Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe 1097-corrected.jpg

File:Europe 1097-corrected.jpg

Original academic map: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg) This is an user created falsified map, the user is spreading everywhere this fake map. Talk: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Claude_Zygiel#Manipulating_historical_maps) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Balkans850.png) OrionNimrod (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is indeed a falsified map, at least Zygiel has this time not overwritten the original, but uploaded it separately and with comments on the background of each change. On the content I have to agree with Claude Zygiel: Shepherd's 1920s history map appears to be insufficiently researched. NEITHER of these maps should be used to illustrate articles, especially not about the Byzantine and Seljouk empires: Shepherd's map is incorrect, Zygiel's corrected version would be better, but he should have created a totally new map instead of photoshopping around.  Keep as reference material. --Enyavar (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Delete That stretched map is clearly a history falsification (compare with original: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg) What is the reason that Transylvania detached from the Kingdom of Hungary in a long shape up to north? Transylvania was integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary as we can see on all historical maps and mainstream academic history. That map falsify the Hungarian history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania

Also, to making a big "Vlach" state in 1097 instead of the Pechenegs is also a strange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs

In Wikipedia, we should present reliable academic sources by academic historians, not by personal fan art alternative history photoshopped by users.

Also Bohemia was part of the Holy Roman Empire, in the falsified map it is clearly detached as a separate state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

There are several maps about history of Europe of that period.

File:Europe About A.D. 1000.jpg

File:First.Crusade.Map.jpg

File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg

Menke_Handatlas_1880_Karte_05

https://www.gifex.com/images/0X0/2010-01-04-11595/Europe_in_the_Middle_Ages_900_1000.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Europe_at_the_time_of_the_3rd_Crusade_-_Lane_Poole.jpg

Hungarian maps by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:

https://hu.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fájl:Hungary,_Croatia,_Bosnia_and_Galicia_in_the_12th_century.jpg

https://tti.abtk.hu/media/com_edocman/document/egyházszervezet_1038_jav.jpg

https://tti.abtk.hu/media/com_edocman/document/egyházszervezet_12sz_jav.jpg

https://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01992/html/cd1m/kepek/torteneti_foldrajz/tf092tv31i.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, you can vote delete within your own proposal? Anyway, I can dismiss most of your reference maps because they are either just about Hungary where Zygiel has not changed a lot (except for marking Transylvania as a part of Hungary), or the maps are about the year 1000 or even the 10th century (900-1000) instead of the 1090s. Borders sometimes change a bit in merely 90 years. If you check your own reference map, you can see that Poole (for 1090) draw the borders of the Byzantine Empire a lot like Claude Zygiel has drawn them (for 1097) - not like the original historical map by Shepherd (for 1097). Even Foldrayz (for 1100) gives more room to the Byzantine Empire than Shepherd does. Another quite old reference map (File:Atlas of European history (1909) (14803819383).jpg) also shows Byzantium holding the Anatolian coastlines.

This map was made specifically to show Europe during the time of the first crusade. It finds use in most wikis to either illustrate the Seljuk and Byzantine Empires, or European history in general. Shepherds original map shows a dubious understanding of historical reality while Zygiel's alteration shows appropriate corrections. One because it appears to be false, the other because it pretends to be the old original. Both versions should be kept... neither should be used in Wikipedia.

In Wikipedia, we should present reliable academic sources by academic historians, not by personal fan art alternative history photoshopped by users. - Okay? Check William Shepherd's en-WP article: "was an American cartographer and historian specializing in American and Latin American history". He was not an academic expert in medieval European history, and even if he was, 112 years passed since the map was created. Shephard was a contemporary of Bryce, Mommsen, Rothert, Marx etc, and I wouldn't expect him to represent the newest research. I can't see direct hints pointing towards it being drawn by some other historian/expert. Did Shepherd just copy others? Who did he consult? Meanwhile, (for all his faults with overwriting old maps, being admonished about it time and time again, and still doing it... Zygiel, why can't you learn??) I haven't ever found Zygiel promoting alternate history in his alterations, he is merely correcting stuff. As long as Zygiel doesn't overwrite historical documents but just uploads corrected maps with references to his sources, I'm okay with that.

All of that aside, Commons is not Wikipedia. If you check the project scope again, you will find that Commons doesn't even base itself on "reliable academic sources". Zygiel's alteration can arguably be just as useful for educational purposes as Shepherd's original, so it's in scope. --Enyavar (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite the opinion of some nationalists who think that everything that does not correspond to their point of view is “falsified“ and “invented“, the “original“ Shepherd's map [1] is not neutral but takes sides for the austro-hungarian thesis of “Desert of the Avars” (Avar sivatag, Awarenwüste theory of Eduard Rössler) emitted during the 19-th century but reactived since the fall of communism. According with this thesis, the current overborders Magyars (who have become an issue in Hungarian domestic politics with the theme of their historical rights) are historiographically presented in secondary sources as “residual islands” of a Hungarian population that was initially uniform throughout the inner Carpathian arc, but later overwhelmed by “allogenous immigrants”. This thesis denies the presence, at the time of the arrival of the Magyars, of Slavic or Romance populations, affirming that following the massacre of all the Avars by the Carolingians in 805, the Magyars would have found a country devoid of any sedentary inhabitant, despite the attested existence of Slavic states such as Moravia or Blatnozeria and later the “banats” (vassal duchies) of Croatia, Serbia, Wallachians and others with their “seats” and their autonomy.
According to this hungarian thesis of “residual islands”, the diversity of the populations of “millennial Hungary” only began later, from the 13th century, by “immigration from the Balkans”, and would have become “massive" due to the Turkish conquest and then the Habsburgs established their military borders in the 17th century: thus, the Treaty of Trianon would be the culmination of a process of “decline by submersion of the original population”. This electoral theme impacts mainly the secondary sources from Germany, Austria and Hungary.
However, there is no scientific reason to consider the Austro-Hungarian thesis (shown here by Shepherd) as the only valid one, and the theses of the Balkan historians (including the Romanians) as all false (as the works of Roman Kovalev, (ed.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, Brill, pp. 151–236. ISBN 978-90-04-16389-8; Ian Mladjov, “Trans‐Danubian Bulgaria: Reality and Fiction“, in Byzantine Studies, n.s. 3, 1998 [2000], 85–128; Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu, “The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)“ in Ioan-Aurel Pop & Ioan Bolovan (eds.), History of Romania, Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) 2005, pp. 59–132. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4; Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500, University of Washington Press, 2011 ISBN 0-295-97291-2, [2], and Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century, Koninklijke Brill 2009, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.
This is why, having understood that an old map should not be modified, I drew another one, in the same style, but which shows the other thesis : [3], and clearly warning readers that this is a derivative, modified work, so that things are clear. Either way, maintaining the “original“ Shepherd's map [4] and deleting the modified one [5] is tantamount to telling readers that the only right ans serious theory is the disappearance of speakers of Eastern Romance languages ​​for a thousand years, and their inability, single-handedly, to cross the Carpathians, the Danube and the Balkans while all other peoples did so.  Keep as reference material and let us use it (except in the Hungarian wikipedia, this would be unthinkable, even insulting). Thank you. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)