Talk:Bitola inscription

Falsified Study

The following paragraph:

On the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies in 2016, archaeologists Elena Kostić and Georgios Velenis—who worked on the field with the plate itself—reported that on the very top part of the plate, there were holes and channels to fit Π-shaped metal joints. Therefore, the plate could not have the 13th row and that it was more likely that the plate was part of a much older object from the Roman period. Based on the form of the used letters, they gave the date 1202–1203, when Kaloyan was the Bulgarian ruler. Nevertheless both researchers have summarized that most researchers who studied the inscription believe that the inscription is the last written source of the First Bulgarian Empire with an accurate dating, some others argued it is from the 13th century and only a single study proclaimed it as a forgery.

seems to have been falsified in its entirety. I chased down both sources. The first one, The Issue of the Pre-Dated Inscriptions in Contrary with the Falsified, actually exists but concerns a completely different inscription—in a church in Edessa. It was claimed to date back to Samuel's reign, but was actually a later forgery, which has been proven several times already. Here the two researchers present another argument in favour of the forgery, by comparing the shape of the letters.

The second source is not a source. I downloaded the entire transcript of the proceedings, which was about half a gigabyte. Not even a menton about Elena Kostić and Georgios Velenis or the Bitola Inscription. They did not even participate in the congress (!!!).

I would like for someone to corroborate this (cause there is always the possibility that I am going senile or something), preferably not a Bulgarian. However, the only Macedonian I would trust not to lie to my face is Steve McKey. Or however it's spelled, I'm probably butchering the name. Until corroboration comes, the paragraph should stay here.

I have to say this sort of thing is getting increasingly more common—from the North Macedonian side. Over the past year, I have discovered, on multiple occasions, statements that directly refute or misrepresent the source they are quoting. However, this is a new low. I hope to have the time to look through the edits and see who has done this. I believe there is one person doing these things and although I am fuzzy on what Wikipedia's policy is, I think if they actually do this over and over again, they should be run out of Wikipedia. This is sociopathic behaviour. VMORO 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, please keep your national battleground mentality to yourself. I'd strongly recommend you redact everything you wrote above about what you think about Macedonian contributors. This attitude will get you blocked or topic-banned otherwise.

About the issue at hand, the passage in question was first introduced here by User:Forbidden History, in 2020. This was certainly introduced in very poor form, but contrary to what you saw, it seems that at the very least there is a relevant contribution by authors Kostić and Velenis in the 23 International Congress of Byzantine Studies. It was published in the "Thematic Sessions of Free Communications" part of the online proceedings, not in the "Plenary Papers" (which may be the reason you couldn't find it), but it is at the page given, p.128, in that volume, online here. The authors do claim that the plaque didn't have a lost upper line of text as reconstructed earlier by Zaimov. They also say that the date in the text that was interpreted as 1015/17 by earlier editors was in fact misread and that in reality it's clearly readable as 1203/04. So, while I'm not sure this is a fully reliable source in the absence of a more formal and full publication, and while its summary in the present form is far from satisfactory, the reference is certainly not a complete fabrication.

Now, having said this, it is of course high time that this article be fixed and rewritten, by defocussing the entire inane and petty nationalist point-scoring that seems to have been the only perspective Wikipedia editors from all "sides" have ever brought to this topic. The idiocy inherent in using this artifact as a mere pretext for nationalist polemics over that "Bulgarian" word is breathtaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The paragraph above contained original research introduced by the Macedonian editor (who is now topic banned) mentioned above, which I removed. Apart from that, the paragraph is not really originally researched, but it could be rewritten if needed. We could also consult WP:RSN if needed, since I'm unsure about the reliability of the source too. I'm open to all suggestions on how to fix and rewrite this article. I tried to distance it from fringe views as much as I could. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stance here that's a bit offtopic. VMORO, although there are indeed Macedonian editors who are not correct in their edits, StephenMacky1 is an example of a completely objective editor. Jingiby (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The alternative dating section is about a fringe views and is too long for an undue weight issue. It must be much shorter. No need to remove credible sources from it. Jingiby (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We could do away with the whole section. There is no reason to have such a section when reliable sources do not dispute the dating. Considering that it has been subject to POV pushing, I think that's the best option. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see why views devoid of elementary logic and common sense should be so widely advocated in this article. Jingiby (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The section presents other reliable sources advocating for an alternative dating. Although Wikipedia does stick with the mainstream view, it also describes other relevant views. In this case there are reliable and/or authoratative sources and figures advocating for an altervative view, hence it should remain.

Again, calling those views "devoid of elementary logic" seems quite one-sided and unconstructive. The mainstream view is presented in the entire article and having a section on alternative dating won't lead the reader of the article to have a skewed perception on the inscriptions' dating.

I moved the bit about the kinship etc. in a more suitable category, as it describes the content of the text. Also having a paragraph based on one source nearly as long as one based on multiple reliable soures seems undue. Kluche (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONSENSE, Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use Common sense as you go about editing. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. The common sense says, there is no logic this Bulgarian ruler from the inscription, called Ivan, who claimed to be the grandson of Comita Nikola and Ripsimia of Armenia, and son of Aron of Bulgaria, who was Samuel of Bulgaria's brother, to be Ivan Asen, Kaloyan, etc., rulers who lived centuries later. The only historical person whose origin fits this description is Ivan Vladislav. And this categorically defeats the other options. Therefore, I insist that these marginal views be reduced as much as possible.Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the relevance (or reliability) of these sources and views, considering how they have received almost no attention from reliable sources. It appears that only Bulgarian sources have addressed these views. While there are cases where Wikipedia can present other relevant views, at the end of the day, it's still an encyclopedia where mostly mainstream knowledge is to be presented. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, I do not understand your position. May you please, explain clearer your final proposal. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. I think the whole section should be removed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is who I meant by "Steve McKey" (= [User:StephenMacky1]), and I agree with you. VMORO 04:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, bla-bla-bla. If I had a "nationalist background mentality", I wouldn't have wanted the sources to be corroborated by a non-Bulgarian editor now, would I? Both previous sources were fallacious, weren't they? You have a remarkable tendency to launch into personal attacks given that you are an administrator. But whatever, thank you for the source you've dug up. VMORO 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see why Lunt's views should be removed. Kostic and Velenis does not seem to have received much attention yet. And the final paragraph of the section is just why Bulgarian researchers disagree with this. --Local hero ^talk 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not think Lunt or Kostic/Velenis's views should be removed. However, they should not take over the entire text. I have drastically reduced the paragraph about Kostic/Velenis, as it still went on and on about the shape of the letters and so on—which refers to the falsified inscription in Edessa. All the other material referring to Edessa has also been removed. I am reposting again the actual source provided by ☼, page 128: https://www.byzinst-sasa.rs/srp/uploaded/PDF%20izdanja/Thematic%20Sessions%20of%20Free%20%20Communications.pdf. VMORO 06:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to Lunt, I found a source that criticized his views on the inscription, but it's too bad that the guy criticizing him turned out to be a civil engineer. We need a secondary source and preferably about his views on the inscription. If you plan on reducing it further too, I won't mind. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, he's just always been pro-Macedonian, including in matters that have put him agasinst the entire world. He spent 4 years or so at the U.S. embassy in Belgrade and wrote the first Macedonian grammar. I can speculate that there was CIA involvement of the type "the Macedonians are the good commies and the Bulgarians are the bad commies", but this has no factual grounds -- perhaps he just liked and sympathised with Macedonia. Anyway, I have done what (in my opinion) would be optimal, could you give an opinion? VMORO 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Buli, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The cited by you opinion espoused by Velenis is not adopted and cited as reliable source by any other researcher in a historical study in English language. This minority view is mentioned in the section Dating of the article per its due weight. Such minority view is not appropriate to the leading section. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Jingiby's statement as well as with StephenMucky1's latest edits in the article. A wikipedia article cannot give WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints and present them as equal to mainstream views. It seems that the alternative opinions are already discussed in the appropriate section. In my opinion, this infobox could cause trouble in this article, as infoboxes in general can become an easy target for POV pushing. I propose that if the edit-war on the date continues, the infobox could be removed, in order to save everyone precious time. Personally, I would urge the editor to avoid unnecessary edit-warring. Piccco (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

FALSIFICATIONS

TWO editors are on contrary, and some ENGLISH TENSE nickname user is doing ERROR edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoRoll$ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Missing information

Can we find some more reliable information about which parts of the text (including the various historical references to years, events and names) are actually visible, which parts are considered securely reconstructed, and which are purely conjectural? According to the description we're citing to Stojkov (footnote 14), the following bits all seem to be in the "missing", unreadable parts:

1. the two instances of calendar dates (line 1 and left part of line 12,
2. the references to Comita Nikola and Ripsimia (line 8)
3. the reference to the battles of Stipon (line 10) and Klyuch (line 13)
4. the two references to emperor Basil (line 10, only the final three letters -lia readable, and line 12)
5. the reference to Samuil as Aron's brother (end of line 8)

I suppose where researchers have discussed the reading of the calendar date they must have been referring to the second one (the first one being in the entirely conjectural first row), so was or is that part of line 12 actually readable after all, or partly readable – what did researchers report they were actually seeing? Which parts of this do the different reconstructions (Zaimov, Moshin and Ugrinova-Skalovska) actually agree on? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction image

What exactly is this?

This image, File:Bitolski nadpis Markovski.jpg, is odd – it claims to be a "copy" of the inscription, with Zaimov's reconstructed text, "from the home of Venko Markovski", i.e. in the private possession of the image uploader. So, what is this, an amateur's home-made re-creation in stone? Is there any reason we would want to display this in the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It would appear so. I see the image uploader was also defending inclusion of this image of his personal copy in a previous discussion here. --Local hero ^talk 15:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Curiously, I now remembered we had another very similar image earlier, at File:Bitola Inscription1.jpg, uploaded by a different editor but without any source – it seemed to show the same physical object, though mounted on a wall and with some apparent retouching coloring up the letters. Are there multiple identical "copies" out there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have seen 2 such identical exhibits. One at the National History Museum in Sofia and another in the museum exhibition at the site of the battle of Klyuch near Petrich.Jingiby (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It'd probably be better to have photos of those rather than of one from the home of an editor of this page. --Local hero ^talk 03:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Template

I happened to stumble upon this article and while reading it I thought that it could really benefit if it used Sfn (or Harvnb when it's appropriate) template for sourcing. That could help save space, especially in note [20], making it easier to navigate; but it requires some work. Piccco (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not mind if this gets implemented. It would just have to be consistent throughout the whole article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Dead of Aaron and the Battle of Stipon

Aaron died in 987 or 988. Check Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500-1300) (2 Vols) - Google Books The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, p. 242.; The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, p. 297, and The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, p. 15. The battle of Stipon was held in 986. In that case, the dubious claim that he was dead during this battle is unfounded. So, I am going to move here this claim from the text for discussion.

Furthermore, in the part where he says that "he [Jovan Vladislav] is the son of Aaron, Samuel's brother", Zaimov adds "two who routed the Greek army ... at Stipon", but this could not have happened, as Aaron was executed in 976 and could not take part in this battle which took place 10 years later, in 986. Jingiby (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on that. Check Medieval Eastern Europe, 500–1300. John Skylitzes mentions the death of Aaron immediately after the death of David and Moses on June 14 - John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057, p. 312. He then speaks of the siege of Larissa (977-983), where he says "He [Samuel] captured Larissa", not they [Samuel and Aaron]. He does not mention Aaron anywhere in the siege of Larissa, which means that he died before that. Skylitzes also doesn't mention Aaron in the Battle of the Gates of Trajan in 986.Buli (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not on outdated primary one. When prevailing academic consensus is grouped around the idea that Aaron died in 987 or 988, then the other views are minority ones and any hypothesis based on such a view is alternative/minority view. Just as giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, your edit is already not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. Also check WP:RSHistory. To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography, etc. Jingiby (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned a primary source (John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057, p. 312) and a secondary source (Medieval Eastern Europe, 500–1300) which is literaly published this year. Just because a source is a primary or secondary does not make either more reliable than the other. Instead, each individual historical source needs to be evaluated on its own merits to determine how much you can trust the information it provides. In research, both primary and secondary sources complement each other, helping you build a convincing argument. Remember to critically assess any source, regardless of its type. Buli (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Jingiby (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The secondary source states "Aaron... was killed... on June 14 [probably 977]" and the primary source states "Samuel slew his brother Aaron... on 14 June". --Local hero ^talk 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I will pay attention to the following: no article can be based mainly on marginal views, to which an undue weight is given. Not to comment on the level of Macedonian historiography, which is, to put it mildly, quite low. The attempt to pay here special attention to single view of a Macedonian historian, based on other minority interpretation of historical fact, which view is not cited by any other researcher in international aspect, is completely unacceptable. Jingiby (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Fringe theory pushing

I would like to remind our neighbours dearest that Wikipedia has very clear rules on the presentation of fringe theories/views/opinions. They can—and, in my opinion, should—be laid out in articles, but cannot be given the same weight or importance as mainstream ones. Yes, this pertains to the attempts to put an "alternative" date in the info box. Are we going to be civil about this, or should we request to have the article protected/semi-protected? VMORO 08:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We can't give our subjective opinion what's fringe theory, when there's a whole paleographic study [1], from which researchers made a conclusion [2]. You're acting like we're in Todor Zhivkov's regime, when a police officer punched his driving license, but when Zhivkov introduced himself, he encircled the punch and wrote "this hole punch is not a hole punch (тази дупка не е дупка)", as in your case "this study is not a study".

About your subjective opinion what’s mainstream, other researchers besides Velenis and Kostić stated that the inscription dates back to the XIII century. See Horace Lunt, Robert Mathiesen. If a Harvard and Brown University professors aren’t mainstream (again “this professors aren’t [mainstream] professors” according to you), then I don’t know who is.

So, we all should conclude that only Zaimov is mainstream and no other way. Sorry, I didn’t know that. On base of which study Zaimov reconstructed 50% of the text. An inscription in which the year cannot be read, and whose reconstructed text is largely a product of Zaimov’s imagination, can’t be called “mainstream”, but otherway we can call it "fringe". Buli (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

'Mainstream' is an opinion that is shared by the majority of scholars and experts. There can, of course, be another research that gives a different opinion, but if this opinion is not shared by many scholars, it remains WP:FRINGE, depending on how much it diverges from the opinion of the majority. A fringe opinion does not mean that it cannot be mentioned, but it should be given the appropriate amount of weight. Even the opinion of a Harvard University professor could potentially be fringe, if it diverges from the opinion of most of their colleagues. For example, you mentioned Horace Lunt who has indeed made some claims regarding medieval Bulgaria that diverge significantly from mainstream historiography. Piccco (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Piccco has given you a precise and detailed answer on Wikipedia's policies, which you are acting in clear violation of, I do not need to add anything more. You can continue vandalising the article at your own risk.

As for the inscription and the slab themselves, let me state the obvious that anyone who has worked on this article in good faith should be and is probably aware of: The year in the inscription is only partly legible. The dating to 1015/16 is based on 1) the recognition of the artefact as genuine and 2) its contextualisation.

1) No scholar of any standing has ever even tried to contest that this is a genuine artefact.

2) Dating to the 1200s makes zero sense based on the content of the inscription, which mentions komes Nikola, Rhipsime, Aaron, Samuil, Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, several battles from the period, etc. Yes, part of the inscription is rubbed out and is difficult or impossible to read—which, for your information, is the only reason why we're having this conversation—but is enough to make a guess with a very high degree of probability.

Which is what Zaimov, Mohsin and Ugrinska have all done, as—and please stop gaslighting the public that it is only Zaimov—all three are in agreement on what the inscription says. And Mohsin and Ugrinska are both Yugoslav, not Bulgarian historians. Now, if Horace Lunt is willing to torch his scholarly integrity by claiming 1230, this is really his own problem. He has also called Samuil a "Macedonian" tsar, who ruled a "Macedonian" empire populated by "ethnic Macedonians". This is a claim that no historian outside RoM, respectable or otherwise, has dared make for decades.

In this connection, why have Lunt's beliefs and theories been removed from the article? I think they are extremely pertinent to understanding why he suggests an "alternative" date. And why he has made a number of other wild claims about Balkan history and Eastern South Slavic over the years. Would someone care to comment on why they were erased?

Similarly, Kostic's dating to the 1200s is and will remain fringe because they 1) do not dispute the genuineness of the artefact and 2) fail to properly contextualise such dating. Which is why their "discovery" has fallen into obscurity and has not been mentioned by anyone in the past 8 years. Unlike their work on, e.g., the Voden inscription (a proven forgery), which is widely accepted and continuously mentioned by Balkan medievalists.

Again, I repeat I'm stating the obvious, mostly for the benefit of any new readers. VMORO 09:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the minority view of Kostic and Valenis cannot continue to expand in the article. In my opinion, it already has a lot of weight for an isolated view. Piccco (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We're not discussing the genuinity of the artefact, but the dating. You can't make a contextualization from a text half of which doesn't exist, and it is a product of imagination. Yes for sure, contextualisation is one of the ways to date an inscription, but that doesn't mean that is 100% accurate and that it is the only way. If researchers take only the context into account, they should've date The Edessa inscription to the 989, but using other methods is demonstrated that the inscription is from the 17th century.

You gave your subjective opinion that "Dating to the 1200s makes zero sense based on the content of the inscription, which mentions komes Nikola, Rhipsime, Aaron, Samuil, Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, several battles from the period, etc.", but you're denying yourself with the previous example you gave. The inscription mentions only Aaron, the other names are reconstructed, and the titles самодрьжъцемъ and цр҃ь corresponds to the 13 c. It makes perfect sense that Ivan I Kaloyan, which at that time called himself "Roman-slayer", when conquered a fortress like Bitola to make an inscription in which he is trying to connect his newly-established Empire to the Cometopuli, and their battles with his enemies. Buli (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we can avoid pointless discussions and WP:OR, because ultimately what matters here is to make a clear distinction between mainstream and fringe views. In this case, the date from the early 11th century is the mainstream view. The view of Kostic and Valenis remains a fringe view, as it diverges significantly from the majority and it doesn't seem to be shared by their colleagues. As such, so much undue weight on it cannot be warranted, and obviously we cannot continue to expand on it (not that there is anything more to expand, you added almost everything from that source). Piccco (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)