Talk:Early Middle Ages

message: The main map shows Principality of Serbia as Servia spanning over Bosnia yet not only is the Croatia Dutchy missing but Bosnia was in the Croatia Dutchy at this time. The map needs to be fixed. It doesn’t align with the established borders of Serbia and Croatia. OyMosby (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There's an on-going discussion at the Talk:Serbia in the Middle Ages#Original research. The map used in the infobox (Europe_814.svg) has a completely erroneous border between early medieval Croatia and Serbia; Croatia wasn't located or reached so far north but rather stretched onto the whole western part of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia wasn't completely located in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro; it doesn't include borders of medieval principalities of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunia, and Duklja. The borders in the Western Balkans should look more like this and this. As such the map's inclusion is contested until fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Almost all maps of the medieval Balkans are a collection of modern political projections onto the past.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an updated version, but the WC servers are still processing it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Map inaccuracy  

message: This recently added section on the HRE is extremely POV-ish, not only does it disregards the fact that HRE grew in prominence in the High Middle Ages and not the Early Middle Ages with Otto I being crowned emperor in 962 (however, the term "HRE" was not used immediately at this time), and erroneously states that "Carolingian Emperor Charles the Fat provoked an uprising, led by his nephew Arnulf of Carinthia, which resulted in the division of the empire in 887 into the kingdoms of France, Germany, and (northern) Italy." The Carolingian Empire broke up in 843 with the Treaty of Verdun not in 887. Also, POV-ish terms like "German government" are used. Finally, an entire section was created for the HRE, while the more significant for this era Carolinian Empire only has a sub-section. And, most of all not a single reference source was used to back up any of the claims. --E-960 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Mausoleum of Theoderic.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The illustration to the "Rise of Islam" sub-section is causing offence to Muslims, who object to pictorial representations of their Prophet.   The picture was uploaded to Commons on 22 September 2006, since when there has been a petition (garnering 400,000 signatures I believe) against the way it is used on Wikipedia and four deletion discussions, the argument for deletion being "it is also fake because no one in any islamic history book tried to draw him because it was and still forbidden in any case good or bad."   We can therefore say with confidence that this is not Muhammad - it is most likely to be a picture of Ali, as the Ahl al-Bayt are pictured closest to the preacher.   The Ahl al-Bayt are especially revered by the Shia, and the picture is one of a series created as a propaganda exercise to please a Shiite ruler. 92.28.118.179 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced caption on picture is offending Muslims