Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia

My edit and any concerns editors have

If you have a particular concern, I would like to ask if you could clarify which diff. you are using with a link and which line of the diff. you are concerned with. Just so that we can avoid any confusion about which part of the edits are concerning and which aren't. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I suggest that you should read WP:Lead. We do not need verify the text of the lead with in-line citations. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:LEADCITE.

... information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. (Emphasis added)

Leads have just as much accountability as the article, especially in "complex ... or controversial subjects". (E.g. the Dog meat lead has 7 citations for only a four sentence lead because it is potentially controversial)

Enjoy, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted 4 out of your last 5 edits since:

1. WP:LEAD does not support your edit here
2. Moravians is about the peoples of the tribe through history, not the singular period of Great Moravia which fails to explain much about the people. I am willing to compromise if you can provide clear and reasonable reasons for piping the link Great Moravia#Population with "Moravians".
3. This was the reasonable edit.
4. I linked this to provide context of the Archbishops of Salzburg, and I am failing to see how this is "overlinking". However, I am willing to concede this if there are clear and reasonable reasons.
5. "as" was put in since there was an 'action' involved, hence standard grammar.

Thank you for discussing all of my edits on the talk page, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Thank you for your message. I think we can discuss WP:Lead later, when the article has been completed. (Dog meat is not a good example. It is not a quality article.)
2. Moravians are inhabitants of Moravia in the Czech Republic. Since the article is about an early medieval polity, not about a historical region of the Czech Republic, I suggest that we should not link the word. For instance, Slovaks (who do not live in Moravia) also regard themselves the successors of the early medieval "Moravians".
3. The archbishopric of Salzburg has already been linked.
4. Sorry, I think if we discuss all edits on the article Talk page we would waste many times. Please feel free to revert my edits. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've moved your comments into a single, continuous thread because it is highly disruptive, and you break the numbering systems that people use. Do not get into a regular habit of this when comments are short. When comments are large, then it is acceptable, but not when comments are short.

In regards to the Lead, the lead should always reflect the article. If the article is not complete, then there needs to be a template saying that this article is under construction. I assumed that you had finished, so I am willing to discuss the lead later and to WP:DROPIT for now.

In regards to linking "Moravians", perhaps Moravians (tribe) would be better as this deals with the particular peoples that were pre-GM, formed GM, and were post-GM's collapse. Certainly better than my link to Moravians, and the tribes link provides more information than the section in "Great Moravia"

My apologies, I have now removed the second link. I had not realised it redirected.

Not necessarily all edits, but you did revert edits specifically related to my edits with little reasoning given in the summaries.

Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my administrative skills are really low. Therefore, I am sure that I will make similar mistakes in the future. Sorry, for it. "Moravians (tribe)" is the proper solution. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've broken number systems myself several times; and I should have looked further into the article on Moravians. However, I would like to ask how the Google Translations is OR though? See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions. I even referenced the translation since translations can be wrong but the translations fit and support the paragraph while providing context for the reader. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think Google Translation should not be used here. For instance, it is clear that the "Church of the Moravians/inhabitants of Maraba" can be a holy church, but the Moravians/inhabitants of Maraba cannot be described as a holy people; "Marabensis" is the genitivus of a noun, consequently it cannot be translated as Marabensis. Boba writes (and his proposal is accepted by many historians) that the arkhiepiskoup Moravska expression should not be translated as "Archbishop of Moravia" (in reference to a state), but as "Arcbhishop of Morava" (in reference to a town). Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So can I ask what sources do translate the phrases as then? I ask per WP:NOTENG, section "Quoting non-English sources". Yes the source is written in English, but the text copied is not and would need a translation for readers to understand. Yes the next sentence explains the content of the titles, but they do not actually translate the titles. Also, can I ask a "genitivus" is and what the text should translate as then?

After all, not everyone knows Latin and/or Bosnian. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved the text in a note. As I mentioned above, the translations of the texts are uncertain, consequently it is not always translated. "Archiepiscopus sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis": "Archbishop of the Holy Church of Moravia/Maraba"; "arkhiepiskoup Moravska": "Archbishop of Moravia/Morava". "Genitivus" means the possessive case of the word: "Marabensis" = "of the Moravia/Maraba". Borsoka (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see now and that is certainly a good solution, as well as cleaning up the paragraph. I didn't even know you could do that, so now I am learning. My apologies for being a bit obtuse then. Thank you for also clarifying the genitivus comment. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead is a short summary of the well-sourced article. I don't understand the problem above. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy-edit notice

I have put up a request for copy-editing here about the article. This is to have someone from the Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors come along and fix some of the content and style problems. There are some sections that are hard to read and understand, particularly the paragraphs discussing Boba's theories and the views of others. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyeditor's comments

Hi. I've just started reviewing this per the request at WP:GOCE/R. The first thing that struck me wasn't really a copyediting thing, so I'm noting it here instead for regular contributors to the article.

The first sentence to me feels like a typical example where MOS:BOLDTITLE applies. It feels like the structure has been forced, in order to allow the article title to be bolded. I'd suggest something like this:

"Great Moravia" was a 9th-century Slavic polity. Moravia emerged after the fall of the Avar Khaganate in the early 9th century. and flourished during the reign of Svatopluk I in the second half of the century, but collapsed in the first decade of the 10th century. "Great Moravia" was regarded as an archetype of Czechoslovakia, the common state of the Czechs and Slovaks, in the 20th century, and its legacy is mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution of Slovakia. The traditional view holds that the state was located in the region of the northern Morava River (in present-day Czech Republic). Alternative views, however, argue that it was not (or was only partly) located there.

Perhaps that isn't quite the wording, but I imagine you see what I mean. Anyway, I'll continue with the copyedit further down the page! Relentlessly (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Other points:

• "Megale Moravia". Presumably this is Greek? If so, why not μεγάλη?
• "Megale" may refer either to a territory which was located "further away" from Constantinople or to a former polity that had disappeared by the middle of the 10th century This sentence is unclear and I lack the knowledge to clarify. I think you could say "Megale" may either suggest that the territory was located further away from Constantinople or that it was a former polity that had disappeared by the middle of the 10th century. Is this what you mean? μεγάλη, after all, has a fairly limited set of meanings and neither of the two suggested in the article is among them!
• Methodius, who survived his brother Clarification needed of when Cyril died.
• The section Southern Moravia of Juraj Sklenár was barely comprehensible. It read like a machine translation. I have done my best with it: please check that I have not introduced inaccuracies.
• I don't understand the comparison of quotes.
• "koroljъ ugrъrъsk" Um, what? Weird mix of Latin and Cyrillic there...
• Why do we get both names for Boniface and Willibrord?

As I say, I've done a fairly dramatic copyedit here. Please do check it for accuracy. Relentlessly (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Juraj Sklenár's view

Ditinili, sorry, I do not understand why we should describe Sklenár's 18th-century theory in details. Would you explain why do you think his views are relevant in the early 21st century? Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it is the first known such alternative theory published and also largely disputed among scientists (prominent Central European scientists in that times). It contains a lot of arguments and concepts used later. If I really describe it in details, we can attribute 80% of Boba's arguments mentioned in the article also to Sklenar. The fact, that theory about Moravia in Sremska Mitrovica was published, analyzed, largely discussed and was well known for central European scientists 2 hundred years before Boba is very important and has its encyclopedical and historical value. Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course his theory should be mentioned. However, modern historians only make a short mention of him and of his theory when writing of the history of Great Moravia, without providing a detailed description of his arguments. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Curiously, I have a book written by recognized historian, where half of the content is dedicated only to Sklenar and his theory and it was published only 12 years before Boba's work (it is referenced in the article). The second one detailed analysis from the same author was published only 5 years before Boba. Not only a short mention, but rather a detailed explantation of the historical background of Sklenar work is also in Marsina-Ruttkay (ed): Svatopluk 894-1994 (materials from an iternational conference organized by Slovak Institute of Archeology). I cannot imagine how some western historians, who probably even did not know about the existence of his work (like Boba) or never read it could provide more than a short mention.--Ditinili (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand that there is one single book dedicated to Sklenar's theory and there is an other work the historical background of Sklenar's book. Interestingly, Czech and Slovak historians do not provide a full description of Sklenar's work in his English publications when they write of the alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia. Why do you think that we should not follow their approach? Borsoka (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why should they provide a full description of Sklenar's work, if they react on Boba or Eggers? I would rather extend it, to make clear that these arguments are not new, but I tried to keep it short. Ditinili (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you would extend it, because you think it is important. Has your POV published in a peer reviewed book or paper? Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sklenár's work which raised an intensive scientific discussion in that time, involving prominent historians and Slavists from at least three (today's) countries, meets any criteria for notability. It has nothing with my POV. Please, focus on real problems like missing content. Thx. Ditinili (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, please read what notability means in our community. If Sklenár's view is notable in connection with the subject of this article, you could easily find many peer reviewed books which describe it in details. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I may interject? Borsoka, this page was created because of a dispute over alternative theories appearing at the Great Moravia article, correct? This is an article to discuss the various "alternative"/"fringe" theories regarding the political region of said Moravia. This was the compromise page that discusses the non-mainstream theories of notability, which would also include the original "alternative theory" if later theories were based off its ideas. Please also remember to write civilly by avoiding inflammatory statements. I haven't yet checked the sources but I am going off face-value of the edits by Ditinili. Don't forget that disputes can be taken to dispute resolution forums and services. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, please read the above discussion carefully before making uncivil remarks. Can you cite a reliable source which states that the alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia were based on Sklenár's work? Please remember that even Ditinili says that Sklenár was totally ignored by 20th-century scholars. Can you cite a peer-reviewed book of the history of Great Moravia which provides a detailed description of Sklenár's theory? Would you specifically mention the "inflamatory statements" I made? Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

* Sklenar's work is clearly related to the subject of the article.

* It is a notable work. More, it is the first such work published (sic!)

* It is not true, that his work was totally ignored by 20th-century scholars. On the contrary, it was very well known (maybe not for western scholars) and demonstrably referenced cca in time of Boba's work. The fact that it was ignored or unknown to Boba (or other similar authors) means nothing and at the best case, it can explain why he considered his theory to be somehow new of revolutionary and (missing or skeptic) reactions of Czech and Slovak historians.Ditinili (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)