Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magyarország XII-XIII század második felében.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Magyarország XII-XIII század második felében.jpg

This is originally a Hungarian academic map, but it has been falsified by Romanian nationalists to spread false information in articles. It is inappropriate to alter original academic maps. It is very unprofessional to combine an obviously hand-drawn upper map with another one. The upper map is originally a hydrography map from the 13th century, where the forger hand-painted many colored patches and falsely claimed it is from the 12th century. (It is also a common practice among forgers to provide numerous marked sources, but when we find the original map, it is clear that it is not among those sources.) In the lower map, the forger rewrote the infobox, claiming the pink areas were Romanian territories, even though the original map does not indicate this. It is also evident to a Hungarian reader that the map contains poor Hungarian grammar, indicating that the forger does not know the Hungarian language (but used a Google translator) but wanted to present the map as an academic Hungarian map in bad faith. Here, I present the original maps and explanations: https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQ9mvib_xl.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per copyright violation. Editing a copyrighted image using Paint or Photoshop does not qualify as your own image. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per OrionNimrod and Norden1990. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep : This map is not "falsified" but "derived" because it was not created to add one more map into line with the Hungarian nationalist point of view as this one [1], but to show that there are other points of view as this other [2]. Hungarian nationalists also created or modified many maps to show their point of view. Romanian nationalists (also Russian, Chinese, many others) also act like this, but this is not a mitigating circumstance. When they don't succeed, they make deletion requests on Commons under some pretext, in order to prevent readers from knowing points of view other than their own. In Hungary since the end of communism they have dominated the Hungarian Academy. But we do not have on the one hand a Hungarian historiography that is the only one that is reliable, serious and true, and on the other hand a stupid, lying and irredentist Romanian historiography. History is not that simple. The Austro-Hungarian and Russian thesis of the disappearance over a thousand years of the Eastern Romance populations between 276 and the 14th century, which the contributors defend here, convinced that only their sources are "international and academic", is only one of the three existing theses, all three of which have arguments and are presented in university secondary sources:

1. their first, supported by books like Eduard Robert Rössler: Romänische Studien: untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Rumäniens (“Romance studies: investigations into the ancient history of Romania”), Leipzig, 1871 or Béla Köpeczi (dir .): Erdély rövid története (“Abridged History of Transylvania”), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1989, (ISBN 963 05 5901 3), states that the Romance populations disappeared north of the Danube in the 3rd century and did not did not reappear until the 14th century at the earliest: the Magyars were therefore the first in Transylvania;
2. a second, supported by books like История на България (“History of Bulgaria”) volume III, Sofia 1982 or Ivan Duïtchev: Идеята за приемствеността в средновековната българска държава (“The idea of ​​continuity in the Medieval Bulgarian State"), in: Проучвания върху средновековната българска история и култура ("Study on Bulgarian medieval history and culture"), Sofia 1981, pp. 74–78, asserts that there were no Romance populations south of the Danube before the 14th century, these surviving only north of the Danube after the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century: the Slavs southerners and the Proto-Bulgarians were therefore the first in the Balkans;
3. a third, supported by books like Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies Vol. III in Balkan Studies Library, Brill 2015, (ISBN 9004290362), or Alexandru Avram, Mircea Babeş, Lucian Badea, Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Alexandru Vulpe (dir.): Istoria românilor: moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate (“History of the Romanians : the heritage of ancient times") vol.1, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2001, or (in) History of Romania, Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) 2005, pp. 59–132, (ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4), asserts that the Romance populations never stopped their pastoral transhumances between the north and the south of the Danube from the end of the 3rd century to the beginning of the 14th century and Next.

Wikipedian contributors do not have to decide between these three theories, but to show all three. Regardless, even if the arguments for all three theories were worthless, insufficient evidence proves neither the absence nor the presence of a population. In any case, it is unrealistic to imagine that speakers of Eastern Romance languages ​​could disappear for a thousand years and then inexplicably reappear, and that this group would be the only one not to be able to cross the Danube, the Balkans and the Carpathians, while the Goths, Slavs, Avars, Proto-Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Alans, Mongols and Ottomans did so. Although the militant contributors engage in an editing war to sometimes mention, sometimes erase this group, one fact remains and constitutes in itself irrefutable proof of linguistic continuity between the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 14th century: Eastern Romance languages ​​exist north and south of the Danube.
 The insistence of the Magyar contributors to remove the maps or mentions which show this continuity north of the Danube is rooted in the nostalgia of "Greater Hungary" tragically dismembered in 1920 by the will of the Allies and in particular of Georges Clémenceau and Woodrow Wilson with his "14 points", and also in the illusion that if they managed to demonstrate that the Magyars arrived there before the Romanians, this could delegitimize Romanian sovereignty over Transylvanian territory and give Hungary a chance to recover this region.
 These controversies and mutual denigration prove Winston Churchill right when he said: “The Balkan region tends to produce more history than it can consume.”

Other sources (which are not "irrelevant" just because several of it are Romanians): Nicolae Iorga, Teodor Capidan, Constantin Giurescu: History of the Romanians, ed. (and reed.) from the Romanian Academy; Kristian Sandfeld: Balkan Linguistics, problems and results, Champion, Coll. linguistics of the Linguistic Society of Paris, Paris, 1930; Eutropius: Abridged Roman History, book IX, 15; Alexandru Avram, Mircea Babeş, Lucian Badea, Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Alexandru Vulpe (dir.): Istoria românilor: moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate (“History of the Romanians: the heritage of ancient times”) vol.1, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2001, (ISBN 973-45-0382-0); Dimitri Kitsikis, The Rise of National Bolshevism in the Balkans, Avatar, Paris 2008; Vatro Murvar, The Balkan Vlachs: a typological study, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1956, p. 20; Alain Du Nay, André Du Nay and Árpád Kosztin, Transylvania and the Rumanians, Matthias Corvinus Publishing, 1997, 337 p. (ISBN 978-1-882785-09-4), p. 15O; Olivier Gillet: The history of Transylvania: the Hungarian-Romanian historiographical dispute, in: Revue de philologie et d’histoire, 1997, volume 75, fasc. 2, p. 457–485; Georges Castellan: Some historical problems between Hungarians and Romanians in Melikov zbornik: Slovenci v zgodovini in njihovi srednjeevropski sosedje, ed. by Vincenc Rajšp et al., Ljubljana, Založba ZRC, 2001, p. 153–162; and see also this [3]. --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQ9mvib_xl.jpg The original map is about Kingdom of Hungary and a hydrography map. Which nationalist point of view see in a hydrography map and in a simple country map?

It is clear that the creator of the fake map has nationalistic purpose because he overdraw the Hungarian academic map and wrote everything "Romanians" in medieval Hungary falsifying the captions, even paint fantasy regions to the hydrography map.

Do not flood here books and theories and things from 1800, show me real academic maps about Hungary, dont paint maps by your fantasy, follow Wikipedia rules: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Please upload academic maps to Wikipedia, or maps which exactly follows the academic maps. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi also. It's too easy to describe as "falsification", "fake", "original research" & "personal opinion" everything that doesn't suit us, and it's into fashion (Trump, Putin, Milei, Orban, nationalists from all countries including Romanians do this). It is a magical world, where the one who accuses, is right against all the others. The reality is that there are several theories, each one has arguments and academic sources, and all must be illustrated. By derived maps if necessary. Even if a historic map is created using a hydrographic or physical background, this is not a "falsification" but a derived work (thousands of Commons maps are in this case). --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The original map is a hydrography map, then an user painted over random color circles... (In the past I used Google satelit map as base and it was "copyright violation" because of the base map.)

So you say that I can take Europe map and I can paint randomly color circles there to make a Game of Thrones fantasy map then upload to history articles? :D Wikipedia articles need reliable academic sources as base. Show me an academic map which look the same!

In the other one, as I showed the original map, we can see clearly the user falsified and rewrote the infobox by bad Hungarian grammar (which clearly show that was not a Hungarian user, but a Romanian one, but wanted to pretend as bad faith that is a Hungarian made map). Do you think is ok, to fabricate a new infobox? The original map does not say those things what is in the fabricated infobox (and Hungarian historians would not understand which things there...), the original map just show counties and regions.

I really dont know what is the bussiness with Trump with this thing... OrionNimrod (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And we discover once again that only the Hungarian sources (as they are since 1990) are "academic", all others being erroneous or falsified. Yes, it's a wonderful world. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:1C5B:4934:3745:FFBF (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is a Hungarian hydrography map, which was overpainted by colored pencil.... the other one got a photoshopped infobox with bad Hungarian grammar. And those 2 falsified maps were merged in 1 picture as we can see. Can I paint too a new infobox for that map and then I write there that the yellow color means House of Targaryen? Just because I like that... OrionNimrod (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Deleted: copyright violation. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)