Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia

Juraj Sklenár's view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ditinili, we agree that there are many books which make a short (!) mention of Sklenár and his theory. I understand that you want to prove something in connection with Boba's view, but we should follow our community rules. If the overwhelming majority of the peer reviewed books about the subject of this article does not describe Sklenár's work, we should not overemphasize it in order to prove our own POV. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It meets any criteria for notability. It is not "overemphasized", only summarized. In my opinion, there is not any problem to inform readers that Boba's arguments were not new and they were already taken into account by other historians before he published something.Ditinili (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you refer to some scholars who share your above view (I mean scholars who provide a detailed description of Skenar's work when writing about the history of Great Moravia)? Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"My above view" is that it is the first known scientific theory which suggested location of Great Moravia on the south, later expansion to the north, late annexation of Nitra by Svatopluk, etc, and the author supported his claims by Porfyrogenetos, some selected Frakish sources, Methodius's see and so on. This article does not contain anything else then a short summary of this notable theory. That's all. Please, focus on real problems like missing content. Ditinili (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you cannot verify your above approach and there are practically no scholars who provide a detailed description of Skenár's view when writing about the alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. If my understanding is not correct, please refer to your sources. Please understand that your or my or any editor's attempt to demostrate anything is not a valid argumentation in our community. Please do not remove the template message from the article while there is an ongoing debate on the Talk page and please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid, that your understanding is not correct. The notability of the theory has been already demonstrated and the text meets any wikipedia rule. It also seems that you are not able to distinguish between informing readers properly about some topic (e.g. that some theory based on similar arguments is not new) and alleged POV pushing (I assume that you mean this). If you really believe that it is "overemphasized in order to prove my own POV" than please, cite concrete sentence from the section pushing some POV. Somebody can say that it is too short or long, but definitely not that it is not neutral or undue to push some view. It means that the template is not used correctly. I suggest you to summarize which part of the text is problematic from your point of view. Ditinili (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read my second message here ([1]) again. Of course, we can make a short mention of Skenár's theory in this article, because there are many publications dedicated to the history of Great Moravia which do the same. However, we cannot refer to a publication dedicated to Skenar when writing of Great Moravia or the alternative theories about Great Moravia. However, if the vast majority of the scholarly works dedicated to the history of Great Moravia only makes a short reference to Skenár and his work, we cannot describe his views in details in this article either. For instance, Hungary is a country in Europe - however, we cannot push all information of Europe in the article dedicated to Hungary only because we found a reference to Hungary's location in the world. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

However, we cannot refer to a publication dedicated to Skenar when writing of Great Moravia or the alternative theories about Great Moravia

Argumentation that we cannot refer to the publication dedicated to Sklenar's work and his alternative theory about the location of Great Moravia (?!) because it is not a work about "alternative theories about location of Great Moravia" (???) is so obviously artificial and meaningless that it does not need any further comments. His theory is notable, referenced by recognized scholars and experts (e.g. Austrian Herwig Wolfram, Czech: Zdeněk Meřínský, Dušan Třeštík, Slovak: Richard Marsina, Ján Tibenský, etc). If I wish to provide details about his theory, I can cite his publication also directly and it will be compliant with all wikipedia rules. We can describe his view because it is notable and compliant with the subject of the article. That's all.

Please, follow my proposal and write which part of the section pushes POV or gives undue weight to some opinion, otherwise usage of "undue" tag is not compliant with its definition and will be removed.Ditinili (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above message again: I wrote of "a publication dedicated to Skenar". Of course, if there are peer reviewed publications about the alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia which describe Skenár's theory in details, we can cite them. I have never stated anything else. However, you have not cited a single book which is dedicated to the subject of the article, but wrote a long section based on a marginal study because you wanted to prove something. As soon as you can demonstrate that the section is in line with basic WP policies, we can stop this debate. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't have to demonstrate anything. If you added some template, it is YOUR responsibility to provide reason based on its definition. If you are not able to do so, tag will be removed. Ditinili (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I demonstrated the reasons why I added the template: please read again my second message here ([2]). If you cannot prove that your approach (a detailed inscription of Skenar's view instead of a short mention of it) is in line with the approach that peer reviewed books about the topic of the article follows, the whole section should be deleted as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you do not understand what does the term "original research" mean. I can cite every single sentence (and also from the original). --Ditinili (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above message again, more carefully here: ([3]). If the vast majority of peer reviewed books dedicated to the history of Great Morvia or to the alternative theories of its location only dedicate one or two sentences to Skenár's work, we cannot write dozens of sentences about the same subject in an article about the alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Could I add plenty of well-referenced information about Europe to the article about Hungary, because Hungary is a country in Europe? No, obviously, I could not, because peer-reviewed books about Hungary do not contain much information about the contintent. Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

2. The first work about some topic, which raised large attention in its times and is referenced also by modern authors meets any criteria for notability. The rest are your own additional rules, without any support in the official wikipedia policy.

If you have proved that your approach (a detailed inscription of Skenar's view instead of a short mention of it) is in line with the approach that peer reviewed books about the topic of the article follows, there would not be any debate. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not required by any wikipedia rule. "My approach" - to write one very short paragraph about the background, one paragraph with a summary of the theory and a very short info about reactions do not have to be validated by any "peer reviewed book". That's the standard way how to write about the topic. Stop to invent and to push your own rules. More, there is not any "detailed description". The authors who reference to this theory have a different approaches from "single sentence" or "one paragraph" to "half of the book".--Ditinili (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. No editor is entitled to edit articles according to his/her own POV. We all have to verify our approach based on peer reviewed publications. Could I add much information about sparrows to the article about Hungary, because I love sparrows? No, because I should prove that my taste is shared by authors of peer reviewed publications about Hungary. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There is not any original research, POV and the text is verifiable.--Ditinili (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Subjective statements about marginal studies or repeated accusations like "I wanted to prove something" are not sufficient to remove a single sentence or to use "undue" tag. I expect rational reasoning, how it pushes some view, which statement is not true, what have to be supposedly proven by the current text and what exactly should be removed or reworded to improve neutrality.Ditinili (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read your message here ([4]): it is you who want to demonstrate that "The fact that [Skenár's work] was ignored or unknown to Boba (or other similar authors) means nothing and at the best case, it can explain why he considered his theory to be somehow new of revolutionary and (missing or skeptic) reactions of Czech and Slovak historians.". I could highly appreciate your research if it would be first published in a peer reviewed book. Sorry, you have so far only referred to one single book which describes in details Skenár's work (and that single book is not dedicated to the history of Great Moravia). Do you think that a single book cannot be regarded as marginal? Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement, that the work was unknown to Boba but known by Slovaks and Czechs is in my opinion correct and neutral. Hovewer, this statement is from this discussion, not from the article, thus, it cannot reason undue tag or to be cited by peer review book until it is in the article. I don't rely on any "marginal" studies, I can cite the original. I have at least three in the library. What rule was violated, what is undue in the section and how to improve it? Ditinili (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dont'be ridiculous, you put an equality sign between Boba's and Sklenar's works. Sklenar is not a present-day scholar, the aim of his work was politically motivated, it's called "pseudo-science". Boba's theory is NOT ignored by modern-day scholars, on the contrary, he is widely cited in contemporary studies. I don't know exactly why you want to push Sklenar's theory in this way, I suspect you are trying to discredit the importance of Boba's work. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not "ridiculous". I have never said that he is a present-day scholar. I have said that he was the first who published such theory and that the text meets all wikipedia rules. His motivation changes nothing on the fact that he used similar arguments as Boba or some other authors and he was the first who did it. More, the text already contains an opinion that also Boba's work was politically motivated, however I do not care about policy, but history. I do not "push" his theory (e.g. I have never stated that it has to be preferred or it is valid). I only described it and I did it in very neutral way. It does not "discredit the importance of Boba's work". How it can discredit his work? --Ditinili (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The main weight of the text should be about present-day scholarly debates and not about an ignored theory of a more than 200 years old "historian". It seems POV-pushing even though the citations themselves are largely factual. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"The main weight of the text should be on present-day scholarly debates". I don't have any problem with this statement. So focus on real problems, like missing text for other theories. Which Wikipedia rule does not allow to summarize the first published theory, especially if it contains a lot of arguments "reinvented" later? POV-pushing is a censorship of information to make some theory more innovative.Ditinili (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And we should not mislead the readers of WP by providing information that is not relevant, according to the vast majority of scholars who have written about the subject of the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

All the information in the section are correct. They cannot "misguide" anybody. I don't see any wikipedia rule why the first published theory, already including a lot of later arguments and summarized in neutral way cannot be included.Ditinili (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I copy my previous answers here from above: "Please read my above message again, more carefully here: ([5]). If the vast majority of peer reviewed books dedicated to the history of Great Morvia or to the alternative theories of its location only dedicate one or two sentences to Skenár's work, we cannot write dozens of sentences about the same subject in an article about the alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Could I add plenty of well-referenced information about Europe to the article about Hungary, because Hungary is a country in Europe? No, obviously, I could not, because peer-reviewed books about Hungary do not contain much information about the contintent." "You are wrong. No editor is entitled to edit articles according to his/her own POV. We all have to verify our approach based on peer reviewed publications. Could I add much information about sparrows to the article about Hungary, because I love sparrows? No, because I should prove that my taste is shared by authors of peer reviewed publications about Hungary. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR." Borsoka (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

1. There is not any original research. Every single sentence is cited or can be cited directly from the original or from the exhausting study about this work if you have any doubts.
2. There is not any problem with verifiability. All the facts can be verified and are referenced.
3. There is not any POV. The text is absolutely neutral.
4. Your comparison with sparrows in meaningless. I hope you can understand the difference between description of "the first published alternative theory about location of Great Moravia" in the article about "alternative location of Great Moravia" and your example.

POV-pushing is your trial to conceal a mention that this theory existed long before Boba, used similar argumentation, a lot of these arguments were already discussed by prominent Slovak, Czech and Hungarian scholars before Boba came with his theory and not my neutral description of the publication. Ditinili (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand anything, but we should accept scholars' approach without innovating our new approaches when presenting a subject. Why do you think the vast majority of the scholars who has written of the history of Great Moravia or of the alternative theories of its location makes only a short mention of Skenár's work? Borsoka (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, I have never wanted to conceal a mention that his theory existed. Please the above discussion again: I have always emphasized that we should shortly mention him and his theory, because this is the way the vast majority of the relevant scholarly literature deals with this issue. Borsoka (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not "inovate anything". The text meets all wikipedia rules (as you understand) and it is largely factual (as Fakirbakir confirmed). Also, I will not speculate why the vast majority of the scholars who has written of the history of Great Moravia or of the alternative theories of its location makes only a short mention of Toru Sengas's theory, but I will describe Toru Senga's theory, because it is the subject of the article and if we speak about these alternative theories, it is notable. Ditinili (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the basic difference between our approach: you want to write of "The Southern Moravia of Skenár", "The Southern Moravia of Boba", "The two Moravias of Toru Senga", "The two Moravias of Kristó", even if this approach is not in line with the one peer reviewed books follow. Should we create sections in the article Great Moravia in accordance with the scholars who wrote about Great Moravia: "The History of Great Moravia according to Marsina", "The History of Great Moravia according to Trestik", etc. I think this approach is absurd and cannot be substantiated by any WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that your different view on structure of chapters is not sufficient for the "undue tag" or for removing the text as an "original research" as you proposed. I am removing the tag. I suggest to focus on addition of the missing content, instead of discussion about hypothetical examples.Ditinili (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not ignore my above remarks ([6]) which suggest that your approach contradicts to the vast majority of the scholarly works dedicated to the subject of the article. WP is not a place to propagate our own approach when writing about a specific subject. I suggest you should wait for the result of the below RfC instead of continuing your edit war. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to follow rules of wikipedia and not your own rules. It is not a good idea to delete the text which should be evaluated during RfC. Ditinili (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Sklenár's theory

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include a detailed explanation of Juraj Sklenár's theory. The majority opinion is that it is important information and that the article should be updated with other information to balance it. AlbinoFerret 00:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain a detailed explanation of Juraj Sklenár's theory? Fakirbakir (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The vast majority of the academic works about the subject of the article makes only a short remark of Sklenár and his theory. This article is not dedicated to Sklenár and his 18th-century work and we should follow the practise adopted by academics in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:Weight. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A notable work for the following reasons: the first published scientific theory about alternative location of Great Moravia, theory raised intensive discussion involving prominent scholars from three present-day countries, included a lot of arguments rediscovered in 1970s and 1990s, referenced as the first such work by prominent modern scholars like Herwig Wolfram (ex-Director of the Austrian Institute for Historical Research), Zdeněk Meřínský (Head of Department of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University), Richard Marsina (one of founders of modern Slovak historiography, ex-head of the Slovak Historical Society) and others. Two detailed studies about his work and theory were published before Boba's work by Jan Tibenský (founder of the Slovak Society for History of Science and Technology). The alleged original research was never documented.Ditinili (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Question: Do Herwig Wolfram, Zdeněk Meřínský, Richard Marsina provide a full description of Sklenár's theory (including his argumentation) in their books dedicated to the history of Great Moravia or to the alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer: The full description can be found in Tibenský's works (or e.g. Marsina, Richard (2000). "Historik Juraj Sklenár (1744 – 1790)". In Ján, Bobák. Historický zborník (in Slovak) 10 (1). Martin: Matica slovenská. ISBN 80-7090-573-5, edited). Other authors confirm an importance of the Sklenar's work and that he was the first who published such theory. E.g. Marsina does it repeatedly in his various works (there was an argument that Sklenar is a pseudo-scientists, but according to Marsina Sklenar was "the most qualified and the most critical historian of Bernolak's generation", even if Marsina says that this his geographics interpretation was incorrect). There is not any wikipedia rule which requires that all authors or their vast majority have to describe some theory in details, if the theory is according to other criteria notable.Ditinili (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the above answer. I think the proper approach is clear now. Borsoka (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't mind if we mention Sklenar's theory however there is no need for a detailed explanation because the article should focus on present-day scholarly debates (Sklenar's hypothesis is about 230 years old and mostly ignored by modern-day scholars), WP:Weight. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This article was created to describe alternative theories about Great Moravia as a compromise solution during NPOV resolution process, without any additional restrictions currently used to reason removing of Sklenar theory. The text is not detailed, it's cca 3x shorter than the Boba's theory and also shorter than an introduction preceding this text.Ditinili (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. this is an article dedicated to a specialist subject - so I do not see why the individual and his theory that seems to have initiated that subject should not be dealt with in depth. If it results in a content imbalance in relation to present-day scholarly debates, expand those sections - it is not as if the article is overly long. Reading through that section though there seem to be a lot of opinions by later writers about the background to why Sklenar's work was produced which are expressed as if they were facts rather than opinions. I think it would be better to separate things more: give an account of his theory, then the opinions of later commentators on it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but balance. I agree with every word of what Tiptoethrutheminefield just wrote. The problem is not that the historical theory is mentioned or that it's being given undue weight; rather, no one is bothering to update the article with more current hypotheses. The undue weight in the article is that devoted to criticizing Sklenár's hypothesis as if it existed as a lone monolith, instead of presenting alternatives to it clearly. If that were done, then were would be little need to go on and on about problems with Sklenár's idea. The tone and approach are wrong. This is not the "Criticisms of Sklenár's alternative theory of the location of Great Moravia" article, and it's a poor idea to "fix" the article by removing content rather than by adding more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that the real problem is missing content. I also agree that this is not the "Criticisms of Sklenár's alternative theory", but in my opinion, the section is not written in such style. The core of the text is just factual description of the theory + the short mention about some political influences and rejection by other historians. Both points are valid, without unnecessary details. Ditinili (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm responding primarily to the RfC's own wording which seems to suggest (through reverse psychology) "Should the article be stripped of a detailed explanation of Juraj Sklenár's theory?" The answer is obviously "no". Concerns about too much focus on Sklenár are best served by adding material about alternative views, not a) adding more criticism of Sklenár's view that is just criticism without presenting a cohesive alternative, nor b) removing information about Sklenár's view. I did not mean to imply that existing material critical of Sklenár is excessive or should be removed, only that there's a balance issue of a "Sklenár said A, B, C, and problems raised with this are X, Y, Z" focus, which can be resolved with a structure of "Historically, Sklenar said A, B, C; modern alternative views are M, N, O", in which the X, Y, Z problems with Sklenár's view are implicit and not listed as a litany of Sklenár's fault. The article Evolution is a good model; it covers Darwin's early formulation as a stepping stone, and focuses on current theory, without delving into "Darwin had to be corrected on X, Y, Z" pot-shots. Any "What Darwin didn't know" material we feel is encyclopedic should probably be shunted to Darwinism or Modern evolutionary synthesis. There is no (and surely will be no) "Sklenárism" or "Modern Great Moravian synthesis" article to move historical criticism to, so here we need to integrate it in a way that doesn't focus the article on "What Sklenár didn't know". Frankly, readers mostly don't care unless they're school kids doing a research assignment on Sklenár. The important material is what the current thinking is and what the evidence for it is. (And despite being a "drive-by" respondent via WP:FRS, I actually care topically, having had a Moravian great-great-grandmother. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Trestik opinion about localization of Vulgarii

Geographer wrote of the tribes to the north of the Danube. Please see Eggers' localization of Vulgarii (map 18). This is exactly what is criticized by Trestik. There is not any reason to remove properly sourced content.--Ditinili (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if Trestik says that the Vulgari (who are mentioned in a list of the peoples living to the north of the Danube) lived in fact to the south of the Danube, we can mention this. However, we should emphasize that this is a minority view. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Třeštík does not say that these people (Vulgarii) lived to the south of the Danube, even if Bavarian Geographer mentioned them as people living to the north of Danube. It seems that you are not able to distinguish between early medieval Turkic Bulgars and the location of present-day Bulgaria, which is really in the south of Danube. Třeštík identification and localization of "Vulgarii" is compliant with opinions of numerous other historians. Something, what is really "original" is a theory that they lived in the territory which is (more or less) modern Slovakia. It also means that your comment "Trestik's minority view against Eggers' minority view???" is just your misunderstanding.Ditinili (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, for my misunderstanding. Where did the Vulgari live, according to Trestik? Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the khaganate, definitely not in Slovakia in the area assumed in Eggers.Ditinili (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the list, the Vulgari are listed after the Marhari and before the Merehani. You obviously do not know, but the Merehani are located to present-day Banat or even further to the south by many mainstream historians who do not live in Slovakia (I refer to the Romanian Dumitru Țeicu and the Polish Henryk Łowmiański). Where was the khaganate located, according to Trestik? Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I obviously know :-) that there are at least 3 theories how to explain unclear mention about "Merehani". Please, stop with permanent guessing what historians wrote or other editors know.--Ditinili (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, here are made no guesses. I only asked where were the Vulgari located, according to Trestik. If my understand is correct this simple question cannot be answered based on Trestik's work. Borsoka (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

": OMG, Vulgarii are Bulgars, whose realm expanded to the Carpathian Basin, north of the Danube.--Ditinili (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. He says that the Bulgars controlled parts of the Carpathian Basin, but not territories in present-day Slovakia. Would you clarify this in the article for those stupid WP users who has not read so much about the history of Slovakia in Czech and Slovak historians' work as you did. Unfortunatelly, in my country, Trestik's wiew about the borders of Bulgaria is not part of basic education. Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that with thousands of unearthed graves from this period we do have not to rely exclusively on written sources and we do not have to guess who lived here. Another question is, how to compress Vugarii "regio immensa" to Slovakia and how to interpret numerous castles in the light of Geographers's mention about Vulgarii "who do not have a custom to build castles". Just FYI, there are more Great Moravian castles in present-day Slovakia than in Moravia (probably because of different geographical conditions and a different settlement structure). Ditinili (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that you know the truth because you have read so many books written in Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. However, can you imagine that there are mainstream scholars who say that those graves from the lowlands prove the survival of Avar groups in the whole Carpathians Basin (including southeastern Slovakia)? Can you imagine that the theory about the existence of more Great Moravian castles in Slovakia than in Moravia is not accepted by mainstream historians outside Slovakia? Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there are not any mainstream scholars who say that these remnant Avar groups (or some allied nomadic "Avar" tribes) occupied the whole Slovakia except Záhorie until the second half of the 9th century as Eggers believe. I am also very curious to mainstream scholars who question the existence of Great Moravian castles in Slovakia. I think that presentation of some dendrochronological or radiocarbon data will be very useful ;-) Nowadays, when the research is performed by international teams and analyses are performed frequently in Austria, this is a little bit naive belief.Ditinili (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above remarks. I have not say that remnant Avar group occupied all Slovakia and I did not say that no "Great Moravian" castles existed in Slovakia. Borsoka (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A theory about survival of "some" (some) Avars is far from the Eggers's theory.

Yes, I can imagine that some less informed scholars from other countries can believe that Moravia had more "castles" (it is not a competition, but a simple counting). However, the question is not "where were more castles", but how to interpret Geographer's mention that "Vulgarii do not have a custom to build castles", because it strongly contradicts the situation in Slovakia. Ditinili (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your research, but we still do not know what Eggers wrote. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is not any my research. If you did not read the source, do not edit the article.Ditinili (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand some basic principles of WP. Please read WP:Verifiability. If you cannot verify that you know what Eggers wrote we cannot accept your edits. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article meets WP:Verifiability. It contains a full reference to Egger's work + page numbers for concrete statements. What is not properly sourced is your guessing what could he write. If you believe that Eggers wrote something and you want to include it in the article, it is your responsibility to provide sources and not my responsibility to validate your theories. I will handle any removal of properly sourced text as vandalism.Ditinili (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I see you cannot answer may simple question about Eggers' theory. It is quite remarkable in itself. Borsoka (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, you are responsible for providing references for your theories, not me.Ditinili (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read Eggers' work or only his critics' publications? Borsoka (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I would like to send you a copy of reservation of the Egger's book from the university library, copies of invoices for Boba's and Bowlus's from Amazon and some other info, like my subscription on jstore. Please, give me some contact. Ditinili (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to contact you outside WP. If you read his book, why are not you able to answer my simple question. Does he connect the griffin-tendril motifs and the Vulgari or not? Borsoka (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC

The aswer is very simple. I am not your servant and if you want to include some information, do what I did. Buy or borrow some books, read them and then go and edit the article. If I accept your "excelent" approach - you do nothing, but guess what could be written and I will check it for you, I will do it for ever. If you don't know anything about the topic, do not contribute. --Ditinili (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your approach is quite unusual in our community, but it is not my problem. I have also experienced that you believe, you had a deep knowledge of the topic. I do not want to disturb your faith. Please remember your above words in the future. Borsoka (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My approach is OK - read and cite sources. Please, do the same.Ditinili (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Slovak archaeologists tend to attribute all archaeological finds to Avarized Slavs (???)

Avar or Avar-Slavic settlements are documented only in areas of southern Slovakia. So, it does not matter if you attribute them to Avars, Slavized Avars or Avarized Slavs. By the way, such comment and opinion is obviously incorrect and biased.--Ditinili (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you say that Eggers only spoke of Slovakia? Or Eggers' reference to Avars in the lands to the north of the Danube can only be interpreted in connection with Slovakia? What about Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I say that your theory, that "Slovak archaeologist tend to attribute all archaeological finds to Avarized Slavs" is total nonsense and it can be easily refuted by citations from sources already referenced in the article. Such unserious personal opinions and (unsourced) statements are not a reason to relativize any results of the research.

"Or Eggers' reference to Avars in the lands to the north of the Danube can only be interpreted in connection with Slovakia? What about Moravia?" The western border of Eggers' "Gebeit der Vulgarii" at map no. 18 is somewhere in Little Carpathians (= western Slovakia), Bratislava is already outside of this territory and river Morava is obviously also outside, relatively deep in "Mahren zu Bohmen". Have you ever seen this map?

(By the way, there are not any Avar findings in Moravia which are comparable with southern Slovakia. There are some localities, but the difference is significant). --Ditinili (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your above clarification. So if my understanding is correct, Eggers say that Vulgari inhabited the region to the north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, have you ever seen his map? If you don't know his map, what we are talking about?Ditinili (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. We are talking about your edits. Did Eggers say that Vulgari inhabited the region to the north of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he did.Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And what about his Avars to the north of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the Avars lived to the north of the Danube. Unfortunately, in the different time and in the different place than it was assumed by Eggers. Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. So Eggers says that the Avars lived to the north of the Danube, but not in the time when he assumes that they lived there, because he says that the Vulgari lived to the north of the Danube when the Avars lived in the same territory, according to him. Are you sure that you properly summarized Eggers' view? Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You probably missed that Eggers "Vulgarii" are "Awarische restgruppen" (remnant Avar groups).Ditinili (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I have never read Eggers' view, but I assume that his view is the following: (1) Archaeological finds (griffin-tendril motifs) suggest that the lowlands to the north of the Danube were inhabited by the Onogur Bulgars in the Avar Khaganate from the 680s (2) After the fall of the Avar Khaganate they became independent, which is proven by the Bavarian Geographer's reference to the Vulgari between the Marhari and Merehani. Is this a correct summary? Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me summary. You did not read his work and you even did not read the reactions. I encourage you to read at least one of them. I believe that it is better way how to contribute instead of making changes based on your assumptions about "Slovak archaeologists", guessing what Eggers, Třeštík or other historian wrote, making conclusions based on your poor knowledge of their works, followed by discussions about the correctness of your speculations. Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not know, but the identification of the griffin-tendril motif with Onogur Bulgars is quite common in Hungarian (and Bulgarian) historiography. And the presentation of large territories to the north of the Danube as a territory where objects decorated with griffins and tendrils were excavated is also quite common. Therefore, I must repeat my above question: was my above summary about Eggers' theory about the Vulgarii correct? Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, read my suggestion above.Ditinili (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So, if my understanding is correct, you cannot answer my simple question. If you cannot answer it, how could you summarize his views about the Vulgarii? Borsoka (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I will simply not waste my time with apporoach "guess and clarify", I believe that reading the original and reading the reaction is much more better way how to do things.Ditinili (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, if you do not know what Eggers wrote of the Vulgarii, we should delete delete Trestik's remark about Eggers' views of the Vulgarii. Borsoka (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are able to cite some unsourced or incorrect statements, why not. I cannot see any problem in the article. (Please, use cn template if you are not sure if something is in the work).Ditinili (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, as per WP:NPOV: "Sorry, if you do not know what Eggers wrote of the Vulgarii, we should delete delete Trestik's remark about Eggers' views of the Vulgarii." Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You can barely know what is POV or NPOV, because you did not read any of discussed works. If you are able to show that something is not properly cited, something is intentionally concealed or not in the source than we can discuss it. Ditinili (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Eggers' sources

What sources were used by Eggers? As far as I know, the Bavarian Geographer was compiled in the 9th century, Constantine Porphyrogennitus wrote his work about 50 years after the fall of Moravia. Did Eggers ignore to use these works? Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Horace Lunt, Eggers primarily refers to Constantine Porphyrogennitus, the Conversio Bagarorum and the Frankish Annals. Lunt also says that Trestik is emotionally driven when writing of Eggers. Should we emphasize Trestik's remark of the non-use of 9th-century sources by Eggers if this cannot be substantiated, according to a neutral scholar? Borsoka (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that a theort about "emotionally driven reaction" is a very poor argumentation. I cannot say if somebody was "emotionally driven" or not, but I think that Lunt also cannot and this is a very subjective statement. There is a detailed reaction focused on inconsistencies and factual mistakes. Where is Trestik "remark of the non-use of 9th-century sources by Eggers" in the article? --Ditinili (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, Lunt was wrong. However, he is a neutral scholar, and he experienced that Eggers' heresy caused a quite unusual reaction among traditional historians. Borsoka (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the reaction is normal, but the theory is unusual. Lunt is not a "neutral scholar". He is a linguist, not a historian.--Ditinili (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

However, he is the reviewer choses by a peer-reviewed journal to write of Eggers' theory. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

He could be a "reviewer", however:

1. He did not review Trestik analysis at all as it is clear from his article. Trestik published a relatively large analysis in a scientific historical journal. Lunt as "reviewer" who had absolutely none qualification in historical science, even did not mention his analysis. He mentioned some article in Lidové noviny what is not any scientific journal, but daily newspaper, has a completely different format, style, porpose and readers.

2. The opinion that a linguist (a linguist?!) = the expert who has none qualification in historical science is competent to "refute" or "correct" opinions of recognized historians is obviously wrong (unless he speaks about philology or something similiar).

3. It means that his opinion should not be included at all and if it is (for whatever reason) it definitely cannot have the same weight as the opinions of scientists who are experts in the field. --Ditinili (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Source. He was asked by the editors of a peer reviewed journal to review a work and his review was published by the same peer reviewed journal. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he was, but he was not an expert. Was he? He did not write a single line about Trestik analysis referenced in the article. Did he?

Maybe. Fortunatelly, we do not need to evaluate him, because the editors of a peer reviewed journal chose him to write of the theory. Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioning a fact that he is not an expert in the field or a strange trial to make a false impression that he reviewed the work referenced in the article sounds like some kind of POV-pushing. If his work is included (I think that it is not completely relevant) then his qualification and the scope of his review have to be very clear. Ditinili (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. WP is not a place where you can publish the results of your own research of the works of scholars who published their views in peer reviewed books. Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, there are two options:

a) we will not include his opinion in the article because he is not an expert, so it is not relevant

b) we will mention his opinion because it was published but we will also make clear that he is not an expert and that he does not write a single line about the Trestik's analysis

Please, confirm which solution do you prefer. Until it is clear, I will preserve "clarify tag". Thank you.Ditinili (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That he is a linguist is mentioned twice in the article. Otherwise, we do not need to carry out our own original research. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not carry any OR. Lunt (not me) wrote that he is a linguist and not a historian, what can be also easilly verified. Lunt wrote that he speaks about some article in Lidove Noviny. Lunt did not reference Trestik's analysis. You probably missed these facts at the beginning and I don't see any reason why you should misguide also other readers. The real problem is that the article presents opinions of the "reviewer" who is not an expert in the field and not that there is mentioned twice that he is not an expert. If you really want to include such opinions, I recommend to be very careful and really emphasize his lack of qualification. Otherwise, readers can miss it very easilly and we will create a false balance.Ditinili (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that Trestik could not properly summarize his views in Lidove Noviny? Interestingly, in your world scholars who write of their own theories tend to misinterprete them. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I say that Lunt (who is not a historian) did not react on his scientific analysis. This is true. Is it or not?

I don't think that Trestik improperly summarized his view when he wrote that that Eggers's work is "hopelessly incompentent". However, he did not only published such opinion in daily newspaper for an average reader, but he also published serious analysis for professional historians why does he think so.Ditinili (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Trestik wrote an improper synthesis of his own views in a daily newspaper for an average reader and he could not convince a philologist and linguist. Nevertheless, Lunt's view was published in a peer reviewed journal. Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide any reference supporting your opinion that he wrote an improper synthesis of his own work? Or do you again create own theories about works you have never read?

Please, could you answer which solution do you prefer? a) or b)? Ditinili (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) No, it is you who implied that Trestik's own summary of his views cannot be qualified by an other scholar, because it was published in a newspaper. If Trestik summarized his theory properly, why do you think that Lunt's view about Trestik's summary cannot be cited? (2) None, because (a) his view was published in a peer reviewed journal; (b) WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I only said that we have to prevent a false impression that Lunt wrote about Trestik scientific analysis. Please, tell me what is OR (according to you) in the statement that Lunt is not a historian and in the description what he really reviewed. Then, I will immediately request help of other editors to help us decide, if it is really OR. Ditinili (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not state that the statement that he is not a historian is OR: it is he who states this in his cited work (I have never wanted to delete this statement from the article). Would you cite a reliable source stating that Lunt did not write "a single line about Trestik's analysis". Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The objective of Lunt review is Eggers's and not Trestik's work, as it is stated already in the title of the article, p. 945. Trestik is mentioned only in p. 947. However, this mention is not about Trestik scientific analysis (Třeštík, Dušan (1996). "Das Großmährische Reich" – Realität:::::::::::::::::::::::: oder Fiktion?: eine Neuinterpretation der Quellen zur Geschichte des mittleren Donauraumes im 9. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1995 [recenze]". Český časopis historický (in Czech) (Praha: Historický ústav Akademie věd ČR) 94. ISSN 0862-6111.) and this analysis is not mentioned by a single word. This can be verified by checking Lunt pp. 945-948. So, the statement that Lunt's review does not cover nor mention Trestik scientific analysis is completely valid. Readers should not be misguided, especially if you probably also believed that it does. Just FYI, the scope of this analysis is far from the scope of some article in newspaper and pp. 92-93 explicitly address questions of nationalism.

As you can see, there is not any original research. Ditinili (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Again: who is the scholar who established that Lunt did not read Trestik's analysis? Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the statement that Lunt is not a historian and his review does not adress Trestik's scientific analysis is already properly sourced and does not need any other scholar. Feel free to ask other editors for some help and clarification.--Ditinili (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you name the scholar who established that Lunt did not read Trestik's analysis? Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, read my proposal b). It contains only what can be documented and verified.Ditinili (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you name the scholar who established that Lunt did not read Trestik's analysis? Borsoka (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I will not, because it is not my proposal to include such text. My proposal was described already here at 06:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC). Please, focus on my real proposal. Thank you very much. I have already documented that Lunt really did not write a single line about Trestik analysis. Ditinili (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that you have stated that Lunt did not write of Trestik's analysis. However, I do not understand why your research is relevant here. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I did not only "state" something, but I also proved it. It´s a huge difference. If something is not relevant, it is an opinion of non-historian about historical theories and about the works of recognized experts. However, because you wish to include this opinion, it must be clear what is his qualification and what is in the scope of his review, just to prevent misunderstandings. However, you try to prevent this formally correct information so much, that it seems that you just want to prevent information which you dislike. Ditinili (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you obviously do not understand basic WP policies, including WP:NOR. For instance, you view of a non-historian's opinion about historical theories is not relevant if he was chosen by the editors of a peer reviewed journal to write that opinion. Likewise, nothing which cannot be verified by a statement made by the author of a peer-reviewed work can be presented. Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I understand WP policies well. You have asked me the following question: "Would you cite a reliable source stating that Lunt did not write "a single line about Trestik's analysis?" I did it and it can be very easily verified. The article is available here: [7].

What happened? You tried to remove undesired opinions of two recognized historian and you explained it by review of "neutral reviewer" (proof is e.g. here [8]. Then, it become clear that this reviewer had not any qualification in historical sciences and he even did not reference the work for which you removed citation (he does not and whatever else is an obvious lie). Instead of recognizing your mistake, you did everything to not include undesired information.

Once again, another constructive proposal:

We can shortly mention Lunt, because his opinion was published. However, it will be a short mention because he had not any qualification and his opinion cannot be presented as equal to opinions of recognized experts (= false balance). Example: ...opinions of recognized experts... On the other hand, Eggers views received some support from Horace Lunt, who is not a historian but a linguist. Footnote: Lunt's view and what he wrote about. If you accept this proposal, I will not include information that he did not write a single line about Trestik analysis.Ditinili (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the above is not a constructive proposal. Please try to avoid using adjectives that are not based on reliable sources, but on your own thoughts. You still do not understand that your own research is not a reliable source for WP purposes. If you publish your views of Lunt, Trestik, etc in a peer reviewed journal, you can refer to your own work. However, for the time being, your adjectives are words that are irrelevant for WP purposes. On the other hand, I could verify that Trestik's methodology was sharply criticized by an expert of the field of Early Medieval History (Florin Curta) - should I mention it in this article? I suggest that we both should stay neutral when editing. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you turned down my previous proposals, but you did not offer any concrete solution, I made an experimental change.

Basic principles:

- preventing False balance: the opinion of the author without any qualification in historical sciences is mentioned, but it has not the same weight in the article as opinions of recognized experts. I don't have any problem with mentioning a similar view of a qualified historian, if such view can be properly sourced.

- Sources/NOR - everything is properly sourced and can be verified.

Please, let me know any incompatibility with wikipedia rules before making further changes. I will open RFC if you believe that some rule was violated. Ditinili (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please try to avoid your own rules. You may not know, but there are many editors who can edit this article without a special approval from you. If a scholar's view was interesting enough to be chosen by the editors of a peer-reviewed journal to write a review, we should not hide it. His text was shortened. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG. I am not inventing my own rules. I am really trying to reach a consenzus and compromise. I agree with any shortening of the view of the author without a qualification.Ditinili (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)