Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Is the “etymology” section of the article on Canada in line with NPOV policy?

Is the “etymology” section of Canada in line with NPOV policy? Has the etymology of the word “Canada” been a subject of debate for years/centuries? If so should we have in the etymology section a brief paragraph with a concise reference to such historical debate? Is the etymology of Canada clearly established today or there are still several theories accepted as plausible? - Please read relevant discussion on Talk:Canada page and comment - J Pratas (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to JPratas repeatedly, the main article on Canada itself is not the place to delve into extended historical debate about whether there have ever been alternative historical theories about the etymology of the name. There is already a separate article, Name of Canada, which already includes the Portuguese "nothing here" explanation which JPratas favours and is already linked via a "more information at another article" template right at the top of the very section JPratas is disputing — and I've been actively expanding the content of that article over the past couple of days, to boot. But the main article on Canada is an overview article which has to touch on everything from history to geography to culture to politics to science to hockey to international diplomacy to demographics, and thus needs to briefly summarize each individual area rather than delving as deeply into each individual area as spinoff subpages do. So it's not the place to write an entire essay about any historical debate about the matter, if such debate doesn't actually still hold any real currency today.

JPratas is also relying on 200-year-old sources to portray the matter as if it were still in any substantive debate in 2015, which is not how this works. Nobody's denying that alternative theories have existed, and nobody's trying to suppress any acknowledgement of them — but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to portray the matter and appropriate and inappropriate places to get into it. Name of Canada, not the main overview article about the country itself, is the correct place, and the way the content is already handled in that article is the correct and neutral way. What JPratas is trying to do, however, is neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was told of this discussion. Thanks to J Pratas for starting it and informing me of it.

There actually isn't a debate for the etymology. There is one, official version. Cartier records it in his diary. He met some Iroquois who used the word kanata to refer to a specific village or settlement. Cartier later applied to the entire area, and by 1545, European books and maps had labelled the region as Canada. He and his explorers created the maps of the region. They labelled the maps. Those maps returned to Europe.

So some who live on the Iberian penitential use the term aca nada or cà nada, meaning "nothing here". It's not clear if that term was used before Cartier recorded it. There's no date to the legends around it. There is certainly some record that it has was a term used, but it could be a sailor's legend. There's no indication that they made any maps of the area along the St. Laurence where the name was applied. There's no indication on the existing Spanish and Portuguese maps of the era that they sailed into the St. Laurence at all. They didn't even travel as far north as what is today New York. Even if they had reached the Marritime provinces, it was known as Acadia in the 1500s. See http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7482/7482.htm and http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8400/8495/8495.htm Show me where "ca nada" appears on this map: File:1562-Diego Gutiérrez.jpg Clearly, the Iberian explorers did not have contact with the Iroquois--none of their records show them going up the St. Lawrence. And that's really the key. The few sources that even discuss this idea (none of my general Canadian history books do) admit it's a fringe theory or more likely that it's improbable. The correct location for a discussion of this sort of theory is in the article on the etymology of the name of Canada, as Bearcat stated. If we include it in the main article on the subject we suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

I do not intend to return to discuss this further. If someone other than the nominator needs my attention, feel free to ping me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's NPOV. As Canada is an overview article, there is no need to present a tiny minority point of view along side the most significant one. People interested in looking at alternative theories will head to the main article on the subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the account about Cartier is sufficient. As I said at Talk:Canada, the "multiple theories" and "debates" all concerned how the word kanata came to mean the whole country. Roches (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Great Moravia

There are at least two 21st-century sources cited in the two articles (Great Moravia and Principality of Nitra) which give a neutral picture of the debate about the location of Great Moravia (I could cite more, but now these two specific sources are under debate). According to Michael McCornick: "Where exactly [Constantine and Methodius] went is subject now to healthy debate. The traditional location of Rastislav's "Great Moravia" grew up, not accidentally, with the multiethnic Habsburg empire and placed it along the Morava river in the territory of present-day Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. A growing numer of scholars argue that it should be situated much further south and east, in the vicinity of Sirmium." (McCornick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, AD 300-900. Cambridge University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-521-66102-1.) Jiří Macháček writes, that "The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech Republic. Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moraviaelsewhere within the Carpathian Basin. The serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other way." Macháček, Jiří (2009). "Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? the Morava or the Tisza River?". Early Medieval Europe. 17 (3). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 261–262. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2009.00276.x. Retrieved 2013-08-30. Ditinili says that McCondrick ([1]) " never published any specialized publication about Great Moravia and is focused in other, more general topics", and the pages that McCondrick dedicated to Great Moravia in his book cannot convince Ditinili that McCondrick can be regarded as an expert in the field of Great Moravian studies ([2], [3]). Similarly, according to Ditinilii, we cannot mention in the articles that Macháček says that there are issues which have not been addressed by scholars who accept the traditional view of the location of Great Moravia ([4]). Ditinilii is convinced that historians who do not accept the traditional views of a northern Great Moravia represent a fringe theory ([5]). The question I would like to raise is the following: Can we present the views of Boba, Bowlus and other historians of a southern/eastern Great Moravia (also mentioning that their view is not accepted by most historians), or we should delete any references to them in the articles? Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never had any problem to preserve minor views. From this point the view, a "request to delete any reference to them" never happened.

There is another problem - there must be very clear for any reader, whose authors present minor views rejected by the most of the experts, whose authors are recognized experts in the area and whose authors are respected scholars, but their primary interest is different than the problem under discussion. For example: Richard Marsina is a recognized expert in this field, author of numerous publications about the topic, prominent expert and award winning historian, Michael McCornick is a respected scholar with a different and more general qualification and Imre Boba is marginal author not considered to be reliable by the most of medievalists who research this period. All views can be preserved, but not as something with equal value.Ditinili (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References to Boba, without statements that he is an unreable author can be found (for instance) in the following books: (1) Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5. (2) Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge University Press. pp. 124–134. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4. (3) Betti, Maddalena (2013). The Making of Christian Moravia (858-882): Papal Power and Political Reality. Brill. pp. 28–32. ISBN 978-9-004-26008-5.. I emphasize that the scholars I have just mentioned do not accept the theory of a southern/eastern Great Moravia, but none of them say that Boba, Bowlus, etc. are not reliable authors. They say that they refute the "southern/eastern theory" primarily because there is no archaeological evidence to support it, not because it is a fringe theory of low scholarship. Interestingly, Florin Curta (when writing of an other debate about the early mediaval history of Central and Southeastern Europe) stated that he "was struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views", specifically referring to Dušan Třeštík ([6], page 3). Of course, Curta's words about Třeštík's (and other historians') "obstinate efforts" to prove something without "any solid evidence" do not mean, that a leading Czech archeologist represent a fringe theory - they only refer to the fact that history is a science and not a religion. Nevertheless, we can conclude that even the main opponents of the "southern/eastern Moravia" theory (Třeštík is one of them) can be sharply criticized by an internationally well-known and respected specialist, such as Curta. Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat - I don't have any problem with mentioning any scholarly theory. However, I am surprised with this strange argumentation, that somebody rejected someone's theory but he did not say that the criticized work is not reliable (?!). From my point of view, this rather supports a statement that theories of these historians were rejected by the most of experts (this was already properly sourced). I am ready to open another discussion about Dušan Třeštík and if he is a reliable source and respected scholar, but it does not belong here.--Ditinili (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:reliability and you will not be surprised. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?--Ditinili (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot be more specific, because WP:reliability is the best available source to understand the concept of reliability in our community. You obviously do not undersand it. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?Ditinili (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not link the proper page which is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?Ditinili (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I cannot as per above. Please read it carefuly, several times to understand what a reliable source means in our community. I think we should wait for comments from other editors instead of continuing our never-ending debate. Borsoka (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, the constant "be more specific" question needs to be more specific about what you want Borsoka to be specific about. Borsoka, Ditinili is asking for direct references to the policies and guidelines instead of being told to "read it carefully several times." Mainly because the policies and guidelines are such large articles and have shortcuts to most, if not all, of their sections and some sub-sections. It also seems that this is actually an argument of WP:DUE since the original question posed by Borsoka is

"Can we present the views of Boba, Bowlus and other historians of a southern/eastern Great Moravia (also mentioning that their view is not accepted by most historians), or we should delete any references to them in the articles?"

Which is yes, minority views (not fringe views), providing the the wording of the article states this explicitly and that there are reliable sources and due weight, while this little paraphrased quote should help:

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So, are the authors:

• a) prominent authors in their fields?
• b) part of an "extremely small" minority?

If they are prominent but part of a fringe minority, then the typical response will likely by "No, remove their views from the article"

Hope this helps with your WP:NPOV dispute, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, thank you for your above remarks. Yes, the "southern/eastern Moravia" theory is held by a significant minority. The most prominent scholars are Imre Boba, Charles Bowlus (who are mentioned in all academic works cited above), and Gyula Kristó (who has not been mentioned yet). Their theory is refuted by most historians, as it is proved by the above list (only McCornick seems to be an exception), because no archaeological evidence has been provided to prove the existence of a "southern/eastern Moravia". On the other hand, most of the same historians emphasize that Boba, Bolus and other scholars pointed at actual problems with the traditional "northern Moravia" theory when studying written sources. I do not know whether Ditinili accept this summary. Borsoka (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I admit that I have yet to actually check through the edit history properly but I am assuming that you are for keeping the views from your comments here, per WP:DUE, in which case, it is a policy that can only be superseded by WP:IAR (as far as I understand). If Ditinili wants to, then they will have to argue a very strong WP:IAR case which does not seem likely for the type of content being disputed. Enjoy, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that minority views can be presented. It is also not true, that I requested to delete all references to Boba, Bowlus & company.

I said that we have to distinguish: a) who is respected scholar in the field, b) who is respected scholar but the problem is not in his primary field of interest and his main qualification c) who is scholar whose theory was rejected by the most of scholars in category a). Then, in the case of any doubts, scholars a) are more authoritative then scholars b).

Example:

* Is Richard Marsina a respected scholar? Yes, he is, he is a holder of several prestigious awards including e.g. Istvan Szecenyi Medal from Hungarian Academy of Sciences and he detaily deal with the problem of the Great Moravia and belongs to leading experts.

* Is Michael McCornic a respected scholar? Yes, he is, he works at prestigious Harvard University, but he does not deal with the problem of Great Moravia in details. Thus, his opinion can be included as well with some caution.

* Is Imre Boba a respected scholar? No, he is not. He is an author of highly controvert work, criticized by numerous respected scholars, but followed by some historians (this group is nowadays represented mainly by 2 (two) historians - Bowlus and Eggers and some linguists, who are maybe prominent scholars in their fields, but they are not historians ). This means, that his work can be included as well, because it has an encyclopedically relevance, but very carefully and readers should be aware that this is minority view. The same applies also for his already mentioned followers, who opened some scientific discussion, but their works are criticized (and sometimes very sharply) by the respected and recognized experts. Their views cannot be used to present something as a fully alternative opinion together with views of other respected scholars without some notice. Otherwise, the problem of False balance will violate balance and neutrality.

The problem is clearly visible for example in the article Principality of Nitra where theories of Eggers, Bowlus, Puspoky-Nagy and Boba were without any problem presented as concurrent theories to theories of recognized experts. This makes a false impression that the topic is more controversial and disputed as it really is and in some cases theory of 1 (one) author has the same space as major views. Then, reader is not properly informed about a real state of research, but about various marginal views without a warning (until such notices were added by me). Ditinili (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, would you refer to a book which proves that Boba is not generally regarded as a respected scholar? The 5 academic books cited above do not say that their authors do not respect him. Remember, I could refer to sharply critical remarks by Florin Curta of Dušan Třeštík and other leading Czech archeologists who do not accept Boba's view (Curta "was struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views": [7], page 3). I could cite similar negative statements made of leading Slovak historians (Alexander Ruttkay or Richard Marsina) who are frequently cited in the article Principality of Nitra. I emphasize, I do not want to say that the Czech archeologists and leading Slovak historians (opponents of Boba) are not respected scholars: I only want to say that negative remarks about scholars by scholars opposing their views do not make a them "unreliable". A scholar is qualified according to his/her peer reviewed publications and references to his/her works in peer reviewed publications: Boba, Bowlus, ... published their views in peer reviewed books or papers and they are frequently cited. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your approach - you agree that Boba presents a marginal view, rejected by the most of scholars but at the same time he is a respected scholar in this field? This is very irrational and illogical statement. If two scholars argue, we can at least compare their recognition in the academic community. Recognition of Alexander Ruttkay in the academic community (but also Richard Marsina) is absolutely incomparable with Imre Boba, see the article about him. The same applies for example for discussion between Martin Eggers and Herwig Wolfram who belongs to his sharp critics. While Eggers had elementary problems with dating of material cultures and in some cases demonstrably imagined presence of some ethic group in the Central Europe, Wolfram was a Director of the Austrian Institute for Historical Research. I can also hardly understand your statement that your sources do not say that their authors do not respect Boba, at least Curta says about Boba: "his understanding of archaeology was at best primitive (even by the standards of the 1960s) and at worst, dismissive" what is really not a proof of respect. It is also necessary to say what was the result of publication of Eggers work in peer reviewed books - numerous mistakes found by the opponents after the publication (publication of some theory is only the beginning not a final proof of the quality). Ditinili (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you do not understand my approach, because you want to prove "how ridiculous" Boba's view is ([8]). Again, remember Curta's words about the leading Czech archeologists ([9], page 3) who ignored "obvious absence of any solid evidence" in support of their theory that the Slavs settled in Bohemia as early as the sixth century: according to Curta, those leading Czech archaeologists could not (or, what is even worse, did not want to) properly date archaeological finds. If Eggers should be ignored because of Curta's criticism of his dating methods, we should also disqualify a whole generation of Czech archaeologists who are also criticized by Curta for the same reason. Or please, read Ivo Štefan's remarks of Alexander Ruttkay's certain conclusions in this article: Štefan, Ivo (2011). "Great Moravia, Statehood and Archaeology: The "Decline and Fall" of One Early Medieval Polity". In Macháček, Jiří; Ungerman, Šimon (eds.). Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt. pp. 333–354. ISBN 978-3-7749-3730-7. Retrieved 2013-08-27.. For instance, especially referring to Ruttkay, Ivo Štefan says that "The Slovak literature sometimes counts with the exploitation of deposits in Central Slovakia... It is however a merely little likely opinion, not supported by anything." (note 17 on page 342) - Should we ignore Slovakian historians because they built at least one of their theories on non-existing evidence (according to Štefan)? I hope that you understand that this approach (disqualifying scholars because they cannot properly date archaeological finds, according to other scholars, or because they develop their theories without any basis) would destroy WP. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone's theory is rejected by the most of experts in some field of research, you cannot say that he is a respected and recognized scholar in the same field. You can say that his theory is controvert or that he represent a minor view. If you agree that the most of experts rejected Boba's work (and also works of his successors), I don't see any reason why to push an opinion that he is a respected scholar.

It was already explained that in the case of any doubts who is a recognized expert in the field of research, we can evaluate various aspects like his scientific awards, his membership and position in academic institutions, etc. I will not go into details who is right in the academic discussions above, because it is not the goal of this discussion. However, Alexander Ruttkay is a recognized expert. If we look at his recognition in the (international) academic community, we can say that he belongs to top experts in his field and we don't depend on our own speculations. Of course, we cannot disqualify whole "generation of Czech archaeologists" because they were criticized by one scholar (along with the fact, that it seems that Curta is wrong and not whole teams of archaeologists; I can translate a study related to this problem on demand and his statement about missing evidences is far from reality [10], p. 303-330). Eggers' case is completely different.Ditinili (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(1) You are right: the fact that Boba's theory has so far been accepted by a minority of scholars suggest that there are weak points of his argumentation. For instance, the lack of archaeological evidence - which is emphasized by all scholars who refute his view. (Interestingly, a theory of Slovak historians, including Alexander Ruttkay, about the expoitation of deposits in Central Slovakia is also refuted because of the total lack of archaeological evidence.) (2) I do not know what is the case in Slovakia, but in Hungary leading historians, archaeologists often criticize each other, emphasizing the weak points of theories which differ from their own view. However, I have never read an argumentation which is based on (or only refers to) positions, membership and scientific awards: "X. Y. is right because he is the head of the ... institution of the Hungarian Academy of Science and the heads of the ... institution of the Swiss, French and Uruguayan Academies of Sciences awarded him with the "Blue Star with Little Purple Wings", and the president of Hungary bestowed upon him the Golden Sword of the Most Talented Wise Man." Actually, I do not remember that I have whenever read such an argumentation in any scientific work. (3) I have never stated that Ruttkay, or any other leading Slovak, Czech, Hungarian or Brazilian historian schould be ignored. It is you who proposed that Michael McCornick's reference to Boba and Machácek's positive remarks should be ignored. (4) That Boba is sometimes wrong does not mean that he is always wrong. For instance, Machácek (and Curta and Betti) say that there are valid points in Boba's argumentation which are to be addressed. In contrast with Machácek, ..., you argue that because Boba was so stupid that he identified a 11th-century grave as Methodius's tomb, his views can only be disqualified. (5) I have several times experienced that you think that there is one truth and you can prove it against Curta, McCornick, Boba or anybody else. Sorry, I am too old to react such statements. As I mentioned if a view was published in a peer reviewed source and it is cited in peer reviewed sources we can cite it when editing WP, and we do not need to prove that it is right or wrong. We only need to ensure that it is properly presented, without any bias. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stay focused on the topic. (Exploitation of deposits in Central Slovakia was not refuted at all, but a discussion about panning gold in Slovakia from the Celtic times is not a topic of this discussion).

I have never said that somebody is right, because he has some award. I said, that if somebody has an award from the academy of sciences, it clearly demonstrates his acceptance by the academic community and we can say that he is a respected and recognized scholar.

I have never proposed that McCorinck's reference to Boba should be ignored. I said that the problem of Great Moravia is not his primary area of interest and it means that his view is less authoritative that the view of scholars who research this problem in details for years and are recognized experts in this field.

I have never said that some view cannot be presented. This is only your false accusation. Please, read also my first reaction in this discussion.

I have never said that because Boba was so stupid that he identified a 11th-century grave as Methodius's tomb, his views can only be disqualified.

I fully agree that the topic has to be presented without any bias. However, WP:Neutral point of view says also "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." This was violated by you and other author e.g. in this article [11] before my first contribution - an excelent example how minor views of "Boba & Company" were presented along with mainstream without any mention about their acceptance.

As far as I understand, we can agree that works of Boba and his successors (Bowlus, Eggers, Puspoky-Nagy) represent minority view, rejected by the most of recognized experts. Please, confirm this conclusion and I will use it as a basis for my further work. Ditinili (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you did not want do delete references to McCornick, why did you start a discussion about him? Have I whenever questioned that Ruttkay, Trestik, ... are respected scholars? I only stated that their methods, views and theories are subject to strong critics by specialist working in the 21st century. There are the following statements in the version of the article you cite representing Boba's and Bowlus's view ([12]): (1) a sentence stating that Boba and Bowlus refute the identification of Nitrava with Nitra, because (2) two nearly primary sources contradict to each other, consequently (3) the list of the princes of Nitra (which is also highly debated by Slovak historians) is uncertain. Why do you think that this is a biased presentation of the facts? (4) The theory of a southern/eastern Moravia is refuted by most experts, because there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate it. However, most experts emphasize that Bowlus, Eggers, etc. pointed out some weak points of the traditional theory of a northern Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not begin any discussion about McCornick. Please, do not repeatedly make false accusations. You previously referenced to this author and I have only declared that GM is not his primary area of interest and the fact that he wrote several pages about it in some of his work does not make him expert.

The statement "about 21th century" is meaningless. I regularly cite works from the "21th century". By the way, Boba's work was published in 1971 (44 years ago), Püspöki Nagy: 1978, Toru Senga: 1983, Bowlus (Franks, Moravians and Magyars): 1994 and Eggers (Great Moravia - reality or fiction): 1995. McCornic's work is not significantly newer than Marsina (2001/2000), Meřínský (sharp criticism of these theories): 2006, Třeštík (sharp criticism): 2010.

The version of the article criticized by me [13] presents minor views along mainstream as if they were of equal validity.

It is not true that this southern theory is rejected by the most of the experts only because of lack of archaeological evidence. It is criticized also how these authors work with written sources - e.g. Meřínský speaks about manipulation of sources others at least about selective approach. Wolfram published large analysis of written sources to compare it with Eggers work, etc. Most of experts does not emphasize that Bowlus, Eggers, etc pointed to some weak points. E.g. Marsina says that contradictions in written sources are well known, but these theories do not remove them but introduce new problems, Třeštík speaks literally about Eggers' fiction.

This discussion must have some goal and conclusion. I propose a conclusion that works of Boba and his successors (Bowlus, Eggers, Puspoky-Nagy) represent minority view, rejected by the most of recognized experts. They can be presented but not along mainstream as they were equal. Ditinili (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above proposal. If we say that there is a minority view about the location of Great Moravia, we say that this view is not equal to the majority view. What do you want to say? Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I want:

1) your explicit confirmation that these works represent minority view rejected by the most of experts in the field (I want to have this declaration on one place as a clear conclusion from this discussion);

2) to preserve information about these views;

3) to follow rule "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."Ditinili (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that (1) the southern/eastern location of Great Moravia represent a significant minority view rejected by most historians/experts of the field; (2) we should preserve information about these views (3) of course, I accept point (3). If my understanding is correct, we have reached an agreemetn. Borsoka (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Just to be sure and to prevent any misunderstanding. These works are frequently referenced also in the article Principality of Nitra. In the current version, it is often not clear which statements are from works rejected by the most experts and which are from mainstream works. However, because we agree on the statement above, we can now make a clear differentiation between these works and authors and also to say that these theories represent an alternative, minority view. Right?Ditinili (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that all statements made by Bowlus, etc. represent a minority view because their theory of southern/eastern Moravia is refuted by most specialist? Sorr, I could hardly accept such an approach: I refer to Machacek, Curta, etc who emphasize that there are valid points in their works. I suggest that this should be decided on a case by case basis. Borsoka (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that all statements in their works represent a minority view. However, if something in their works is not a minority view, it can be be easily properly sourced also by mainstream publications, right? Do you agree with that? --Ditinili (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the phrase "minority view" is biased. Nothing has been "refuted". Scholars do not have any idea of which hypothesis is right. See:[14] Fakirbakir (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We have already agreed and properly cited in another place, that works of Imre Boba and Peter Puspoky-Nagy (your link, p. 27, note 12) were rejected by most experts.Ditinili (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Yes I have already responded above to attempt to defuse this into a simpler question based on the principles of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, this comment is in regards to whether the users Ditinili have sought comments from other editors that have experience in this area of study, such as WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Slovakia and WikiProject Czech Republic, about the discussed authors? I have put up an informal notice requesting their input on this debate. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Views and Requests

I would also like to ask if each involved user could please provide a concise summary of their views especially in regards to which policies and guidelines support their arguments, and write about their views alone (meaning not arguing against each other for the moment), in regards to this issue to allow external editors to understand the issue and arguments, since this is starting to look more like an extension of the talk page debate as well as becoming TL:DR for some arguments. There also seems to be a great deal of miscommunication between those involved. Sincerely, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, thank you for your intervention.

1. Upon your request, the summary of my views is the following.

1. The location of Great Moravia is subject to a "healthy" (Michael McCornick) scholarly debate.
2. According to a significant minority view (represented especially by Imre Boba, Charles Bowlus and Gyula Kristó), 9th- and 10th-century written sources do not verify the traditional theory of a "northern Moravia".
3. Although the number of scholars who propose the existence of a "southern Moravia" or "two Moravias" have increased during the last decades, most specialists clearly refute the new theories, especially because no archaeological evidence substantiate them (Curta, Berend et al, Machácek).
4. Many of those specialists who refute the new theories emphasize that the scholars who challenged the traditional academic consensus pointed out some weak points of the "northern Moravia" theory which has not been properly addressed yet (Machácek, Curta).
5. We cannot say that because Boba, Bowlus, Kristó, etc represent a minority view of the location of Moravia, their all statements have to be presented as a minority view without further verification.

1. Consequently, I propose:

1. We should mention that there is a scholarly debate about the location of Great Moravia, emphasizing that the theory of a "southern Moravia" or "two Moravias" represent a minority view.
2. We should present the 3-4 principal arguments of the scholars who challenged the traditional theory, based on their publications and not on their opponents' summaries.
3. We should provide a proper summary of the counter arguments and mention the most significant problem(s) which has (have) not been properly addressed by scholars accepting the traditional view.
4. We should clearly differentiate between facts and interpretations.
5. All statements connected to this debate in the articles should be verified by inline citations to at least one reliable source.

1. Policies applied

1. WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
2. WP:CHALLENGE "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of my views:

1. The works of Imre Boba, Peter-Puspoky Nagy, Toru Senga, Charles Bowlus and Martin Eggers were rejected by most of experts in this field of research and represent a minority view.
2. This minority view can be mentioned.
3. The works of other authors who are not experts in this field and do not study problem in details (Great Moravia is not their primary field of interest) should be used carefully and not to challenge opinions of experts.

I propose:

1. We should clearly distinguish between majority and minority views and properly inform readers. Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. Agreed. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
2. We should mention any argument from the original work which is considered by one side (author/opponent) to be principal (with respect to WP:Summary). Otherwise, it can be easily misused and obviously incorrect and highly criticized arguments will be concealed under cover that they are not principal. Who will decide? Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. We should avoid cherry-picking. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. If some argument is considered to be a principal problem of the theory by the opponents, we cannot avoid mentioning it.Ditinili (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
         1. Of course, principal problemns of a theory have to be mentioned, but we are not here to "promote one particular point of view over another." We should avoid any approach which leads cherry picking. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pointing to the weaknesses of theories which are rejected by most experts is not a "cherry-picking". More, it helps to understand better why they are rejected. Your proposal to mention only 3-4 principal arguments "based on their publications and not on their opponents' summaries" (?) is a vague formulation which opens opportunities for manipulations and concealment of highly criticized aspects of theories. Of course, under a cover that the criticized arguments are not principal (who will decide it?) and they are only emphasized by the opponents. If you are afraid that some controvert theory rejected by most historians is not properly described and somebody does "cherry-picking" to make it even worse then do not restrict description to 3-4 arguments. I recommend you to create an article Alternative theories about Great Moravia and describe these theories deep into details. --Ditinili (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a vague formulation - it is fairness and common sense. Should we describe the Czech historians' theories, who are accused of POV-pushing, bias and methodical mistakes by Curta, based upon Curta's work? No, we should neutrally describe their theories based on their peer-reviewed publications and also mentioning Curta's major concerns based on his peer-reviewed work on the same subject. No scholars publishing peer-reviewed studies can be deemed guilty here and we are editors and not aides to prosecutors. Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's vague, because it is not clear who will decide which 3-4 arguments are "principal" and "based on their publications" and which of them are not, but they are only emphasized by the opponents. This can really hardly guarantee a fairness.

Please, consider my proposal to create a separate article about these theories. It is a more effective method how to guarantee appropriate space for the views of these historians, explain them properly.

_{I can argue about artificial examples, but it will not move us forward. Nobody proposed to evaluate validity of theory supported by whole group of experts who research this problem everyday based on one statement of one author who does not and he was wrong.}Ditinili (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The theories of a "southern/eastern Moravia" or or two Moravias are mentioned in the relevant literature, so we have to mentione them in this article (I refer to WP:POVFORK). If you think that the publications of Boba, Püspöki-Nagy, ... do not qualify reliable sources, please open a separate debate on it on the relevant noticeboard. If the community judgment is that they are not reliable sources, we cannot refer to them when editing articles. In this case their views can only be presented based on reliable sources, not based on their own work. If they are reliable sources, we are to treat them as such (of course, emphasizing that they represent a minority view). Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OMG. I have NEVER said that they cannot be mentioned.Ditinili (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you say that they are reliable sources, please treat them as reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Holocaust denial contains a lot of mentions about theories which are rejected by most experts, but they are cited in a proper context.--Ditinili (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1. We should not use weasel wording. E.g. "growing numbers of scholars" means that during last 45 years southern theories were published by 5 cited historians and nowadays only 2 of them are active. We have to be concrete. Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. For me the "growing number" is not an issue. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
2. I strongly suggest to document any non-controversial statements also by mainstream works. Since these works were rejected by most experts in the field, they can be understood as at least controvert and their reliability can be challenged. Some statements could be so clearly inconsistent and erroneous for the real experts that they did not even commented them. E.g. Marsina (2000) reminds to this issue. This approach will prevent further misunderstandings and unnecessary discussions. Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. What do you think when writing of "mainstream work"? For instance, Bowlus's works are often cited by other historians in connection with the history of Central Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries, because he is regarded an expert in this field. Late Gyula Kristó was of the leading representative of mainstream history in Hungary for decades. Miklós Szőke is a leading archaeologist in Hungary. Do you really want to put them under guardianship? Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. We have already agreed that Bowlus' views on the location of Great Moravia were rejected by most of experts (and consequently also on the process of its formation). If somebody considers him to be a reliable author in another topic, it is out of my interest. It is not a problem from my point of view. However, his research in this particular field is controvert and it decreases his credibility. Kristo and Szoke were not mentioned nor addressed by me. Ditinili (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
         1. Sorry, I do not understand your above remark: if a scholar's work was published by a respected university or a specialized peer reviewed periodical why should we put its author under guardianship? If his/her view is a minority view, we will mention it in the article. Would you quote the relevant text from the agreed policies to be applied? If his/her work is not a reliable source for WP purposes, we should not refer to it. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone's theories were rejected by most experts, his statements related to this topic should be handled with some caution. I do not say that they are wrong (by default), but I strongly suggest to support his statements about the topic by less controvert works. We should not rely exclusively only on the fact that his theory was previously published by peer-reviewed periodical, but we should also take into account what happened afterwards. Ditinili (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what is the situation in Slovakia, but in Hungary even leading historians' favorite theories can be refuted by the majority of historians. For instance, György Györffy's most favorite theories were refuted, but he is still a highly esteemed historian, because he raised interesting problems and generated debates that contributed to the development of scholarship. Here historians are evaluated based on their peer reviewed publications and references to their works in other peer reviewed books and nobody counts how many of their theories were rejected by how many scholars. Maybe your approach is connected to the fact that the theory of a northern Great Moravia is included in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic ([15]). Can Slovak historians publish views that are different from the official theory of a northern Great Moravia? Can they be promoted and can they receive awards to demonstrate that they are highly esteemed historians after publishing a view which differs from that official theory? Can a historian who publish a view different from the enacted theory receive funds to continue his/her research? Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If "György Györffy's most favorite theories were refuted" then I recommend to cite statements from these theories only with a caution and to provide better source if possible.

Please, stay focused on the topic and prevent provocations which cannot help to resolve the problem. Ditinili (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think my remark about the possible existence of an official theory in Slovakia may be relevant: your crusader zeal against opposing theories suggest that the existence of such a theory strongly influence scholarship in your home country, and the crusade against it is obviously the only acceptable approach there. If Slovak historians' career (including their promotion, awards and salary) depends on their views in topics connected to the official theory, their publications should be treated with caution. I think we cannot avoid emphasizing (based on reliable sources) that the "northern Moravia" theory is enacted in Slovakia to provide a full picture for readers. Otherwise, if a theory of an author is refuted by most scholars, we have to decide whether it is a significant theory, based on reliable sources of the same topic. If it is a significant theory, we have to present it in the relevant article based on the author's publication, and we also have to describe the views of its opponents based on their publications. If you think that the theories of "a southern/eastern Moravia" or of two Moravias are not significant, please open a separate debate on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, if you have any proof that the research is manipulated for political reasons then present your proofs now. I suggest to rely on historical arguments, not involving politics here (by the way, freedom status is higher in Slovakia than in Hungary according to several international institutions and their rankings). As you know very well, and it was already documented, these theories are not criticized only by Slovak scholars, but also Czech, Austrian, Hungarian, etc. We have already agreed that this minority view can be described, even if it is rejected by most experts.Ditinili (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

--Ditinili (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I proposed above: that the theory is enacted in Slovakia's constitution should be mentioned (based on reliable sources) in the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A statement that Great Moravia is referenced by the Slovak Constitution belongs to the section "Legacy". If you do not have any serious proof that somebody manipulated research, it does not belong to the scientific part and it is intentionally weasel wording to implicate false accusation from such manipulation. More a significant part of research is performed in the Czech republic, not Slovakia, some evidences in Slovakia were not even discovered by Slovaks (e.g. the Great Moravian church on Devin was until 80's interpreted as a Roman building and only foreign scientists demonstrated that it is something different on one international conference), technical analysis of the evidences is regularly performed by Austrian and not Slovak experts because they have better equipment (e.g. artifacts from Great Moravian center in Bojná), etc. Ditinili (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this statement belongs to the section "Legacy". We can refer to it based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, Great Moravia#Legacy contains a link to the Constitution of Slovakia with a direct link to the text on the government website (Slovak + English version). What other type of reliable source do you expect? Ditinili (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Furthermore, I repeat that
   1. We should clearly differentiate between facts and interpretations. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
   2. All statements connected to this debate in the articles should be verified by inline citations to at least one reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. This opinion has never been challenged.Ditinili (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Policies applied:

1. WP:DUE, WP:CHALLENGE: I agree with Boroska. Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I would add WP:CONTENTFORKING, as well. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

So now that we have a better understanding of where you are both coming from, what are the ^(shudder) specific areas of dispute. Please simply provide a link to the subsection, or in the case of the lead simply write Leadand a blockquote of the area disputed. This can actually help me and others actually see what the problem areas are.Drcrazy102 (talk) ^{well, someone got rid of my timestamp and I'm to lazy to find it}; edit:00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the different theories, even the medievalist Roger Collins says that "this debate remains to be resolved" (Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 402). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True, but it is becoming clearer that this is turning into less of a wish to find WP:NPOV and WP:DUE but to see who is correct about the minority view, unless both users can start listening to outside opinions and stop arguing amongst themselves. It does however seem to be a more specialist problem for editors with experience in the issue. I'll put up a stronger encouragement for editors involved in the affected WikiProjects to come here and discuss this since it is becoming increasingly obvious that this needs specialist knowledge. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A separate article on the Boba thesis might help. Then there is less need to recapitulate arguments in more than one place: a link will do. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

But would that form a WP:POVFORK? Since there is debate about the significance of the ideas, this could construe a POV-fork to lend credence in the Great Moravia article. It is a good idea, but will it actually solve any of the problems? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I think that the basis of the continuation of the debate is that Ditinili actualy do not regard the publications of Boba, Bowlus, Püspöki-Nagy, Martin Eggbert and Songa Toru of a "southern/eastern Moravia" or "two Moravias" as reliable sources and do not want to treat them as such. To resolve this issue, I suggest that the reliability of the sources should be decided. Authors who did not publish their theories in peer-reviewed books or periodicals should not be directly cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this dispute (between you and Ditinili) is about in concrete terms, but my proposal was not meant to impugn the reliability of any source. Ditinili is certainly wrong that a minority view on one topic makes a source unreliable; such a view makes all sources suspect. Srnec (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that "minority view on one topic makes a source unreliable". I said: "..these works.." (e.g. Boba's Moravia's History Reconsidered)) "...were rejected by most experts in the field, so they can be understood as at least controvert and their reliability can be challenged." I said also "If someone's theories were rejected by most experts, his statements related to this topic should be handled with some caution", however, I emphasized also "I do not say that they are wrong (by default)". I believe that if we can cite non-controversial statements from non-controversial sources (where possible) it will prevent any doubts, questions and unnecessary discussions (in general) and subsequently improve also the quality of the article. Unfortunately, instead of considering a constructive proposal and gesture of goodwill, now we will argue if such constructive behaviour can be enforced or not.(+ accusations from manipulation of research and political influences ?!).

In my opinion, e.g. Boba's "Moravia's History Reconsidered a Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources" is not a reliable source. It is not only about numerous mistakes in the work, ignorance of research status in the time of publication and fantasies (letter for letter: fantasies) of the author, but also about the year of publication (44 years ago). In this field of research, 44 years old publication can be cited only by an expert who has a good knowledge about the topic and who knows what he does, not by an amateur on Wikipedia. --Ditinili (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You said, "I have never said that all statements in their works represent a minority view. However, if something in their works is not a minority view, it can be be easily properly sourced also by mainstream publications, right?" That's a blanket disqualification of sources expressing a minority view. Srnec (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec. Maybe, it is a little bit better to create common article Alternative theories about Great Moravia (not only Boba thesis) for all of these theories. Then, we can properly describe each of them. Of course, help of editors in the affected WikiProjects will be helpful. Ditinili (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if a separate article is created, we should summarize the main points of the minority views here. We also have to decide whether we treat the publications of Boba, Bowlus, etc. as reliable sources which can be cited without any further requirements (taking into account the policies listed above). Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to shortly mention in the main article only 1. existence of other theories 2. short statement that they were created because of some inconsistencies in the written sources 3. statement that they opened a scholar discussion 4. short statement that they found some supporters but were rejected by most expert historians 5. provide link for details. Nothing more or less.

Keep it short, clean and simple . Then, create Alternative theories about Great Moravia, describe theories (one section per theory, without any comments about their reliability) + one separate section "Criticism". Finally, link this article from Great Moravia and Principality of Nitra.

This will prevent cherry-picking and conflicts about selection of "main arguments". Otherwise, endless discussion will be raised again - which arguments are principal "based on the original work" and which are only emphasized by the opponents, why somebody selected mostly demonstrably wrong or potentially good arguments, if their proportion is correct, if to comment patent nonsenses immediately, because not every reader will search for details, etc. Ditinili (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So you are proposing a WP:SUMMARY section on the Great Moravia article page about the various minor theories, but keeping the theory/-ies that are accepted by the majority on the Great Moravia article page; while the Alternative theories about Great Moravia would list the minor theories in greater detail, including both criticisms and praise, but would only be referenced in a summary section with an {{main|Alternative theories about Great Moravia}} template on the Great Moravia's summary section? Is that your actual proposal or am I reading it differently to what you are proposing? I am just wanting to confirm this since this is a good idea but would need careful editing to avoid WP:POVFORK/WP:CONTENTFORK about the "Alternative theories". Thank you, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC); fixed link 00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my proposal. Ditinili (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand how the article Principality of Nitra is connected here. Borsoka (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra was a part of Great Moravia. For example, alleged late expansion of the Great Moravia from the south to the present-day Slovakia has an impact to the history of Principality of Nitra. Also, an identification of Pribina's seat has a significant impact on the formation of Great Moravia.Ditinili (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to repeat this edit ([16]), with the difference that now you want to refer to the separate article about the alternative theories? Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to reach a consensus.

• Do you agree with the proposal (summarized by Dr Crazy 102) or not?

• Yes. Borsoka (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you agree that identification of Pribina's seat and alleged late annexation of the territory of present-day Slovakia from the south is not related only to Great Moravia but also to Principality of Nitra? Ditinili (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it is obvious. Sorry, it is so obvious that I do not understand, why your statement is connected to a summary article about scholarly debates of the location of Great Moravia. Just to make sure that we understand WP:CONTENTFORK in this specific case similarly.

• Do you agree that the summary article would only concentrate to the debate about the location of Great Moravia, because this is the area where a clear majority view exists? Borsoka (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because the location of Great Moravia is only a part of these alternative theories. Any trial for relocation has large consequences. The authors had to reinterpret also some political events, dating, localisation of settlement areas of various ethnic groups, assignment of material cultures, etc. It means that we cannot concentrate only on debate about the location, because it is ony one aspect.

Of course, we can mention in the summary article all consequences of the theory. However, the occupation of Nitra in the 870s is not the consequence of a southern/eastern Moravia. A northern Moravia could also conquest Nitra in the 870s. Bohemia was also occupied only in the last decades of the existence of the polity. Borsoka (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is an author of this theory? Please, cite an author who says that the territorial extent of Great Moravia was restricted to present-day Moravia until 870 and then it expanded to Slovakia. Otherwise, we cannot present this theory. Ditinili (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read my comments below ([17]). Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you agree that the date of the annexation of Nitra by Great Moravia does not depend on the location of Great Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because it does matter if Svatopluk came somewhere from Serbia-Slavonia, then he expanded to the north and annexed Nitra around 870, or if Nitra was a part of Great Moravia since the beginning. If Great Moravia was in the south, present-day Nitra could not be annexed around 833. It means, that when Eggers relocated Great Moravia he had also to reinterpret process of its formation and to change the date of the annexation. These problems are very closely related and dating of such important events is an integral part of the theory and has an impact on its consistency. More, where was Great Moravia before Nitra was "annexed"? Ditinili (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In Moravia, but we should not start an original research. Sorry, I do not understand your above approach: if scholars who say that Nitra was occupied only in the 870s do not base their argumentation on an axiom that Great Moravia was located somewhere in Serbia or Romania, why do you suggest that this is the case? Borsoka (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not start an original research. We can cite authors who say that the core of Great Moravia was along river Morava and present-day Nitra, and Nitra was a part of Great Moravia since the beginning. We can cite an author who says that the core was in the south, Slovakia was inhabitated by Vulgarii and Nitra was annexed in 870. Can you cite an author who says that the core of Great Moravia was in Moravia and Nitra was annexed around 870? You cannot compile facts from various theories to create your own theory (which seems to be reasonable for you) and then to present this theory on Wikipedia or to misguide users about its existence. Ditinili (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, remember that it was me who reminded you that we should not start an original research when you started your own. You assume a one-to-one correspondence between the southern location of Moravia and the late occupation of Nitra, although nothing proves that this bijection exists, according to scholars. Leading specialists of the medieval history of Central Europe describes the two debates without referring to each other, and even emphasizing the existence of a clear majority view only in the case of the debate about the location of Great Moravia (Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5.). We agreed that WP:CONTENTFORK should be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, cite an author who says that the core of Great Moravia was in Moravia and Nitra was annexed around 870. Otherwise, this theory cannot be presented.

A formation of the empire from two principalities - Moravia (in Czech Moravia) and Nitra (in Slovakia) (unified at the worst case around 833 after expulsion of Pribina from present-day Nitra) is an integral part of the traditional (also according to you - majority) theory. You can believe that it is possible to create a new theory which combines features of the traditional theory and Eggers' theory. However, if this theory does not exist, it cannot be included in the article.

"Urbańczyk at al" did not say that such theory exist. They did not say that "annexation" of Nitra around 833 vs. around 870 is equally accepted. They did not say that identification of Pribina's seat Nitrava with Nitra vs. an unknown place in Pannonia is equally accepted. They only said, that there are "other" authors who believe that his seat was in Pannonia, nothing more or less (yes such authors exist and are supporters of southern -also according to you - minority theory). Ditinili (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please, read my above remark, I referred to a book which does not make connection between the two theories. Borsoka (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Would you refer to a source stating that such majority view exist? I refer to Vlasto who says that Nitra was part of the Moravian principality before Pribina was expelled from Nitra, although he says that Moravia was located to the north of the Danube(Vlasto, A. P. (1970). The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs. Cambridge University Press. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-0-521-10758-7.). In a book recently published by the press of the Charles University of Prague, the same view is expressed, without reference to the allegedly majority theory about the emergence of Great Moravia from the unification of two principalities (Třeštík, Dušan (2011). "Beginnings of Great Moravia". In Pánek, Jaroslav; Tůma, Oldřich (eds.). A History of the Czech Lands. Charles University in Prague. pp. 65–68. ISBN 978-80-246-1645-2.). My impression is that you are attempting to connect all debates about Great Moravia to the debate about the location of the same realm. However, such a link does not exist. That is why I would like to emphasize the importance of WP:CONTENTFORKING. Borsoka (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• Please read the remarks "Urbańczyk at al" made about the theories of a southern Moravia: they explicitly say that some historians "advanced arguments in favour of a location south of the Danube in Pannonia and near the southern Morava River, but many of these have been effectively countered." Would you cite a similar sentence from the same book in connection with the debate about the identification of Pribina's seat? We should not connect all debates about the history of Great Moravia to the debate about its location. Borsoka (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of my view:

• The traditional theory should be described "as it is". It means "the core lay on both banks of the river Morava + south-west Slovakia with center in the present-day Nitra (= the seat of Pribina), joined at the worst case at the time of expulsion of Pribina."
• Each minority theory should be described "as it is". It means e.g. "the core territory in Serbia, Pribina's seat in "Hunnia-Avaria", etc.
• There will not be any mention nor indication that any other combination is possible until it is clearly documented. Especially, we will not indicate that it is possible that the core territory was in the north (a part of the traditional theory), but only in Moravia and Pribina's seat was not in Nitra and/or Nitra was joined around 870 (until the existence and the relevance of such theory is documented).

Reason: even if you believe that in some case "a book does not make connection" between two "theories", because the author did not empasize it, they are the parts of the author's mental model and it does not mean that they will work if they are separated or combined with another theory. Example: Eggers assumed that in the south was a territorial and economic base which allowed further expansion of Great Moravia to the north to present-day Slovakia. You cannot "extract" only a statement that Slovakia did not belong to the core territories + date of alleged annexation and to say that it is a separate, independent theory which can be combined and does not contradict northern thesis. Why? Because in this case, the core territory of Great Moravia will be reduced e.g. to 40% and with this poor territorial and economic base they had to conquer already heavily defended Nitra (3 central hill forts + additional 4) around 870. It means that possibility of such combinations of "indepent theories" cannot be assumed by an amateur (synthetis + own research), but explicitely confirmed by some sholar.

• Because the existence of any relevant concurring theory (which localizes Great Moravia to the north, but the seat of Pribina out of Nitra) has not been proven until now, I will not comment for now if such hypothetical theory is accepted to the same level as the traditional theory. The traditional theory dominates, the localization of the seat of Pribina is its integral part, the authors who criticize southern theories criticizes also trials to relocate it. Whatever else is from my point of view a speculation. You and I can have a different opinion. However, it does not matter if we describe every theory "as it is" and do not try to create any new combinations. Ditinili (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, we should describe every theory "as it is" and we should not try to create any new combinations. That is why I suggest that we should not hide all debates about Great Moravia behind the debate about the location of Great Moravia. For instance, the view that Great Moravia was an empire created through the unification of two realms (Moravia and the Principality of Nitra) is not suppported even by all scholars who accept the "northern Moravia" theory (as my reference to Třeštík's work shows). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Třeštík, to whom you referred, is a sharp critic of the southern theories and he clearly rejected in his works both a) Boba's theory that Nitrava is not Pribina's Nitra b) Eggers thesis which is according to him "a fiction and has nothing to do with the reality" (Český časopis historický 94, 1996, p. 56-93). If you look closer on Dvorník's book, you will see that it was published 45 years ago. More, a potential Moravian influence on the formation of Principality of Nitra (which is a well-known variation with strengths and weaknesses) has nothing to do with localization of the seat of Pribina or with any southern theory an in this discussion is completely irrelevant. It means that also your statement "I refer to Vlasto...+ Třeštík" is also irrelevant. Ditinili (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that I made my reference to Třeštík (and Vlasto) in connection with your assumption that "A formation of the empire from two principalities - Moravia (in Czech Moravia) and Nitra (in Slovakia) (unified at the worst case around 833 after expulsion of Pribina from present-day Nitra) is an integral part of the traditional ... theory." Would you quote Třeštík's text which proves that he described the foundation of Great Moravia as the unification of two states (Moravia and the Principality of Nitra)? Would you refer to books which state that a majority theory exist in connection with the formation of the "empire" through the unification of two realms? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

More, your request "in favour of a location south of the Danube in Pannonia and near the southern Morava River, but many of these have been effectively countered." Would you cite a similar sentence from the same book in connection with the debate about the identification of Pribina's seat?" is a nonsense, because there is no need to support statements from "the same book" (?) and this theory as presented by Boba has been already rejected what was also documented. Ditinili (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that we can easily find references in academic works to the existence of a majority view in connection with the location of Great Moravia. However, you have not provided such references in connection with at least two theories (the formation of Great Moravia and the identification of Nitra), although you claim that such majority view exist. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am thinking this is an issue between both Ditinili and Borsoka's views on these theories. The current standing solution is to create a new page discussing the theories related to the areas of Great Moravia, tentatively titled Theories of Great Moravia. If outside/neutral editors feel that this is inappropriate, this is the time to put in your 2 cents. If there no-one is against such an idea, then could either Ditinili or Borsoka please create such a page and follow the proposal summary and above proposal. Use your namespaces if you want to create a first draft, to then move into article-space.

Also, please remember to use the {{od}} template, similar to what I have done, when your comments are bunching to one side. It helps to improve readability for everyone involved. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I propose that the summary article should be titled Theories of the location of Great Moravia, taking into account that there are many debates in connection with Great Moravia, but a clear majority consensus only exists in the case of the debate about its location. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, the {{od}} template is for a comment thread, not individual comments. I have corrected the above comments so that the visual display actual displays a correct comment thread. Please either read how to use the code template or use the Show preview button next to the Save page button to show how the text will be rendered on-screen.

I am not opposed to the new title suggestion, but as I said earlier; [if you] create such a page[,] follow the proposal summary and above proposal. Use your namespaces if you want to create a first draft, to then move into article-space." Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

^{*Face-palm* Speaking of "Show preview", I should take my own advice. Fixed the coding behind my text. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)}

Drcrazy102, thank you for your assitance in fixing my comments. Sorry, I have not had a chance to learn how to use these templates because nobody has draw my attention to my mistakes during the last 7 years. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I know you are trying to help. Often all we need to progress is having mistakes shown to be corrected. If you need any more help, just drop a message on my talk page or do a search using Template:[what you're looking for] or do a google search. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking into account your above suggestion, I created the page Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the proposed name of the article (Alternative theories about Great Moravia) was not respected - it is not only about location but also about dating and interpretation of some events. I suggest to follow the original proposal.

It also seems that already from the beginning the suggestion to neutrally describe theories "as they are" without further comments and then to deal in details with criticisms and praise is not being followed. Already in the first (and the only one section) the relevance of the theories is emphasized more than critic views and selective approach is used to cite the views of the opponents.[18] I know that it is only "the first working version" but I want to stop this POV pushing at the beginning.Ditinili (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What sort of "POV" pushing? Is it problematic for you to cite Collins (a renowned British medievalist)? Anyway, your name proposal is inappropriate. As I see you still want to mix different topics in one article.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is not any problem to cite whoever. However, please, focus of neutral description of theories and proper description of criticisms and praise, not pushing some opinions and conclusions already into the lead + background (?!). Otherwise, it can easily happen that somebody else will also push views preferred by him and he will choose into the lead citations about value and acceptance of these theories which clearly contradicts the current context (for example, we can easily cite statements about unserious and unscientific approach, but it is not the goal of the lead nor background). Ditinili (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Collins summarizes the present-day situation, he says the question is still on the table. It is a very important statement. It doesn't belong to the "background" section. If you can cite other scholars with different opinions then feel free to contribute in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• None concrete objection against the original title has been raised until now and there was not any consensus about an alternative title. I don't agree with any "last minute changes" not compliant with the summarized proposal.
• I hope that we can agree that the opinions on these theories and the opinion to which extent they had been already refuted differ per author. So, I strongly suggest to not to push any such opinion to the lead or intro. This is a highly controversial and instead of any conclusions and "fights" in the lead, I really propose to neutrally describe all theories and then to summary all opinions about them in a separate section.Ditinili (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hah, the problematics of "Nitra vs. Nitrava" theory have very little to do with Great Moravia, I do not agree with your name proposal. I suspect you are planning to remove all opposite opinions from the articles of Great Moravia and Principality of Nitra and put these ideas in an "alternative theories" article. Your dogmas would be more safe like that. Am I right? Your own POV is much less than a medievalist's opinion on Moravia's location. You cannot "strongly" suggest anything.... Your approach is far from "neutrality".Fakirbakir (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, I have emphasized several times that we should not create an article which suggests that all debates about Great Moravia are connected to the location of Great Moravia. I have also emphasized that your claims that there are majority views in connection with all debates about Great Moravia clearly misleading. That there is a majority view in connection with Moravia's location can be easily substatniated by references to reliables sources. For instance, your claim that most historians think that Great Moravia came into being through the unification of two principalities (Moravia and Nitra) is not even mentioned by Trestik in his above cited work. Please stop your POV pushing. Of course, the neutrality of the article should substantially improved. Borsoka (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a serious approach. You can argue that you emphasized something and I can argue that I emphasized that these theories do not have impact only on geographical interpretations but also on dating and other aspects (because it's a huge difference if e.g. south-west Slovakia was a part of the empire since the beginning or since 870 or if it was inhabitated by Slavs by or the remnant Avar groups).

However, it is absolutely unserious to not to offer any counter proposal and then simply "make it on your own" without any respect to the previous summary. (?!)) I strongly disagree.

More, raising an edit war from your and Fakirbakir side, just because I wanted to follow the proposal as it was summarized (?!) and blame me of POV pushing (?!) just because I did it is very unusual Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have not only emphasized something, but I also referred to reliable sources. Please also read the above discussion here before accusing me of unilateral edits ([19], [20], [21]). POV pushing is not an accusation, it is a fact: you have been attempting to collect all scholarly views that contradict to your POV under the title "Alternative theories". However, the existence of a majority view has so far only been proved in the case of the location of Moravia. Consequently, we cannot arbitrarily decide which of the many theories can be described as alternative theories (I again refer to your theory about the creation of Great Moravia through the unification of Moravia and the Principality of Nitra) which is not mentioned in Trestik's text. Why do you think Trestik did not mention an allegedly majority view? Please also remember that you are the only editor who initiated an edit war by your two reverts. I suggest that you should stop POV pushing and start to refer to reliable sources instead of wasting other editor's time with your own OR. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing is not an accusation, it is a fact: you have been attempting to collect all scholarly views that contradict to your POV under the title "Alternative theories"? Please?

• I did not edit even one line except renaming of the title to the same (letter for letter) title as it was previously proposed and summarized.
• If you had any alternative proposal, you had simply to propose concrete title and to discusse it. While I tried to reach a consenzus and believed in the good will that there is not any problem with the title (only with the content), you literally missued the first chance to ignore the previous summary.
• I have explained that these theories go beyond the problems of geographical localization. Do they or not?
• I have also explained that I will not speculate about acceptance of any theory until the existence of such theory is documented. How would you like to prove that existing theory is accepted more than (probably) non-existing? Show me that some theory really exist and then, we can discuss reliable sources about its acceptance.
• It means that I will not document that existing and documented theory "Great Moravia in the north formed of two parts since the beginning" is accepted more than theories like "Great Moravia in the north, but not consisting of two parts" or "Great Moravia in the north, but with Nitra annexed in 870", etc until the existence of such theories is clearly documented. My goal is to present theories "as they are" and not to look for something what can be excluded, included or combined with other theories.
• For the problem of forming empire from two different units see also Sommer P., Třeštík D., Žemlička J. (2009): Přemyslovci - Budování českého státu [Premyslids - Building of the Czech State], Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, ISBN 9788071063520, does not question formation of the empire from two parts - Morava and Nitra (Nitriansko), finished in 830's. On p. 83, a foundation of the first hill forts in Slovakia (8th/9th century) is decribed. Czech original: "Bezesporu až v této době či o málo pozděj lze vidět i počátky mocenského centra v sředním Ponitří, které postupem doby přejímá rozhodující úlohu v rámci konstitujícího se nitranského knížetsví v čele s knížetem Pribinou. Toto knížetstvtí se však již počátkem třicátých let 9-tého století moravskou anexí stává integrální součástí mojmírovského panství...". I apologize for not being word-perfect in English: "Undoubtedly, in this time or a little later, we can see the beginnings of the power center in the Middle Ponitrie, which gradually became a place with crucial role in the forming Principality of Nitra. However, this principality was annexed by Moravia at the early of 830's and became an integral part of the Mojmir's empire." Whereas it is not clear whether this annexation had one or two phases, e.g. if Moravians somehow participated on the previous political formation of this territory and then annexed it finally (as it is suggested by Třeštík in other works), your fear was unfounded.

I emphasized several times that we should describe every theory "as it is". I have no idea about which OR do you speak. (+ be polite). --Ditinili (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your long monologue above. Yes, we should describe every theory "as it is" and we cannot write of non-existing theories, because we should apply WP:NOR and avoid making statements which cannot be verified based on reliable sources. In the book published in English it is clear that Trestik write of the unification of many principalities (instead of the unification of two principalities) when writing of the development of Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me summary: 1. There was concrete proposal without any counterproposal to change the title from your side. 2. You did not respect it and exploited the first opportunity to completely ignore it.

P.S.: The arguments like "something is not written in my book so it does not matter if the author confirmed it in another" are also very strange, but it is only partial problem. Ditinili (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) No, it is not strange. I did not write that "something is not written in my book", I wrote that he wrote something "in my book" which contradicts to your statement: he wrote of the unification of many principalities. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Ditinili (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the second sentence and the discussion referred to in it here ([22]). You have been repeating your views, without verifying that clear majority theories can be distinguished in all debates about Great Moravia. Without such a majority view, the labelling of certain theories as "alternative theories about Great Moravia" would be original research. Sorry, but in the future I will not comment your views of the existence of multiple alternative theories about Great Moravia. Please do not interprete my silence as an acceptance of unilateral acts. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, you clearly violated what was already agreed and as it was summarized. That's a fact. You had no concrete objection against the name and you did not offer any concrete proposal which could be discussed, but you did it as unilateral decision. That's another fact. I did not edit even line so your theories about labelling something in the article are completely out of context. More, I did not argued only by some labelling, but that a part of these theories is also dating, re-evaluaion of ethinc groups living in some theritorries, etc.

If you have a technical question about concrete theory, for example if Dusan Trestik recognizes existence of two principalities in Great Moravia (Morava and Nitra) or how are these principialities related to sub-ordinated principialities I am very open to discuss it on appropriate page. However, it has nothing with your unilateral steps. talk) 07:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I assume that Trestik could properly summarize his own views in the following publication: Třeštík, Dušan (2011). "Beginnings of Great Moravia". In Pánek, Jaroslav; Tůma, Oldřich. A History of the Czech Lands. Charles University in Prague. pp. 65–68. ISBN 978-80-246-1645-2. Or do you suggest that he does not understand his own theory properly? Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

He clearly does, but it seems that you don't. Třeštík has never denied that within Great Moravia, Nitra was a separate principality different from Moravia, in his works he repeatedly calls it "nitranské knížetství" (Principality of Nitra) or "Nitransko" and when he referes to the Great Moravian Period he says literally "toto území bylo vždy chápáno jako odlišné od moravského a bylo také odlišne spravováno" = "this territory was always understood as a different from Moravian and it was also administered separately" - Třeštík (2001), p. 116. The existing of two principalities has nothing to do with other other principalities, it seems that you misunderstood that while "many principalities" really existed, the empire used two-level subordination and both Morava and Nitriansko (as it is called in Czech and Slovak) preserved numerous princes/dukes along with princes like Mojmir, Rastislav or Svatopluk. The main point of his theory is (if we speak about Nitriansko as a specific unit within Great Moravia) if it was formed independently or already under Moravian influence and in 830's the integration process was only finalized. However, this is too detailed discussion and it does not belong here but under concrete article and it has nothing with the fact that you violated the summarized proposal immediately when you got a chance. Ditinili (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that Trestik does not understand his own theory, when writing the following: "Rostislav's nephew Svatopluk became the governor of one administrative territory of the Great Moravian state. ... We are not sure where Svatopluk's territory exactly lay, but it was probably in Nitra." (Třeštík 2011, page 68.). Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I clearly documented that Třeštík does not have doubts about existence of Nitra as a separate principality within Great Moravia (I cited him). I appreciate your trials, but believe me or not, I am a native speaker and I read more his books than you. So it seems that not Třeštík misuderstands his theory, but you are a hot candidate. I am very open for this discussion, but not here. Ditinili (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that you stated ([23]) that the "formation of the empire from two principalities - Moravia (in Czech Moravia) and Nitra (in Slovakia) (unified at the worst case around 833) is an integral part of the traditional (also according to you - majority) view". However, my references to Třeštík's book, published in English in 2011, prove that Třeštík, who is a significant representative of the traditional theory of a northern Moravia, does not share the allegedly majority view about the formation of Great Moravia through the unification of two principalities. Moreover, he describes Nitra as one of the many administrative units of Great Moravia. Please do not try to pretend that we should discuss Třeštík's text any more, because it is clear and was published in English. If you think that Třeštík cannot summarize his own 2011 views in English, please write to him or to the publishing house of the Charles University in Prague and offer them your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Because:

1. There was a clear summary.

2. You did not offer any counter-proposal for another title to be discussed.

3. You changed the title at the last moment as your unilateral action, not compliant with the summary;

I am renaming the article to the title as it was sumarized in the proposal. If you will have a feeling in the future that something is incorrectly labeled, we can discuss it. Ditinili (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you like bold letters, therefore I also repeat my answer (for the last time) in bold: I objected the proposal and I did not take any unilateral actions (I refer to the discussion referred to here: [24]). Sorry, in the future I will not comment your idle accusations. Please refrain from unilateral actions, because renaming the article unilaterally would qualify as an edit war. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, if you did not agree with the proposed title, you had to offer clear counter-proposal, try to reach consenzus and wait for the result. You did not. You did not proposed any alternative and made it on your own. I could also easily ignore your opinion, made it on my own and then say "it is already done" and if you try change it is unilateral change. (?!) More, what about other alternative theories which has nothing with localization, but they try to reinterpret Great Moravian history? E.g. there is a historian, professor Milan Ďurica according to whom Great Moravia was the Slovak Empire (including Moravian part), etc. His theory has an encyclopedical relevance, at last because it raised intensive public discussion lasting for weeks, the official standpoint of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, of course, all carefully monitored by media, but also a political scandal because of funding from PHARE fund + potential distribution of the book to the schools? (And is still referenced by various extremists?).

I am interested in opinions of other editors. Ditinili (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you cannot stop your POV pushing: you want to prove that Boba's view is ridiculous ([25]). However, the alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia are discussed in many academic works, specialized on the history of Central Europe. The same publications emphasize that the same alternative theories raised valid problems and many of those problems have not so far been addressed by scholars accepting the traditional view (I refer to publications cited in the article under the subtitle "Development of alternative theories"). In the same publications, the theory of a "Slovak Empire" (if it is mentioned at all) is refuted by a single sentence, stating that nothing proves it or something similar. Please remember WP:CONTENTFORKING: we should not create an article where fringe theories are mixed with scholarly theories. Please also remember WP:DUE: if we want to mention the fringe theory we can mention it in the main article about Great Moravia in a single sentence, for instance, in the "Legacy" section. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not defined as "something what can Boroska find in his/her list of publications". If some theory become a target of public discussion, the topic was repeatedly covered both by mainstream media and academic journals, it was addressed by experts and it resulted into publication of the official standpoint of the Academy of Sciences, then it is notable from Wikipedia point of view (here is e.g. link to the above mentioned standpoint in the most popular /except boulevard magazines/ Slovak newspaper [26]).

"I see you cannot stop your POV pushing" Please, try to be serious. I did not add/change/remove any line and contrary to you, I stopped any work, only to prevent similar accusations and I focused on reaching some consensus. Yes, I noticed in the past that Imre Boba is not an etymologist (is he?) and his linguistic theory about "impossibility of change from Nitrava to Nitra" is ridiculous (yes, it is) because a) the same or similar "impossible" changes are well known and documented for numerous place names in Slovakia (I gave examples) b) it can be documented by various onomastics works (I did it) c) this "problem" was well-known and discussed dozen years before publication of his work (I documented also this fact). This is very poor proof of my "POV pushing". In my opinion, it will be a bigger problem if somebody tooks this 44 years old theory of the scholar who is not a linguist absolutely seriously. Note, that I do not have any problem to publish such opinions, but it must be clear for readers how old is the work, what is the qualification of the author in the particular field and what is current state of research.

I have already said that changing the title at the last moment without any counter-proposal was incorrect. You can see that already mentioned alternative theories are not limited to the problem of localization, but have an impact also on the dating and interpretation of the events. Here is another example of an alternative theory which has nothing with the localization. Ditinili (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think that Boba's publication is an unreliable source please start a debate about it on the Talk page of the relevant notice board. Sorry, I think our POV about scholars are not relevant here: if books published by internationally respected universities dedicate pages to their theories in the 2010s we should mention it. Unfortunatelly, if books published by the same universities does not dedicate more than a (negative) sentence to a theory, we should not emphasize it either (WP:DUE). Finally, fringe theories should not be mixed with minority views (WP:CONTENTFORKING). Sorry, I think I stop commenting your remarks, because I summarized my views. Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"If you think that Boba's publication is an unreliable source please start a debate about it on the Talk page" Regardless of such debate, [[WP::Identifying reliable sources]] contains standard recommendation that opinions of recognized experts are more likely to be reliable + warning that older scholarly sources can be outdated. If somebody takes 44 years old publication and cites etymological theories of the author who is not an etymologist, then it is not strange that some of his opinions are literally ridiculous. Instead of accusing me from POV-pushing, you should take into account above mentioned recommendations.

"if books published by internationally respected universities dedicate pages to their theories in the 2010s we should mention it." ??? This was never under discussion.

If some theory raised such public attention, coverage by media including academic journals, etc (see above) it is notable from encyclopedic point of view (I am not speaking about the acceptance level, particularly if we speak about alternatives, this can be also clearly mentioned). More, other alternative theories are also not limited to the problem of the localization but they have impact also on dating, etc, what you happily ignore. By the way, Boba states already in the title that he reinterprets history not only some geographic aspects. Ditinili (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read how reliable sources interprete his theory: they say that it is an alternative theory of the location of Great Moravia. We should not create our own terminology (WP:NAME). Otherwise, I refer to policies mentioned here: ([27]). Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of View Issue

Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is alleged terrorist of mumbai attacks.India blamed the Pakistan and lakhvi for this attack and raised the issue in united nations while pakistan questions on Evidences

After reading this article the tone of this article does not seams neutral to me because most of the statements are written by Indian point of view basically referenced with indian news sites.i think in this article the references should be from Neutral third party sources instead of indian news sites.

As i am a new user i will welcome your suggestions.HIAS (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus article

This is the material in question. The lede currently mentions methodological issues, but omits that several scholars have stated the methodology is invalid. The dissent from SPA's involves various illogical arguments.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And your specific request for this noticeboard is ...? If you want to start a Sockpuppet investigation, go to the SPA Investigations page and file a request, which may take a while but provided you have evidence of SPA traits and you are clear and articulate in your response, then you will eventually be able to remove the SPAs and continue on with actual users. Mistaken abbreviation Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC); edited 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA is an abbreviation for single purpose account, not sock. See WP:SPA.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, but the original question remains of what your request is or are you simply asking for neutral editors to chime in? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am looking for neutral input.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as the reference is from an RS and has some sort of WP:weight and WP:notability on the subject matter, it should be included, at least to an extent. To leave out viable (different) points of view is a WP:POV violation, IMHO. Darknipples (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of View problem with article about Mr Lee Man-Hee

Lee Man-Hee is a Korean religious figure. The article about him is clearly biassed in favor of Mr Lee by his religious supporters. Much material lacks citations or/and notability. Material critical of Mr Lee (such as merely noting reports in news sources that suggest Mr Lee he is the leader of a cult or cults) has been removed with inadequate explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GsandParks (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 September 2015‎

I deleted a lot of content which had no reference or inappropriate references. I also deleted a copyrighted speech. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

National Air Traffic Controllers Association

This page seems to have six extremely-opinionated paragraphs of material tacked on at the end of a halfway-decent beginning-class article. There has apparently been some effort made at removing the partisan parts, but it hasn't been sufficient. The page probably needs to be adopted by some editors that can trim off the appropriate parts and keep an eye on it. Deltopia (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Palestine

Open to opinions; see Talk:Palestine#RfC -- Kendrick7^talk 03:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Title Gun show loophole

Sorry to do this again [28], but we very much need some impartial editors to help us put this issue to bed, as the article keeps getting tagged over the title. Here are the sections in which it was discussed, going back about a year now. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. As you can see, there have been many failed attempts to change, alter, or move the article due to the nature of the (term) "title". Here is the current discussion that was raised regarding "NPOV TITLE" tag. [40]. I'm obviously tired of repeating myself, so I'm hoping some people here can help resolve this. Our article is currently being reviewed for GA status. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list (in progress) of complaints as to why they think the title is in violation.

• 1. It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended.
• 2. Some people objecting to the state of the law does not make it a loophole.
• 3. Wikipedia is left with contradictory content.
• 4. The term "loophole" is pejorative
• 5. title violates NPOV by supporting one point of view over the other
• 6. non-descriptive
• 7. the status quo cannot be a loophole by Wikipedia's own definition
• 8. used by gun control advocates to promote their position
• 9. inherently biased
• 10. The term "loophole" is inherently loaded language

They have been referred to WP:COMMONTERM, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:POVNAMING, but this hasn't resolved their issues. Darknipples (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, as an editor who has never edited this article, that the term is very much the common name of the subject, and that per past discussions and WP:POVNAME the name should stay as is, and the POV dispute tag should be removed. The relevant guideline quote is:

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

I think this is clear and on-point. DES ^(talk) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

A long-quiescent account, Ziva11, has been massively modifying this article, and it appears to me that these edits are meant to make the subject look less loathsome than the reliable sources warrant. I am on record as not a fan of the subject of this article, and don't want to be accused (justly or otherwise) of letting that affect my judgement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably this should be at WP:BLPN as there are BLP issues on both sides here. Ziva11's writing is too much like a spirited defense of Kramer, which is not a proper use of Wikipedia. However, the previous text was not great either. I'll give one example:

On December 2, 2013 Kramer, in a plea bargaining deal, pled guilty to one charge for each of the three victims, just before his trial was scheduled to start. [41].

The source does provide this information, but it also reports that Kramer maintains his innocence. That information should be reported too; in fact, I believe that WP:BLP demands it. Zero^talk 04:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the changes here only because of unexplained removal of cited information. There is a process for removing facts backed with sources - either challenge the source or replace it directly with something new. A little talk on the talk page would help to decide changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

All of my changes were properly sourced and referenced with more recent information as per Wikipedia guidelines, most from 2014 and 2015. For instance, the last sentence of the introduction was changed from

Kramer is the subject of a long-running legal battle with the Gwinnett County District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge. In 2013, he accepted an Alford Plea to three counts of child molestation, while asserting innocence.

Please note that an Alford plea is not the same thing as pleading guilty, and the Wikipedia definition is referenced. Also note the article referenced is the local newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And when you read the details in the Legal Issues section, there are sourced recent references to legal battle with the Gwinnett County District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge due to documented collusion by theme to deny Kramer a fair trial. This is reality, with references to the actually lawsuits included. How can it be suppressed?

Every change made in the Legal Issues section has been from more recent sources, primarily the local newspaper. Anything removed either had no sources or older sources.

OrangeMike has already acknowledged that he has a bias against the subject Kramer and admitted it may affect his judgment. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard in the section on Edward E. Kramer:

I am on record as not a fan of the subject of this article, and don't want to be accused (justly or otherwise) of letting that affect my judgement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This bias is evident by the fact that all new properly referenced facts had been removed.

Even Kramer’s own recent website as a reference, not a source, was removed. See http://www.edwardekramer.com/, a purely professional website which does not make any legal claims. Orange Mike is letting his personal opinion affect his editing judgment.

The current legal section ends with

On December 2, 2013 Kramer, in a plea bargaining deal, pled guilty to one charge for each of the three victims, just before his trial was scheduled to start. This is dated Dec 2, 2013.

More detailed, recent, and verifiable information was provided covering 2014 and 2015, yet it was unjustifiably removed. The distinction between an Alford plea and a guilty plea has been glossed over as well. Here are the sourced details. Note, for instance, that the Kramer was the legal guardian of the teen he was supervising, yet this information has also been deleted.

For the sake of accuracy, here is what should replace the current last sentence:

In September 2011, the Gwinnett County DA ordered the Milford, CT Police arrest Kramer for "risk of injury to a child," for supervising a teen which Kramer served as Legal Guardian. The DA provided false testimony both in Georgia and CT, hiding that he had been responsible for the arrest (Georgia DA’s cannot legally demand an arrest). Having violated no law, charges were dismissed and expunged by the CT Courts without trial.

Claiming the closed case against Kramer was never really closed, Porter and Beyers then filed a Governor’s Warrant, citing that he had become a “Fleeing Felon;” sans trial, and was extradited to Georgia in January 2013. On December 2, 2013, Kramer accepted an Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offender Act. He has never been convicted of a crime.

In 2014, Kramer sought to reverse the 2013 plea, after an Open Records Act request revealed emails from DA Porter to Judge Beyers and Sheriff “Butch” Conway documented collusion against Kramer to deny a fair trial. The Georgia State Attorney’s Office Ordered the recusal of both DA Porter and the Gwinnett DA’s Office from the case. All Gwinnett County Judges have recused themselves as well. Actions have been filed against State of CT and Milford, CT, and are ongoing.

Let us look at the second sentence of the Arrests section: The ensuing investigation revealed that Kramer had previously been accused of molestation in 1997 before the alleged victim recanted.

The source paragraph referred to in the blog Creative Loafing Atlanta is: “Only after Kramer had been charged did anyone discover that he'd also been arrested in 1997 for allegedly molesting another member of his underage posse. That boy had recanted his story before the case went to trial and charges were dropped. When [Nancy] Collins dug up the 3-year-old case, she made certain the media and the sci-fi community were updated.”

Note that there is no reference whatsoever to the identity of this nonexistent case. It also states that Kramer was arrested. The Wiki article was he was accused but does not say arrested. In 2013 when Kramer accepted the Alford Plea offered him, it was under Georgia First Offender Act. The Georgia First Offender Act only applies to people who have never been arrested at all. If Kramer had been arrested in 1997, he would never have been able to have been given the Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offender Act.

Therefore, it can be shown that Kramer had not been arrested in 1997 or any time prior to the recent events. Since Collins is not citing any proof whatsoever, her entire accusation against Kramer regarding an alleged crime or arrest in 1997 is completely discredited, and therefore removed. It is both not verifiably sourced and libelous, requiring its removal in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

If you go back to my changes that were removed and check, you will see each one was verifiable and properly sourced. Please do not let the biases of an editor who admits to them prevent the truth from being published. -Ziva11 | Talk 15:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Liberland

Please see the RfC on Talk:Liberland. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Someone is trying to include ephebophilia into pedophilia, please prevent this bias from making the article POV. It is not supported by scientific findings. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

An ephebophile is a pedophile with a thesaurus. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, a comic amongst us! The (now blocked) IP user is complaining about sourced info that explains that the general public (and by inference, the media) frequently misuse the word"pedophilia" when the term "ephebophilia" is the correct term to use in certain circumstances. (Actually, the prior comment is an example of just such misuse -- thanks for the demonstration!) In any case, the IP user posted here in the process of edit warring over the article, presumably looking for help. Ultimately, the IP user has been blocked for awhile, which may provide the chance for some deep meditation which will hopefully lead to understanding what the article was actually saying. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

FYI, an RfC was recently started regarding this person, titled "RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs without mentioning that she also created tens of thousands of jobs?". Thus, the RfC raises significant issues about neutrality, so perhaps people here might be interested in participating.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Council of Constance

The Council of Constance 1414-18 was a Papal Council which laid the foundations for the Renaissance Papacies, and so was politically pivotal in the end of feudalism. The question of POV was raised on the thread, but not seriously addressed because the Catholics consider it was a purely religious affair, which it was not. As an academic in the area, I see huge problems with the meme as a result, and would ask you to refer it to a neutral academic specialist for fundamental review. I am not willing to tackle it myself because of the inherent and defended bias, I do not consider it my place to fight your internal battles for you. This one is, however, one you should look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.154.26 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Herman Edwards biography

I've just read through the Herman Edwards biography. Overall i found it factual and informative in a balanced way. However, the section on his coaching career appears to be severely biased. Some examples:

- His failures are emphasized without even mentioning corresponding successes. For example, Edwards's playoff losses are cited and underscored, whereas his playoff victories (some of them impressive wins) aren't even mentioned. [see pro-football-reference.com for reference to his playoff victories in 2002 and 2004.] For example, opening-day losses (with KC Chiefs) are cited repeatedly, whereas final-day victories -- meaningful wins that brought the team into the playoffs -- aren't even mentioned. [see pro-football-reference.com for reference to final-day victories in 2002 and 2006.] - Edwards's coaching methods are intensely scrutinized, which isn't a problem in itself. But the scrutiny is one-sided, leading to criticism without corresponding appreciation. - Subtle, value-laden terms are used throughout the section, to create an impression of Edwards's lack of competence. A more value-neutral approach would be appropriate.

I take no issue with criticism of Edwards per se. But the editor of this section appears to be on a mission to take Edwards down a few notches.