Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copy-edit notice

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

My edit and any concerns editors have

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

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

See WP:LEADCITE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyeditor's comments

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

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

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

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

Other points:

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

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

"koroljъ ugrъrъsk" is OK, it is a standard transcription from Old Slavonic to Latin alphabet (ъ is an ultrashort vowel, "yer"). Ditinili (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Two Moravias

Can the theory about two Moravias be described as an alternative theory? If my understanding is correct most specialist agree that Rastislav's realm and Svatopluk's realm were two political entities in the 860s. If this is the case, why is the theory mentioned as an alternative theory? Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See Senga T.:La situation géographique de la Grande-Moravie et les Hongrois conquérants, p. 535. This "Regni Zuentibaldi" in Hungary between Danube and Tisza is a mainstream view? I am not sure what exactly do you mean by "two political entities". In the traditional view, Nitrava (Principality of Nitra) had some special status but it was clearly a part of the same empire as Morava - in the worst case from the expulsion of Pribina.Ditinili (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not clearly understand your above remark. Svatopluk's rule in Nitra is only a scholarly assumption, it is not a mainstream view. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think so... (internal organization of Great Moravia is off-topic here). However, the question was already answered. Senga's localization of his regnum somewhere to Hungarian puszta is far from the traditional (mainstream) view.Ditinili (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a version of a southern Moravia. Interestingly, I have seen maps in "mainstream" books which claim that Moravia occupied territories in the Hungarian puszta. Borsoka (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

However, it is a dispute about its borders and not about the core territories. Ditinili (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see. There is a debate among mainstream historians where were the two centers of the two realms, but the theory of (at least) two centers cannot be described as an alternative theory. Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, views on internal organization of Great Moravia cannot be described as "alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia". Ditinili (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Consequently, the subsection should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? One young Japanese researcher who spent some time in Hungary came with a very "original" theory that one of core territories of Great Moravia was not in Moravia or Slovakia, but somewhere in Hungarian puszta between Danube and Tisza - on a completely different place than traditional view localizes the core of Great Moravia. His alternative view is frequently mentioned in the literature as an example of alternative view on the location of Great Moravia (along with other alternative views) and you say that this is not and alternative view? Wow. --Ditinili (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? Did I say that Senga's theory should not be mentioned here? Borsoka (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? Why did you propose to delete the section? Ditinili (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it could be misunderstood. No, I think Senga's theory should be mentioned here. However, the theory of the existence of two Moravias is quite common in mainstream scholarship. Borsoka (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A theory about one Moravia in Moravia and another Moravia somewhere in the south (if we speak about Great Moravia and Puspoky-Nagy's + Senga's views) is definitely NOT "quite common in mainstream scholarship". I think, you are the author of the caption "Two Moravias".Ditinili (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)