Talk:Battle of Kerlés

To much divagation

The text about the battle is very short but the text with divagation is 3 times greater with infertile data Eurocentral (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Title must show the real names of towns today to make possible the identification

Title must show the real names of towns today to make possible the identification Eurocentral (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Look at Battle of Belgrade (Nándorfehérvár) Even if Hungarians took part at battle, the title must respect the local name Eurocentral (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from unilateral renamings in the future. Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The real name is Cserhalom in Hungarian. Read more. Eurocentral (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not the real name. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page: "If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves." As I mentioned above you cannot move unilaterally articles. Please stop edit warring, because it may have serious consequences for you. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Participation of Romanians in the Chirales battle

Spinei wrote at p.118 (after citing the Russian chronicle) that invaders were "cumans" and Romanians

Also the Russian chronicle mentioned the same thing Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241

Eurocentral (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei does not write that Vlachs/Romanians took part in the campaign. He only writes that a Russian source (which misdates the events) attributed the invasion to Cumans and Vlachs. (This is piece of information is mentioned in the article (in the fifth sentence under the subtitle "Battle"). Spinei explicitly states that "Historians now agree that the marauders were Pechenegs ..." (Spinei 2009, p. 118). Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The participation of Romanians is mentioned by Spinei and by Russian chronicle. Two sources! Eurocentral (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read my above remark and stop original research. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We had an edit war 2 years ago about the same subject. Finally you agreed to add Romanians as participants. Your memory failed.

Spiney clearly wrote about Romanians in battle; also the Russian chronicle. Eurocentral (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Spinei does not write that Romanians participated in the campaign. He only refers to the Russian chronicle's report to the Romanians (which is mentioned in the article), but concludes that the invaders were pechenegs. Would you verbatim quote Spinei's text stating that Romanians participated in the battle? Please stop edit warring and remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei cited the Russian chronicle and made a correction of year and wrote that Cumans and Vlachs were blamed for invasion.(Spinei 2009, p. 118)

You may find the same afirmation in the Russian Chronicle: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 Eurocentral (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) It is a medieval chronicle reprinted in 1914 Finally there are 2 sources. Also you fought for thre same data 2 years ago. You forgot it. Eurocentral (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Spinei refers to the same primary source, but does not accept its report of the Vlachs' participation in the battle (as it is proved by my first remark above). Editors cannot present their own interpretation of primary sources (such as the Russian chronicle), according to WP:NOR. That the Russian chronicle says that Vlachs also took part in the campaign has already be mentioned in the article. Stop you edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You started again a war edit like 2 years ago.

Spinei clearly wrote about Romanians; Also the Russian Chronicle. You started an ORIGINAL RESEARCH about this topic. Eurocentral (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Again ([1]): would you verbatim quote Spinei's text stating that Romanians participated in the battle, according to him? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please stop edit warring. As I mentioned above, after mentioning the Russian chronicle's reference to the participation of Cumans and Vlachs in the campaign, Spinei states that "Historians now agree that the marauders were Pechenegs ..." (Spinei 2009, p. 118). The article contains both pieces of information. Again ([2], [3]): would you verbatim quote text from Spinei that proves that he thinks that Vlachs took part in the battle? If you cannot, your edits qualify as pure OR. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I see an Original Research here in the lines of Borsoka. This kind of interpretations are forbidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.83 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentral, are you identical with the above IP user? Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: ([4]) (request for third opinion). By the way, you have not quoted Spinei's text that proves that he thinks that Vlachs/Romanians participated in the battle. I think you should verify your claim, because I have not found such statement in his cited work. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei clearly cited the Romanians, repeating the data from a Russian chronicle. Wiki contains a lot of historians who cited other works (without expressing a clear own opinion) and are considered as sources. WE fought together last year about a citation of the historian Curta who repeated that "Moravcsic wrote Dacians were Hungarians" in a certain subject. You considered that Curta must be added as reference because the cited words were in his book.

So your edits look ambiguous and nationalistic. Finally we need to consider Spinei because he does not reject the idea. There are 2 questions: why you do not read the Russian chronicle ?????? and why do you repeat the battle we were involved 2 years ago on the same subject ????? We make a lot of people to loose time because of your repeated interventions against Spinei and other historians. Eurocentral (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentral, as I have mentioned several times above, Spinei explicitly says that "Historians now agree that the marauders were Pechenegs ..." (Spinei 2009, p. 118). Please remember that Spinei's reference to the Russian chronicle's report of the Vlachs participation in the battle is mentioned in the article (both in the lead and in the body of the article). Please verbatim quote Spinei's text which proves that he thinks that Vlachs/Romanians participated in the battle, or stop this edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei wrote in a paragraph about Romanians and in other paragraph about marauders (migrators). About marauders there are discussions: Cumans, Pechenegs or Ouzes? until today a lot of historians make confusion in this topic.

So, please do not mix phrases and avoid speculations. Your interpretations are OR (original research) From the same Russian chronicle results that Romanians took part at the battle of Kisvarda together with Solomon, Kutesk and Ruthens. Solomon was desperately to recapture his throne but finally lost the battle. The Cumans took Solomon (he was owed to Cumans) after some years in a last expedition against the Roman Empirem again with Romanians (called Dacians by Comnena)

So the WIKIPEDIA is far from containing all aspects of history. Because of some "editors" Eurocentral (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you verbatim quote Spinei's text which proves that he thinks that Vlachs/Romanians participated in the battle? Borsoka (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei discovered for the first time the true date of the battle in the Russian chronicle. He mentioned the Romanians as participants and the true date: 1068. Without Spinei, the Ipatiev chronicle was useless. Spinei has the merit of good interpretation of Russian chronicle.

Conclusion: we need to mention both sources. Reading only Russian chronicle is not enough. Eurocentral (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentral, Victor Spinei wrote the following sentences about the invasion which ended with the Battle of Kerlés:

"During the second half of the eleventh century, hordes of Pechenegs continued to inhabit the left bank of the Danube. In 1068, led by Osul, they launched a great attack against Transylvania and Hungary through the mountain passes across the Carpathian range. After they had crossed the Mezeș Gate and robbed the province of Nyr, they advanced to the fortress of Biharea. On their way back, they were ambushed and defeated by King Salomon (1068-1074) and his sons near Dăbâca stronghold. Whereas Simon of Keza and the Annales Posonienses ascribe the attack to the Pecehengs (Besi), the Latin-Hungarian chronicles of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries asscribe it to Cumans (Cuni). The latter may not be just and adaptation of a piece of information taken from older sources, since at the time of the raid the Cuman vanguard was already in the vicinity of the Carpahtian Mountains. One think seems to be certain, namely that the marauders of 1068 were not Uzes. A west-Russian chronographs misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romaniasn (Валахи). The unknown author of the Russian chronography then explained that Cumans were also called Половцы and Kум. Historian now agree that the marauders of 1068 were Pechenegs and those medieval authors who wrote of Cumans made a mistake, given that the ethnic name Cuni did not have a very clear meaning in the Latin-Hungarian chronicles."

— Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century (pages 117-118)

Would you explain, if Spinei twice emphasizes that the Pechenegs invaded Transylvania and Hungary, and does not say that the Russian chronograph's reference to a joint raid by Cumans and Vlachs is reliable, why do you think that Spinei thinks that Vlachs participated in the battle? Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei wrote: "A west-Russian chronographs misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romanians (Валахи)"

If Spinei wrote you cannot say hi didn't write. Making OR original research and contesting what wrote Spinei shows you are an objector of Spinei. Please stop attacks against Spinei. Eurocentral (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking into account that Spinei twice writes that the invaders were Pechenegs, please do not refer to him to prove that he accepts the russian annals' report of a joint raid by Cumans and Romanians. Please also respect the third opinion below. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: I requested comments here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not manipulate Wikipedia using Norden as "neutral". Norden was involved in several edits against Spinei. Also Norden never correctly read what Spinei wrote (he made a forgery, changing the text written by Spinei). This is a clear case of manipulation in Wikipedia. Using a nationalistic approach and 'false neutral opinions' editor Borsoka want to change the rules of Wikipedia.

If we eliminate a reference (like in this article) we may eliminate hundreds of references in other articles using the same rule. The precedent created by user Borsoka may be used to edit many articles by eliminating references using "editors like Norden" or simply using the new rule. Eurocentral (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, you still have not quoted Spinei's text that proves that he thinks that Romanians participated in the battle. Therefore, please stop referring to him in order to prove your own original research. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Majority of historians mention the sources without any comments. We can eliminate in this way a lot of Hungarian, Russian and Bulgarian historians. We cannot enter in the mind of a person to be sure if he believes or not. This style of analyse become an original research. Trying this speculations is a clear case of manipulation in Wikipedia. You tried to detract Spinei promoting opinions from Hungarian part. This kind of international war that you started goes nowhere. Please forget your nationalistic opinions and try to be honest and accept Spinei as a reference because his quotes are in majority of Romanian and Central and Eastern Europe historic articles. It is a shame to read in Wikipedia accusations to known personalities using manipulation. Eurocentral (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei made it clear (as it is proved by the above quote from his book) that he think that the raid was made by Pechenegs, not by Cumans and Romanians: he explicitly stated this. His reference to the Russian chronicle's report was long time ago mentioned in the body of the article. Please try to remain civil when communicating with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. What is the question? Please be civil and concise. The above discussion is marginal as to being civil and marginal as to being concise. Is the issue about the infobox, or about the body of the article? I can see that the body of the article states that medieval sources and modern sources differently identify some of the participants in the battle. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, please read the question here: ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did read that. The question at the Third Opinion noticeboard appears to be about the infobox. However, the discussion at this talk page appears to be about the body of the article. If the question at the noticeboard is about the infobox, where is the prior discussion about the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the question is about the infobox, because the body of the article (for the being) seems to be consensual after this edit: ([6]). Only the infobox has been subject to debates after that edit, but the argumentation is the same. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the infobox should mention the belligerents as they are identified by modern scholars, not as they were identified by medieval scholars. Infoboxes inherently provide a less-than-complete picture of the information in the article, but in this case modern scholarship may be better than medieval scholarship. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for your opinion. Borsoka (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Pálóczi, Spinei

That the legend contains elements of an Oriental tale is already mentioned in the article (in the second sentence under the subtitle "Aftermath"). We do not repeat all pieces of information in the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The legend is about a girl and his Cuman friend. The hungarian warrior killed the girl's friend. It is about a tragedy that you do not know Eurocentral (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the primary source (the chronicle) says that the girl asked Ladislaus not to kill the Cuman. However, in accordance with WP:NOR, would you refer to an academic work which states that the Hungarian girl was the Cuman's friend? Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Read again Paloczy. You erased him 2 times. Read the page of the reference you erased.

Eurocentral (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you verbatim quote his text? Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Hypatian Codex

The Hypatian Codex (also known as Hypatian Chronicle, Ipatiev Chronicle, Belarusian: Іпацьеўскі летапіс; Russian: Ипатьевская летопись; Ukrainian: Іпатіївський літопис, Іпатський літопис, Літопис руський за Іпатським списком) is a compendium of three chronicles: the Primary Chronicle, Kiev Chronicle, and Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It is the most important source of historical data for southern Rus'.

It contains data about the participation of Romanians at the battles of Chirales and Kisvarda

Data about Romanians as participants at the battles of Chirales and Kisvarda are accessible in Internet ! Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241

Eurocentral, I know that you like duplicating debates, but please read the above discussion under the subtitle "Participation of Romanians in the Chirales battle": there is no academic works proving that modern historians accept the chronicle's report about the Vlachs' participation in the battle. In lack of a reference to an academic work, we cannot say that Vlachs participated in the battle, we can only say that a Russian chronicle claimed that "Cumans and Vlachs" fought in the battle, according to WP:NOR - the latter piece of information is mentioned both in the lead and in the body of the text. Borsoka (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A modern historian is Spinei. According to Wiki, if he mentioned the participation of Romanians we need to enter it at references. Without Spinei we never knew about Hypatian codex. He made an important discovery about the real date of the battle judging the Russian chronicle and he pointed to Hypatian codex as source about Chirales battle.

Eurocentral (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read my answer above and also read my remark here: ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Attacks on historians

An editor, named Borsoka started a campaign against the medieval historian Spinei. Probably this type of discussion will also involve Makk Ferenc; Thoroczkay Gabor and other historians in order to clarify if they only supposed or if they believed what they wrote and we will involve a lot of editors in this debate. Eurocentral (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you have been waging a war against Spinei by referring to him in order to substantiate your own fringe theories. Please read my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing a chronicle

Falsifying the history. Somebody erased a chronicle about 1068 battle: (Russian chronicle): Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 Mestter (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)