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

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

Changed to

Neutral: Zygiel managed to convince me that little is lost when this modified map gets deleted. --Enyavar (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Europe About A.D. 1000.jpg

File:First.Crusade.Map.jpg

File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg

Menke_Handatlas_1880_Karte_05

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

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

Hungarian maps by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as reference material and let us use it (except in the Hungarian wikipedia, this would be unthinkable, even insulting). Thank you. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enyavar, yes I know borders are changing. The topic map is 1097.

"As long as Zygiel doesn't overwrite historical documents but just uploads corrected maps with references to his sources, I'm okay with that."

Corrected? Falsified! Education purpose to detach Transylvania from a country where it belonged?

I just showed example maps around +-100 years that the borders were same regarding Transylvania, it was integral part of Hungary. Check out the parent article.

Bohemia was also part of the Holy Roman Empire, check out the parent article, I bet you can also find many maps regarding the Holy Roman Empire made by international and German historians.

Also you cannot see any Vlachs in that big region where the use removed the Pechenegs, but we can see Cumans on that region in the future maps. If you see the parent article the Vlachs were mentioned deep in the Balkan and not there.

British historian Martyn Rady: the sources before the 13th century do not contain references to Vlachs anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania or in Wallachia. The sources describe Wallachia as a largely uninhabited forest until that timehttps://www.academia.edu/1825911 page 91-93

I see you point out that the user could have right about the Byzantine region, but on many areas that map is very wrong.

We can critize Shepherd, but academic historians should do this task not us, but it does not make any sense to change an academic map to make more history distortions by an user personal fantasy.

That user put many times that map on many Wiki articles on many Wiki (English, French, Russian, etc) removing other maps, this is against Wikipedia rule: WP:OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research OrionNimrod (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I perfectly understand the pain of the Magyars and I even sincerely sympathize. But it was not me who "detached Transylvania", it was the Treaty of Trianon (of course unfair: the famous "right of peoples to self-determination" was denied to the Hungarians!). It was not me either, but the Magyar princes who invented a Principality of Transylvania with its own institutions and autonomy from the Hungarian crown. It's not me either, but the Russian and Byzantine sources which said that the Vlachs were nomadic shepherds wandering everywhere (like the Slavs) between Bulgaria, the Avar country, Hungary, Podolia and the Balkans, as confirmed by linguistic modern studies. Admitting this, does not make modern Romanians and their excesses any more sympathetic to me, and denying it will not make Transylvania hungarian again.
What I would like, would be for historians, cartographers and Wikipedia editors to free themselves from modern political pressures and exclusive extreme theories, which push them to quarrel and discredit each other. Especially in the front of common concerns such as the pollution of the Tisza basin in January 2000, global warming or ongoing wars. I hope that the usual ways of the communist era disappear, both in Hungary and in Romania, and especially in the ex-Soviet countries: it was said then that Communism is the scientific doctrine which prepares the future, organizes the present and modifies the past. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude Zygiel, I do not know what are you talking about Avars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars Avar state ceased to exist in 822, that map is about 1097, showing Europe almost 300 years later, so the Avars are total irrevelant regarding this map. Also that map created by a non Hungarian historian, by USA academics William R. Shepherd in 1923-26, at that time Austria-Hungary did not exist, it is irrevelant to blaim Hungarians from a map which created by an American...

"affirming that following the massacre of all the Avars by the Carolingians in 805, the Magyars would have found a country devoid of any sedentary inhabitant" That is total nonsense, there are about 100,000 Avar graves found in Hungary, also there are many sources and archeological evidences the Avars did not evaporate and they survived in mass the destruction of their state. Hungarian historians never ever said the Carpathian Basin was empty, only national-communist Romanian propaganda material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_communism_in_Romania puting illogical words in the mouth of Hungarians. Hungarian historians claim the local population mixed with the incoming Magyar tribes who are together became Hungarians. As a Hungarian, in my personal genetic test I have genetic sample matches in the local Carpathian Basin from all historical periods with many many folks, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Copper Age cultures, Hungarian conqueror, Avar, Frank, Gepid, Goth, Hun, Illyrian, Scythian... sample matches, because peoples always mixed each other. Hungarian historians also claim the existence of Slavic population when Magyar tribes arrived. It is again not true when you state Hungarian historiography denies the Slav presence...

Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10] If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by the national-communist Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international historiography, because in the reality that "Romania country" did not exist, which occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in that map. I think it is also strange that we have no records about that allegedly "always majority Romanians" in that huge area which presented on the fake maps in that long period between 300-1100. It was also a joke when in 1980s in the national-communist Romania, the Romanian state celebrated its 2050th anniversary in north Korea style...

That map is 1097, so I do not know why are you talking about 200-300 years earlier events. In 1097, why did you remove Transylvania from Kingdom of Hungary? How did you determined the area? Why did you remove Bohemia from the Holy Roman Empire?

If you want force put to Wiki articles your own created fantasy map that is against Wikipedia rule: WP:OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research OrionNimrod (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider to stop using outdated fantasy maps produced by Shepherd, then?

Edit: As a partial answer to your questions, Transsylvania is marked as its own entity within the Hungarian realm here, not "removed" from Hungary. If Zygiel's answer to "why" is just an obscure reference to Avars of 300 years earlier, then yes this should get fixed. What I hadn't noticed earlier was the actual separation of Bohemia/Moravia from the HRR. Now that is more serious: 1085-1092, the reigning duke of Bohemia was really a king, but Bohemia was still part of the HRR. And the next duke of Bohemia was again just a duke, so 1097 Bohemia was a large entity within the HRR, but it was not a separate kingdom as shown here. Another disputed area could be Bretagne which had stopped being its own kingdom well over a century earlier. In 1097 it was not really a full part of the French kingdom though, either... So I'm not totally certain as to whether Zygiel or Shepherd describe the historical reality better. (Note: incorrections in historical maps are common, and should be pointed out or corrected in subsequent versions, instead of suppressing the bad together with the good.) --Enyavar (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been remarked on many occasions, Claude Zygiel's propensity for falsifying maps is extremely problematic, and the products of this should be deleted. as COM:OOS, as well as being disinformation. Modifying antique maps, "accurate" or not, and misrepresenting them as a authoritative based on nothing more than the uploader's preferences is an abuse of Wikimedia Commons. It is also downright dishonest. If Claude Zygiel wants to create maps which he prefers, he should create new maps from scratch, rather than modifying old maps to suit his preferences. There is absolutely no justification for such behaviour, as I have previously stated elsewhere. If Claude Zygiel persists in this behaviour – which I have little doubt that he will, given his failure to heed repeated warnings over the years – then sterner action should be taken. In any case, fake-old maps such as this file have no place on Commons and must be deleted. GPinkerton (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well, go on this way if you want to have a Wikipedia map collection that will be impeccable in form and unbalanced in substance, perfectly consistent with secondary sources and contemptuous of works of researchers as primary sources, with a bias for some national points of view and a denial of some multi-ethnic and multi-religious ones. It doesn't matter to me, it's not my concern anymore. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkerton, while I agree that one should not falsify original documents, Zygiel is not claiming here that his upload is the original. I strongly condemn each of his actions where he DID overwrite historical documents (yes, revert those, no question), but this is not one of those cases. Arguably sure, it could be pointed out even more clearly that this is not the original.

I too have argued strongly against falsifications of maps that try to establish false information... But the original here is not an old map that shows contemporary reality of 1911/1923, this is an old map showing history with the outdated knowledge of 1911/1923, about a time 800 years prior. If you say that Zygiel's map would be fine if he had just created it as an SVG from scratch, you are yourself claiming that this map is actually WITHIN scope, not out of it. I argue that his alterations were made to improve educational purpose. Again: we shouldn't use either of the two maps in WP articles, but both versions can be helpful to demonstrate the changing understanding of historical knowledge, so we can indeed keep both within scope. --Enyavar (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Enyavar, @GPinkerton, it is clearly a bad faith edit to put falsified map in history Wiki articles, that is why Claude Zygiel uploaded to Commons to put his falsified maps to articles:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Histoire_de_l%27Europe&diff=prev&oldid=208357965

https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Histoire_de_l%27Europe&diff=prev&oldid=193074772

Should I paint half France as part of Germany in 1200? Should I paint half Europe as part of Russia in 1200? What would be happen if I would put that my created fantasy maps on history Wiki articles?

Here Claude Zygiel made an edit war to remove a small bit from Austria-Hungary in favor to Romania against academic maps, and Austria-Hungary was not in the dark ages, we have very good academic maps: File:Cisleithanien Transleithanien.png

"but both versions can be helpful to demonstrate the changing understanding of historical knowledge" Claude Zygiel is not an academic historians, Wikipedia need reliable academic sources and we need follow them, not fringe personal created theories, Wiki is not a personal blog, should I spread flat earth maps? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar I disagree. This is clearly an attempt to rewrite the antique map as if it suited the theories of the author. This is not a digital map, it is a digitally manipulated photograph of an antique map. If we don't have a photograph of a historical person, do we take any old photograph and digitally alter it to suit our ideas of what that person may have looked like? No. GPinkerton (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Orion Nimrod produces false equivalencies and exaggerated comparisons. Quite obviously, you should not "paint half of Europe as Russian in 1200", nor should you plant and promote flat-earth world models. But you see, Category:Flat Earth exists on Commons, and such do Irredentist maps, and we won't delete those categories out of hand either. But this map is neither flat-earth, nor is it irredentist, it just displays ONE different border to the one you seem prefer (you don't seem to care about Byzantine, Bohemia and Bretagne, only about Hungary's national integrity in 1097). On the other hand, you cannot sincerely expect that people, even if they have just a layman's interest in history+geography, should tolerate false (outdated!!!) history maps of their regions of interest either, be they made by academics or not. This map illustrating a 2500 year old fiction was also made by an academic, and I would hate to see it in any wiki article about the 14th century BC or whatever. Academic sources are not always right, even if they're not centuries old; and laypeople's maps are not necessarily false.

Claude Zygiel could see the inaccuracies in Shepherd's map, so why should he tolerate them, in his home wiki? He may not have the time and passion to create a fully new map, but when faced with a false/outdated map, he strived to replace it with a corrected version, just in the edits that you pointed out. That is not "bad faith", but quite the opposite. It is you, Nimrod, who personally attacks Zygiel as a fringe theorist, when Zygiel has tried to bring up sources for at least some of the changes, while you only pound on that inter-Hungarian border. In this instance, where neither map is historically correct, it shouldn't be up to Commons to decide which map to suppress: The badly sourced 100+ year old original map made by an academic of a different field than the map is about, or the slightly better-sourced adaptation made by a hobbyist who did some research. (That said, I have seen fringe theorists with bad maps, which were so undoubtedly wrong that we could remove them from this platform after just a few years of edit-wars). --Enyavar (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GPinkerton, to be more precise this is a manipulated photograph of an old (but not antique) map which has run out of copyright and has been uploaded under a free licence that allows such manipulation, without the attempt to claim it is the original anymore. So there is no deception involved, this is not a case like the Singrauli forgeries. And on If we don't have a photograph of a historical person [...] do we take any old [...] No. No? Please guess what thousands of artists in human history have done to create depictions of people they had no idea how they looked like? Yup: They took contemporary models and made the depictions anyway. And we of WP (and Commons) will gladly take any fictional picture of a historical person as long as it is old enough to have historical value on itself. From en:Lysander over a certain J.C. from N. and including fr:François d'Assise --Enyavar (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar these are not appropriate comparisons. I am speaking of a photograph, not of imaginary artworks created by Renaissance masters or 19th-century illustrators. In neither of your examples has anyone (still less a Wikimedian) used a photograph in order to falsify a map to look older than it is. Here, we have a map of early 20th century style and appearance which is in fact nothing of the kind. There is no particular cut-off for how old something has to be to be antique, but a century old is plenty. If Claude had decided to create his own image of Francis of Assissi, it would, I would say, be out of scope. If he had manipulated the photograph of Cimabue's fresco of St Francis to look more like what he though St Francis should look like, then it would certainly be out of scope. This is equivalent to what is happening here. GPinkerton (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole analogy is leading away from the actual issue: I may have applied too much AGF. Again. So. This deletion cannot be about adaptations of older maps, that is allowed on Commons. It can also not be about non-academic creators, that is allowed and expected on Commons. This deletion should be about whether or not it is a bogus map that serves no educational purpose, rather to the contrary. A bogus map should get deleted, a map with just some errors can still be corrected. I believed (up to Gyalu's comment on Dacianism, below), that the altered map would be usable on Commons because the most obvious alterations (Byz-Selj border) seemed okay to me. Right now I'm sitting on the fence, your detective eye might be needed ;-) Sorry to need yet more convincing, I progress rather slowly. --00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete Agree with GPinkerton.

To Enyavar: you are right that the boundaries in Anatolia are more accurate on this version, but it's not a correction that Transylvania and the territory of the Old Kingdom are carved out as independent political entities. It is a manipulation of a historical map in order to fit the user's agenda. We've seen numerous similar attempts from Claude Zygiel. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which agenda though? I can't see any rhyme or agenda behind the alterations, besides Zygiel being apparently offended by outdated history maps and then correcting them to the best of his knowledge. --Enyavar (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Dacianism.

There are two scholarly propositions on the origin of the Romanians. Zygiel is pushing one of them to extremity and berating the other one. (This page is an example.) He is trying to prove that Romania has been where it is since ancient times by photoshopping historical Romanian countries on maps. These are not supported by science, not even by the Romanian academy. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read up and learned a few new things today, thanks Gyalu. I haven't noticed such tendencies before and didn't check Claude Zygiel's contributions since about a year ago, but I do have issues with point-of-view-agenda-pushing and conflicts of interest, if such is really the case here. Checking my own analog historical map collection only reveals maps where modern Valachia is left empty (and in one case Pecheneg) around the time. So, I now see how the Vlachs are definitely a second major error besides Bohemia. That is still not convincing enough for me to outright demand deletion of the map, because it has other modifications. I think I got them all here, and hope someone might bring more insight on the issues:

independent Bohemia+Moravia (false), also why is the HRE divided by a blue band?
"Vlachs" noted in the place where the Pechenegs were indeed entrenched (false), also the highlighting of Transylvania within Hungary is unneeded.
independent Bretagne (still unsure right now, it was disputed between Normandie and France for a long time and not really a part of France. The color could be "less independent", though, more like Normandy which was a dominant power there.)
Anatolia not fully Seljuk yet (all in all legit. We can't really say that all this land was still retained by the Byzantines, a disputed-signature (hatches?) would be better; but this alteration seems to me the major improvement over Shepherd);
Georgia unconquered by Seljuks (legit)
enlarged Lithuania+Pruzzia (???)
a better colorized South Italy (no confusion with Almoravids, but it's a very minor alteration)
Swedish colony in Finland Proper (main map); Roman Church spread in Finland and Hiiumaa (in the submap). Um. (???)
fully Christianized Balkans in the sub-map (seems... not okay?).
I do have an additional issue with the projection though, Zygiel distorted the image ratio too.

If User:Claude Zygiel is willing to assist, he may explain himself, and simply correct the obvious errors himself. Hint hint. After all, we are not talking about an original historical map here: the proven errors in the map can be fixed easily. --Enyavar (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enyavar, sorry if I am long, but I provide the explanation of the motivation of Claude Zygiel.

The national-communist Romanian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_communism_in_Romania historiography produced a lot of absurd fake maps.

Example fake map from 1920: Dacia in the 9-13th century [11] Does anybody know that huge Dacia country between 800-1300?

Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist Romania: Romania 9-13th century: [10]

Example fake modern map: Romania 9-13th century: [9]

If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by the national-communist Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality that "Romania country" did not exist, which allegedly occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in those maps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary

It was also a joke when in 1980s in the national-communist Romania, the Romanian state celebrated its 2050th anniversary in north Korea style and the communist dictator Ceausescu claimed he is the incarnation of the Dacian king Burebista... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu%27s_cult_of_personality

Those maps are political motivated, because half of today's Romania belonged to Hungary for more than 1000 years and Romania got that region after WW1 by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. The new borders did not follow at all the ethnic borders so full Hungarian populated regions, cities were moved to Romania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon

That is why the propganda to justify this territorial change (btw Romania claimed much more Hungarian lands up to the Tisza river), which claim from the Tisza river to the Dneister river in that huge 300,000 km2 are lived the "always majority super ancient Romanians who were cruel supressed by the Hungarians 1000 years long".

I could show vast amount of modern historian (and even modern Romanian historian) opinion regarding the subject, Examples:

British historian, Martyn Rady https://www.academia.edu/1825911/Nobility_land_and_service_in_medieval_Hungary page 90: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs [Romanians] either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." So British (non Hungarian) historian claim that nobody knew about any Romanians there, but it is not problem to create fake maps who are spreading the propaganda about huge fantasy countries.

Romanian historian, Andrei Gandila: Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500-700 Coins, Artifacts and History, Cambridge 2018

"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s......the nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture...... such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day.”

Romanian historian Florin Curta https://www.academia.edu/229524/Transylvania_around_A_D_1000

“The historical and contemporary distortions of archaeological practice graphically illustrate the limits of the archaeology as storytelling metaphor: one story is not as convincing as another. There are no cases in the archaeology of medieval Eastern Europe to which this chilling remark cannot apply.”

“A leading Romanian medievalist, Radu Popa in a devastating critique published first in Romanian, then in German, Popa accused Romanian archaeologists of having paid lip service to Ceaucescu’s regime and of having manipulated the archaeological evidence to meet the demands of his nationalist policies in Transylvania. One of Popa’s targets was the group of archaeologists excavating the early medieval hillfort at Dabaca, near Cluj-Napoca. During the late 1960s through 1989, the site was repeatedly identified with the capital city of Gelou, a Romanian duke mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum as having opposed the conquest of Transylvania by Tuhutum. Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dabaca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. Popa criticized not only this historicist stance, but also the manipulation of the archaeological evidence in order to match the historical record. Moreover, despite extensive excavations designed to produce substantial evidence of a Romanian occupation of the site prior to the Magyar conquest, to this day no results have been published.”

British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant https://www.academia.edu/20351101/Ethnos_and_Mythos_in_the_History_of_Transylvania "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar [Hungarian] aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos." Those are fantasy chieftains in Transylvania in ancient Hungarian chronicles, but the national-communist Romanian propaganda claimed those were ancient Romanian kings.

More reading:

Romanian historian, Catalin Nicolae Popa - Late Iron Age Archaeology in Romania and the Politics of the Past: https://www.academia.edu/34705821/Late_Iron_Age_archaeology_in_Romania_and_the_politics_of_the_past OrionNimrod (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other thing: see Claude Zygiel removed Bulgaria and replaced with "Paristria" this which was much smaller area :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paristrion you can see it is not a problem for him to remove a full nation or country Bulgaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria which history and existence is very well documented, but he is very ok to create a fantasy Vlach country however Vlachs were documented deep in the Balcan at that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs Wallachia was renamed to Rumania in 1862, and the Vlachs were renamed to Rumanians in English, WW1 poster https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/WWI_Poster_Rumania.jpg later in 1970s the national-communist dictator achieved to use the name of Romania instead of Rumania. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the file should be deleted: Because the name of the map is "Europe 1097" and if I want put maps in the Wiki articles this fake map always pop up, many non experted users will use in the article who do not know that map is fake, this will decrease the quality of the Wiki articles. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr Orion, you wail further about Romania when the fact that Zygiel clearly falsified that area is known. Something that can be corrected. I somehow fail to read a part where you adress or evaluate any of the nine other changes in the map. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A modified and announced as "derivative work" is not the same thing as a "fake" when the derived version corrects the defects of the original, which does not only support the thesis of a disappearance over a thousand years of the speakers of the Eastern Romance languages, but also that of an almost total loss of Anatolia by the Byzantines immediately after Mantzikert and the total absence of Eastern Christianity between Rus and Byzantium. Pinkerton made me understand that my derivative maps should not replace the originals; OK, so I downloaded the modified versions separately, but it is still too much for the "Orbanian" nationalists who, furious at having lost their great country at Trianon, are taking their revenge by erasing the ancestors of their neighbors from the history. Note that the Romanian nationalists with their "Dacianism" are not more consistent. If you want Wikipedia to show only one hypothesis when there are several, go ahead and delete my derivative work. You will note that for my part, I do not accuse of "fake" Shepherd, nor the people who support the Hungarian hypothesis: I'm not Donald Trump

--Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Shouldn't the length of this discussion highlight the fact that this historical question will not be resolved by a simple deletion? --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand that the map will be deleted because you painted fictional countries and boundaries on it and refuse to correct them. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enyavar, I think this discussion is taking too long. Zygiel declared his stance of keeping the false version despite the four to one agreement. I don't see any solution other than deletion. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enyavar, Gyalu22, GPinkerton, I explained above the political motivation why Claude Zygiel created that fake map, which just confirmed by his comment, he says now: "but it is still too much for the "Orbanian" nationalists who, furious at having lost their great country at Trianon, are taking their revenge by erasing the ancestors of their neighbors from the history" Claude Zygiel says that who do not agree with his map falsifications that user will be automatically just a "revengful Hungarian nationalist", so everybody need accept his maps "his truth", morover he intends to put his falsified map to Wiki articles to make an alternative fringe history and to overwriting academic maps, which is a clearly a bad faith behavior. Orban is prime minister of Hungary since 2010, Claude Zygiel suggests that the American Shepherd was Hungarian nationalist in 1920s, probably Orban in 2023 gave him some instruction by time travel :D Indeed the Treaty of Trianon gave huge 1000 years Hungarian land to Romania in 1920 with many full Hungarian populated regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon that is why I showed many example fake Romanian propaganda maps about a fantasy medieval Romania country which looked the same as today's Romania to justify that land transfer, that those lands were "forever Romanian lands from the beginning of the time". That is the political motivation of Claude Zygiel, detaching Transylvania (which is part of Romania today) from medieval Hungary, and making a fantasy Vlach country to show the "always majority super ancient Romanians owned that land from forever against the evil invader Hungarians" which was the slogan of the national-communist Romanian history writing.

This is the wiki rule, that he cannot put his fantasy whitout reliable academic map background to the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Claude Zygiel admit his map is just a "hypothesis" and he downgrades the international academic historiography claiming that those maps also just "hypothesis" if those do not support his own world. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is still not the English Wikipedia. en-WP rules are not rules applicable on Commons; and the map shows a few more other countries of Europe than just the fake Vallachian region. Commons' deletion procedures usually take a few months, and I see no reason why nobody can't possibly update the false map with a better version that partly reverses the bad changes Zygiel made. That is the reason why I made a list of the ten changes: I'd count 3 of them as beneficial, 3 of them as bad-faith, and I'm waiting on your honest opinions on the changes regarding Bretagne, Baltics and Finland before possibly taking action re-altering the image myself. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those in Georgia and Anatolia, all changes are just personalizations, not corrections. Perhaps Bretagne would be better colored pink, but the Baltics and Finland were better in the original. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this image clearly meets the criteria of falsification. Even its title is deliberately misleading and the user did not provide sources to support his unfounded claims. Studying the above dispute, it is clear for me that the uploader intended to push his nationalistic POV with the deceptive modification of the original 1920s map. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So modification = "falsification", all Austro-Hungarian historiography and the authors who conform to it are completely right, and all Romanian historiography and the authors who conform to it are, without exception, wrong. Well done, OK. In the same vein, according to people who think that only one book tells the truth, the Bible, and that all the others lie, only this ethnological map is valid < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Table_of_Nations.jpg >, while all the others are "bad faith", "fake" and "falsified". --Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian historiography doesn't support your modifications. You were able to cite zero reliable sources to prove that Transylvania and the territory of the Old Kingdom were two independent countries in 1097. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one more deaf than he who does not want to hear. My modifications do not show any independents states in this area but only a presence of orthodox - slavic and vlach populations, which you do not admit. Romanian sources also do not say that there were independent states but only these populations, but if we stick only to the Hungarian thesis, obviously they are all wrong. So long, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone indeed tries to be deaf here. The argument goes that the territory in question was not inhabitated by Vlachs, instead they moved there at a later point. Even if there was some slavic population present, that does not mean they get marked that way in a political map; or we'd need to show the East-Elbian slavic populated areas differently from the rest of the HRE. The Almoravid influence sphere would be fractured and we'd see Occitania distinct from France; etc. No, this map of political history is supposed to show (in a generalized way) which power controlled whichever areas. And we know from sources that the Pechenegs operated in the Danubian plains. Yet you still marked the territory as "Vlachs" like the original map marks regular kingdoms. This part of the map wishes to establish an independent "Vlachs" regional power, all your *whistling innocently* arguments nonwithstanding. --Enyavar (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enyavar, from the conversation you can clearly see that Claude fasified the original map by political purpose. It is really incorrect regarding the Hungarian history to detach the half part of the country (Transylvania). If some years past, and we forget this conversation I am sure Claude (as his admitted strong political motivation) will again put this map to the articles if we did not remove from the Commons. And the title also deliberately misleading "corrected" many unexperienced users could use this fake map to the articles. This will really decrease the quality and the reputation of Wikipedia if Wiki will serve a personal nationalistic POV by an user pretending as "official corrected map". OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🤔? Did you not read what my last contribution to this debate was? Best, --Enyavar (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now, first I saw just the last comment here. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GPinkerton, Enyavar, Gyalu22, Norden1990, I would like to show an example of the political motivation of this map falsification. There is a Hungarian military cemetery in Transylvania which attacked several times by Romanian ultranationalists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zlCXSE90rQ, just some days ago in 21 October 2023: https://media.szekelyhon.ro/pictures/0000001/0000095/nn_uzvolgye_2k23_ok_21_pnt_01.jpg “Barbarian Hungarians came from Mongolia and robbed our lands in 1290. After that, the Mongol-Hungarians also brought their families here.” This is based on the above mentioned Romanian national-communist history teaching that "the Hungarians who were Mongols and came from Mongolia arrived in Transylvania only about 1300", that is why Transylvania was detached from the Kingdom of Hungary in 1100 from an international (non Hungarian made) map. Just a bonus that if we Google "Hungarians" they look exactly like their other European neighbours and not like the people in Mongolia. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this OrionNimrod is absolutely right: Romanian nationalism is as excessive and hateful as Hungarian nationalism. It tires me. Another thing that tires me is the obstinacy in restoring errors which had nevertheless been corrected, and which have nothing to do with historical controversies, it is only geography:

.

This is all normal: Wikipedia is a mirror of real humanity. In today's humanity, more and more conflicting contradictions replace collaborative work, dogmatism and the blind application of a few rules replace thought, dialogue is useless, any divergent opinion is suspect, any improvement constitutes a fake, and we must faithfully propagate all errors from secondary sources so as not to fall into original research. I'm so sorry, if the history isn't as simple as in the school books: the amazing length of this discussion clearly shows that it is not enough to accuse me of «falsification» when I contradict a nationalist point of view (here hungarian, elsewhere romanian), for it to become the only valid one. It's sad. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

If you were able to launder your grievances over unrelated issues elsewhere and not bring them up here, this discussion here could be a bit shorter, yes. Here, etc. is the place to address the issue on the A-H maps. In my opinion, the matter of the Shepherd map of Europe 1097 and the matter of the Ludo maps of A-H 1914 are completely different cases, except for the involvement of both yourself and GPinkerton. Now, I have no idea why you and Alphathon didn't upload new .svg maps instead of pixelshopping in .png's. But again, discuss it someplace else, and bring reference maps actually pertaining to 1914.

In another matter, dialogue is not useless. Why do you think we're having discussions like this one? Only this debate here convinced me that your map got more things wrong than Shepherd did in his original rendering. The only major improvements are the reduced Seljuq areas in Anatolia and Georgia. Then there's also the better coloration of South Italy and I sit on the fence over your edits in Bretagne. That does not outweigh the six other issues that made the map worse. --Enyavar (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination per consensus above. @Claude Zygiel: you are of course completely free to make your own map of the year 1097, but to pass off your creation as a historical map by William Shepherd, that is totally misleading. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]