlff (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ercwlff, or we can replace this map in wiki-articles by accurate map, based on works of the above mentioned author (p.s. Ercwlff I've corrected your links, now they work). --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 07:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Giorgi, thank you for helping about the technical issue. I think this map has some value as it has been the only one on wiki visualizing the history if this period and area. Thus removing it would not be a correct thing to do even though comparing it to other sources makes a lot of errors vivid. Better increase the number of content sources and advance the map accordingly.--Ercwlff (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You people obviously misread Wikimedia Commons policies. Wikimedia Commons is a DATA STORAGE and nothing else. Therefore, your personal opinions about validity of sources which I used are not to be addressed here, but rather in your home wikipedias. By the way, please present an undisputed evidence that sources which I used are biased and that sources which you used are not biased. If you think that I used biased sources, you are free to upload your version of this map, but UNDER DIFFERENT FILENAME and you are free to use your map version in your home wikipedias. As original uploader of this image, I do not agree with your changes and I do not see undisputed evidence that sources which I used are biased. Furthermore, even if different sources would present different bias about the subject, there is no reason why all these viewpoints would not be presented to the public in different maps. All knowledge should be free and not restricted by personal censorship. PANONIAN (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you have no interest in creating historical maps but you are keen on spreading craziest, silliest, least scientific sketches. One is surely such when they draw the generalized southern Caucasus the way it is here. Why is the term Georgia used the way it is used. it comes into use only then when modern west and east Georgia became one country. And why does this map show them separated while most of the period that this map claims to be about, they were united. Also, There was no period of time around 10-12 centuries when any country had borders like this map's Georgia's borders. Kakheti was either separated or if it was united with central Georgia, western Georgia was included in the same country as well. You have to find time for doing a bit of research instead of providing five links to one and the same map as if it made the map more credible. That's the only way for you to save face. Commons alone is a mean of media as well and can spread fakeness while Wikimedia as a whole is against it Ercwlff (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please provide evidences for you accusations. I used valid scholarly source (historical atlas), whose description says "Атлас содержит исторические каты-схемы, предназначенные для изучения истории Осетии с древнейших времен до XX в. Картографированная информация дополнена кратким систематическим изложением исторических событий и хронологической таблицей. Издание рассчитано на учащихся и студентов, а также на широкий круг читателей, интересующихся историей Осетии." (The atlas contains historical schemes intended to study the history of Ossetia from ancient times to the 20th century. Mapped information is supplemented by a brief systematic description of historical events and a chronological table. The publication is intended for pupils and students, as well as a wide range of readers interested in the history of Ossetia.) (see: http://iia-rsoa.ru/48-istoricheskij-atlas-osetii.html ) So, I do not see that an history atlas "intended for pupils and students" is an example of "spreading of craziest, silliest, least scientific sketches". Furthermore, this publication is promoted by the Institute for History and Archaeology of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, which means that it is completely official and officially accepted. The scholarly background of my source is undisputed. If there is a dispute about this subject among different scholars from different countries, it is not up to us to "choose" which views are correct and which are not. In Wikimedia and Wikipedia we have one simple task: to present all valid scholarly viewpoints to the public. This specific map presents the viewpoint of historian Bzarov and you are completely free to upload into Wikimedia any other map which would represent viewpoints of other authors. As for specific way of how borders and countries are presented in my map, I used same borders and date references as Bzarov: http://iratta.com/uploads/posts/atlas/09/karta.jpg Description in my map claims to show Alania in 10th-12th century period, which does not necessary mean that neighboring countries had same borders in this whole period (and map does not claim that - its focus is Alania and Alania only). PANONIAN (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

PANONIAN, in the countries like Russia and in the subnational entities like North Ossetia, "intended for pupils and students" implies, more frequently than not, "to indoctrinate the youth and instill in them romantic nationalism". This introductory passage from a local historian's book does not necessarily mean that the book is a third-party source and neutral or otherwise reliable reference. Also, "official" does not mean "reliable" or "neutral". I do agree, however, that Commons repository is not the place to discuss such things. --Kober (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to have political discussion, but tell me this: how exactly the point of view of Georgian scholars is different or more reliable than point of view of Russian and Ossetian scholars? Let me give you an example of reliability and neutrality. I live in Serbia and few years ago I made these two maps: [4] (Kosovo as independent republic)[5] (Kosovo as Serbian autonomous province). So, am I a traitor because I created the first map or am I Serbian nationalist because I created the second one? Let us all just avoid these kinds of discussions and respect viewpoints of other people. It is the only right thing to do. PANONIAN (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Whataboutism is not the way to go here. We are discussing the specific source of your map. --Kober (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)