Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1526)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

organized or not,

• "Although two other dignitaries, the gyula and the horka also had a role in the administration of the Hungarian tribal federation, in fact no central authority existed. The contemporary Byzantine Emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus clearly states that the Hungarian tribes "do not obey their own particular princes"

I think these statements are right around the second third of the 10th century during the campaigns to the west. Initially (at the time of the Hungarian conquest) there had to be a more organized command hierarchy. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe in the military, there existed an organized command hierarchy. The Hungarians obeyed to the gyulas in this respect, wrote Muslim authors. Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nagyszeben

Using this name in this context is anachronistic. There is no evidence that the name existed in those times. On ~ 1700 maps the used Hungarian name is Szebeny [1][2][3] Moreover, the official language of Hungary was Latin and the town was German. 79.117.163.86 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So, the language of the administration was Latin. What form did they use in the Middle Ages? A charter from Andrew II of Hungary (1224) used the Cibiniensis form as "SIGILLVM CIBINIENSIS PROVINCIE AD RETINENDAM CORONAM" [4][5]. There was no Hermannstadt. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If I followed your reasoning (perhaps) we could not call the town "Sibiu" before 1918/20. Just check its page, the Sibiu form is used everywhere. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The form Hermannstadt first appears in 1366 [6]. Talking about the Hungarian name, I was referring to the prefix Nagy- which seems to have been added later 79.117.217.101 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is not about the name of the town in the Middle Ages. The Hungarian form is Nagyszeben, and this is a Hungarian context, therefore the Hungarian name of the town is to be preferred in this specific case. Borsoka (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, the article is about Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages and not Hungary in the Middle Ages, so your "Hungarian context" is also wrong, because this is English WP with Neutral point of view - one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. "Kingdom of Hungary" was never homogeneous Magyar political structure(btw see the first sentence of this article: "The medieval Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic monarchy in Central Europe") and the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until the 19th century [7] [8] --Omen1229 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

None of the two books state that Latin was the official language of the kingdom. Official language is an anachronistic term for the middle ages. Borsoka (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a clearly written: "Hungary used to be a polyglot country with Latin as the official language until 1844." and also "Hungarian: it was minority language up to 1844", nevertheless Latin as the principal language of legislation, administration, judiciary, religion etc. is de facto official language. Probably the best neutral solution is Latin name of settlements for the whole area of Kingdom of Hungary. --Omen1229 (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you refer to English-language literature using the Latin form of those names? Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian context? This article is for readers from the whole world. By your approach, we should use should we use إمارة غرﻧﺎﻃﺔ‎ instead of Granada in the article Emirate of Granada

I already showed you that the prefix Nagy- was added after the medieval period, so using it in this context is anachronistic. It is like using Cluj-Napoca in an article about pre-1974 Romania 79.117.162.49 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Arabian script is rarely used in English-language literature, but the use of Hungarian name of settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary is not without precedent. All the same, I can accept the German form of the name in the first place. Borsoka (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong again, Hungarian was minority language up to 1844, between 1867 - 1920 Hungarian was majority language in the area of present-day Hungary, but not in the Kingdom of Hungary. Also Hungary is not synonym for multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Hungarian names in the first place for settlements are an anachronistic term for the middle ages. 1. Probably the best neutral solution is Latin name of settlements for the whole area of Kingdom of Hungary. 2. Solution: real authentic names according to historical sources for the whole area of Kingdom of Hungary 3. Solution: Modern names according to modern borders.

Yes, sometimes I am wrong, because I am a human being. However, I did not state anything on the position of the Hungarian language in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Would you please refer to reliable sources written in English that use Latin names or "real authentic names"? Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I do not understand your view yet.

1. Do you agree that Latin was "official" language or not?

2. "reliable sources written in English that use Latin names" is irrelevant if you know to find the informations, yes the real latin authentic names. From article: "Coloman soon had to face with two plundering bands of crusaders who attempted to take Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) and Moson on the borders." Is this reliable English source about historical names for you? I dont know, maybe the author wrote "Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia)" or maybe you wrote this version, but in fact the latin form was Nitria [9] [10]. <<- I found these tertiary sources instead you, because propably you do not know to find informations about Latin names: [11] [12]

Latin sources: 828 locum vocatum Nitraua/Nitrawa, 880/11th cent. nomine Vichinum, quem nobis direxisti, electum Episcopum consecrauimus sanctae Ecclesiae Nitriensis, 906/1200 castrum Nitra, civitas Nitria, nitrienses Sclavi, 955/1283 in partibus Nitrie habitasse, 1031 de carcere Nitriae, 1074 irruit super portam civitatis (Nitriensis), 1096 - 1111 et maioribus preposituris, necnon Posonii et Nitrie, 1111 in civitate Nitrie, 1113 et altera pars civitatis Nitrie, 1153 Nitram, 1183 tributum fori Nitriensis, 1231 maior exercitus castri Nitriensis, 1242 castrum munitum de Nitria; 1247?/1248/1323 terra hospitum de Nitria, 1248/1323 cives castri Nitriensis, 1273/1327 episcopatum sive urbem Neytrach, 1288/1323/1424 hospites nostri (regii) de Nitria, 1313/1344 civitas Nitriensis meniis et turribus diruta, 1318 in civitate nostra Nitriensi, 1321 in exustione - monasterii fratrum minorum Nitrie, 1323/1573 hospites et cives de Nitria cum terris et possessionibus Chehy, Chapur, Doworchan et Kereskyn, 1341 civitas Nitriensis, 1370 iudex et cives de Nitria, 1381 congregatio prope civitatem Nitriensem celebrata, 1403/1404 civitas Nitriensis, 1429 Thomas molendinator, civis civitatis Nitriensis, 1440 civitas Nitriensis, 1476 iudex civitatis Nitriensis, 1514 Mattheus Kuchar, iudex civitatis Nitriensis --Omen1229 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your research. However, English literature does not use those name. I assume that I do not need to present WP:NOR to you, since you have several times referred to it. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your research. > It looks like irony for me, considering your deletion of my edit in the article...
Your argument that "English language literature does not use Latin form" is untruth and nonsense too. The name Nitria in English language literature: [13][14][15][16] [17][18] etc. I do not understand also why you used term "WP:NOR", what do you mean exactly? Nevertheless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and tertiary source, so the reason that "English language literature does not use Latin form" is irrelevant here. WP is not English language literature. WP - the free encyclopedia based on neutral, reliable and verifiable sources. Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. I read the "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" from WP rules and I found none term "English source is only allowed". All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So your version with anachronistic term for the middle ages does not respect this fundamental principle - NPOV.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I again appreciate your research. However, I am not sure that books written in 1854, 1928, 1937,1964, 1968 and 1984 represent the practise followed by English-language literature. You might have not realised that this is the English version of WP: therefore we should follow modern English usage when editing this version. There is no point in creating new approaches. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating of my view: In good faith I want to use the best neutral solution - Latin name of settlements instead anachronistic names. Now I verified source by user Borsoka and I now know that I was manipulated. User Borsoka edit the article with strong Hungarian context, this user wrote in the article: "Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia)[74] ", in fact the source claims "Nitra in Slovakia" > page 226 [19]. User Borsoka "appreciated my research", but I now know that it was unnecessary work for me, according to new facts. Now I will prefer the best neutral solution - modern names according to modern borders.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I verified another source by user Borsoka, this user wrote in the article: "Each county was headed by a royal official known as ispán,[44]", user Borsoka used only hungarian term ispán in fact the source claims: "zupan (comes in Latin, ispán in Hungarian)" [20] The term "ispán" is also anachronistic in paragraph - King St Stephen I (1000–1038), because the Hungarian word "ispán" is first attested as a proper name from 1269, and as a title from around 1282. The books.google results: zupan - 457,000 results [21], ispán - 79,600 results 2. This user Borsoka also claimed "English language literature does not use Latin form", see page 43: "zupan (comes in Latin, ispán in Hungarian)" from this source.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I verified another source by user Borsoka, this user wrote in the article:"For instance, the settlement network of the so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia) began to develop under his rule.[180] ", in fact the source claims: "counties Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Orava - this part of modern Slovakia"[22], 4 counties from 16 in modern Slovakia, nothing about "so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia)". Borsoka made dubious edit [23], which looks like all present-day Slovakia was in that time nothing only forest, so I wanted a citation [24], soon was my edit deleted [25]. This user Borsoka also claimed "English language literature does not use Latin form", see pages 113 Vetus Buda, 112 Civitas Novi Montis Pestiensis etc... from this source.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins please stop this POV editing and probably antislovak campaign of this user before she/he will make more damages in this topic area.--Omen1229 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Another problem is neutrality of this article. Why this article has sentences as "Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia)" "Nagyvárad (Oradea, Romania)"... and in sentences about settlements in present-day Hungary is not "(Hungary)"? It looks like the "Hungary" is synonym for multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary".--Omen1229 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Slovakian is one of the few languages which differentiate the Kingdom of Hungary from Hungary. However, this is an English version of WP. Therefore, there is no need to differentiate the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary from Hungary (which is also a multiethnic state). Otherwise, what is your suggestion to fix the problem (if there is a problem at all)? Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, this is an English version of WP and this "English version of WP" differentiate the Kingdom of Hungary from Hungary. See: 1 2 If there is no need to differentiate the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary from modern Hungary, why we have 2 articles? Seeing similarity Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary is nonsense. Another illogical argument is comparing ethnic structure in Kingdom of Hungary [26] and modern Hungary [27]. Admins, NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, so please give me permission to revrite this "Hungarian context"(as himself wrote user Borsoka) to Latin terms, because probable edit wars in future are counterproductive and boring for me and a consensus is impossible now. I will revrite only un-neutral anachronistic terms.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating of my view: In good faith I want to use the best neutral solution - Latin name of settlements instead anachronistic names. Now I verified source by user Borsoka and I now know that I was manipulated. User Borsoka edit the article with strong Hungarian context, this user wrote in the article: "Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia)[74] ", in fact the source claims "Nitra in Slovakia" > page 226 [28]. User Borsoka "appreciated my research", but I now know that it was unnecessary work for me, according to new facts. Now I will prefer the best neutral solution - modern names according to modern borders.--Omen1229 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please try to cite properly the reliable source. "The speed and scale of the changes in both the life of the peasantry and the field of urban development can be illustrated by the example of the enormous royal forest of Zvolen, which comprised the districts, later counties, of Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Orava. In spite of the importance of the silver mines of Banská Stiavnica, this part of modern Slovakia seems to have been sparsely inhabited before the Mongol invasion...." Where are those counties? In the Western-Carpathians. Where are the Western Carpathians? In Slovakia. What does the reliable source state of those counties? They were scarcely inhabited. What does the article state based on the cited reliable sources: the Western Carpathians (now in Slovakia) were scarcely inhabited. What is the issue? Why is it an anti-Slovakian campaign? Please think twice before accusing other editors of nationalism, chauvinism, rascism or anti-....ism. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, Borsoka. I wrote only: "Admins please stop this POV editing and probably antislovak campaign of this user". I see nothing about "nationalism, chauvinism, rascism or anti-....ism." Back to your synthesis, which you think is proper and neutral.

"the Western Carpathians" - in the source is nothing about this term. The source claims: "royal forest of Zvolen, which comprised the districts, later counties, of Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Orava" - 4 counties from 16 in modern Slovakia. Why User Borsoka did not use the terms according to source? Instead user Borsoka used OR term.

(1) At least 6-7 of those 16 counties which used to be at least partially situated in the lands now forming Slovakia were not situated in the Western Carpathians - the sentence in the article refers to the Western Carpathians not to Slovakia. (2) The sentence in the article does not state that the Western Carpathians and Slovakia are synonyms. (3) Where are those counties? In the Western Carpathians. Do you think that those counties are situated in the Great Hungarian Plain? Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, now my logical thinking collapsed, but I will try to analyze your illogical synthesis. "At least 6-7 of those 16 counties which used to be at least partially situated in the lands now forming Slovakia were not situated in the Western Carpathians" > this is obviously OR of Borsoka, but I will use the data of this user. So cca 10 counties were situated in the Western Carpathians - in the source is nothing about this term naturally - only "royal forest of Zvolen" - 4 counties... So the Borsoka's term "Western Carpathians" is invalid.--Omen1229 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"(now in Slovakia)" - in the source is clearly "this part of modern Slovakia". Borsoka made dubious edit [29], which looks like all present-day Slovakia was in that time nothing only forest, so I wanted a citation [30], soon was my edit deleted [31].

Would you explain why the expression "the so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia)" suggests that all present-day Slovakia was scarcely inhabited? Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In the source is clearly "this part of modern Slovakia" and not "in modern Slovakia". Your OR is irrelevant here, WP is based on neutral, reliable and verifiable sources. The term "(in present-day Slovakia)" is inaccurate and it can mean anything. My accurate edit "(some areas in present-day Slovakia)" was deleted by Borsoka with edit summary "the source is added".--Omen1229 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"were scarcely inhabited" - in the source is nothing about this term. The source claims: "this part of modern Slovakia seems to have been sparsely inhabited before the Mongol invasion". It is not 100% sure. If we put this synthesis together, we get disputed nutrality, OR, weasel word, etc. > "so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia)" --Omen1229 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read also the following sentences from the same book: "The process bean in the thirteenth century with the settlement of the hunge royal forests in Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Spis. During the Angevin period the hitherto deserted woodlands of Trencin, Orava, Gemer, Saris, Zemplin and Ung were gradually spotted with human settlements" (Engel 2001, p. 268.). So, all counties in the Western Carpathians were scarcely inhabited up until the 1300s. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your knowledge are amazing, you are like - polymath - you are a historian, geographer, geologist, archaeologist... In the cited source is: "a forest was a well-defined district which comprised both the land (open territory as well as woodland) and all those who inhabited it." I do not see nowhere in the source "During the Angevin period the hitherto deserted woodlands of Trencin, Orava, Gemer, Saris, Zemplin and Ung were gradually spotted with human settlements" and also "Western Carpathians were scarcely inhabited up until the 1300s". For author - Pál Engel - royal forests in Zvolen seems to have been sparsely inhabited before the Mongol invasion, this is only his view, but you are pretty sure about overall situation in the "Western Carpathians". If you want to write about history of population in the Western Carpathians you should check the new archaeological sources. You have probably never seen the plains there. Ok, for example Turiec - continuously inhabited Slavs already before Great Moravia. Slavic hillforts and fortified settlements in this region: Blatnica, Bystrička, Žabokreky, Priekopa, Turčianske Kľačany, Šútovo, Čertova skala pri Sklabini, Valča, Krpeľany, Slovenské Pravno, Záborie, Horné Jaseno, Vyšehrad - Vyšehradné etc. Slavic unfortified settlements in Turiec: Blatnica, Martin – Košúty, Ivančiná Diviaky, Necpaly, Sučany etc., newer settlements: Martin – Záturčie (10–11. century), Bystrička (10-12.), Turčianske Kľačany (10–12.), Kláštor pod Znievom (11–12.), Háj (11–12.), Šútovo (11–12.), Trebostovo (11–12.) etc. Mostly settlements exist today. Nevertheless this region or Nitra region are in the Western Carpathians, so the Borsoka's synthesis is i n v a l i d.--Omen1229 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read again the page referred to above from the cited book more carefully and you can find the sentence. I would appreciate if you cited reliable sources when stating something. All the same, a dozen early medieval settlements unearthed in the woodlands which once make up about 50% of the lands what now form Slovakia do not contradict to the statement that those woodlands were sparsely inhabited. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, there are hundreds of reliable sources about archeology, for example Alexander Ruttkay [32]. I would appreciate if you cited only facts from reliable sources instead of your synthesis when something stating.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read what a weasel word means. Would you explicitly point to the weasel words in the sentence of the article? Please also take into account that not the whole page was cited from Engel's work: there is also reference to the distribution of the Turc and Liptov basin among small landholders by Béla IV, and to the emergence of villages in the same territory. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never denied, that there are sources which use the modern names. Other sources use the Hungarian name. Our task to write in a consequent and neutral way: both Hungarian and Slovakian names are mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is impossible for you, right? "I have never denied, that there are sources which use the modern names." > You manipulated with source, you undid my edit with Edit summary "WP:NOR (English language literature does not use Latin form)"[33][34], in fact in cited source is "Nitra in Slovakia" and also another Latin terms.

"Other sources use the Hungarian name." > And other sources use the Latin name, and other sources use the Slovak name, and other source use the xyz name...

"Our task to write in a consequent and neutral way: both Hungarian and Slovakian names are mentioned." > The article has strong "Hungarian context"(as himself wrote user Borsoka) --Omen1229 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

All relevant modern names are mentioned. Why does it contradict to neutrality? Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already written about neutrality and your POV in this discussion.--Omen1229 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I can accept the German form of the name in the first place. > This is not your a private "Borsokapedia" and you are also not CEO of WP. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. See: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Consensus --Omen1229 (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are again right: this is not "Borsokapedia". However, I can accept a proposal made by other editors (in this case by an Anon editor). Would you suggest a proper language that I should use intead of "I can accept the proposal" when I accept a proposal? Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed description of this "incident", because it looked arrogant for me. --Omen1229 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit looks really bad [35] and is difficult for me to understand. A picture is purely for illustrative purposes only. Why did you delete only this picture? You think that for example Levoča picture is authentic for 12th century? --Omen1229 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an English version of WP, so please use modern names in Edit summary [36] and use modern names for edits+url and use also English on Talk page.--Omen1229 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the connection between (always) using modern names and contributing to English Wikipedia. Can you explain? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to verify this sentence from article: "The castle at Kremnitz, a mining town founded by German miners from Bohemia". Borsoka, please explain me this sentence from your cited sources. Thanks!--Omen1229 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Danube Swabians"

The Germans (as Saxons in Spis county and southern Transylvania) in territory of medieval Hungary can trace their roots back to the 12th century, however they are not equal with the latter "Danube Swabian" Germans and we should not use this expression in the middle ages. The "Danube Swabians" form developed in the end of the 18th century -only after the "organized resettlement of Germans" when their number increased enormously (800 new German villages mainly in Vojvodina, Banat, Baranya, Tolna (along the Danube´)). Fakirbakir (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Engel_106":

• From Duke of Transylvania: Engel 2001, p. 106.
• From Voivode of Transylvania: Engel 1996, p. 106.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The above two references refer to two different works written by the same author: Engel, Pál: Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1301–1457, I. (História, MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996, ISBN 963-8312-44-0), and Engel, Pál: The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001, ISBN 1-86064-061-3). Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Map: Louis I's realms

The beautiful map was planned around 1885, because it is presented in a work on Queen Mary of Hungary's life from the same period. However, it is not clear what it does present: Hungary, Croatia, Poland and Halych were directly ruled by the king, while the rulers of other states (Bosnia, Serbia, Wallachia, Moldavia, and Bulgaria) sometimes accepted his suzerainty, sometimes not. The map does not make a distinction between these two groups of states; therefore it is of dubious value. Moreover, this article is about the history of the Kingdom of Hungary, not about Louis I of Hungary. Consequently, a map representing territories connected to the Polish crown (Poland, Halych, Moldavia) is misleading in this context. Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, then please delete the the colonisation related sentences and maps in the history of UK and history of France etc... articles. Your "logic" is strange... I've never heard such a xxxxxx-ing reasoning. Hungarians have some years of common historic periods with Poland, what's wrong with it? ("merjünk kicsik lenni" hazudjunk le, tagadjunk el csak a múltunkból) Hitgyülin hallottad vagy LMP-gyűlésen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.126 (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the connection between Louis I's rule in Poland and the history of the medieval kingdom of Hungary? What is the date of the map? Megértem, hogy vannak emberek, akik Magyarország ezer éves történelméből csak Nagy Lajos utolsó 12 évére izgulnak. Nekik is el kell azonban fogadniuk, hogy nem mindenki ilyen. Olyan emberek is vannak, akik párt- vagy egyházi rendezvényeken szerzik be minden történelmi ismeretüket. Talán ők is képesek felfogni, hogy nem mindenki ilyen. Sőt, olyan emberek is vannak, akik azt hiszik, hogy az egész világ a minőségi angol használtruha-kereskedések és D-kategóriás pornófilmek szintjén áll, ahol a legjobb, a legelső és a legnagyobb a legfontosabb hívószavak. Nekik viszont tudomásul kell venni, hogy egy ezer éves hagyománnyal rendelkező nép történelmét nem lehet erre a szintre lesülyeszteni. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Szervusz proletár egyszerű származású , gazdasági menekült (Anglia) "barátom". (Állandó jelzőket ajándékozok neked mint az ókori eposzok hőseinek :)) ) Látom átvetted érvelésemet, "pártfőiskola stb...) De ez inkább téged jellemez a hitgyülis LMP képzőiddel fősulijaiddal, prolikám. Mivel most szerzem harmadik egyetemi diplomámámat, nem hinném hogy rászorulnék bármilyen államilag el nem ismert népfősikolára vagy faiskolára amiket te végeztél. Mivel gazdasági menekült vagy angliában, úgy látszik nem tudtál boldogulni, rendes munkát se kapni hazánkban (talán éppen az értéktelen büfé-szakos fősulid vagy faiskoláid miatt). No, de térjünk át a lényegre. Miért fáj neked a Nagy Lajos térkép, és miért ne tartozna ez magyarország történetébe ha minden ált.sulis és középsulis törikönyvben benne vannak a hasonló térképek lajos idejéből. Elmagyaráznád? Vagy esetleg a francia történelemhez nem tartoznak hozzá a Napóleoni háborúk és hódítások korszakai? Mégis miért fáj neked ennyire a körüllakó "nípek" kis nemzeti érzékenysége? Olyan vagy mint a kommunista rákosi korszakbeli történészek akik szintén nem tárgyalták a törikönyveikben az országcsonkítást erdélyi felvidéki stb.. történelmet arra való hivatkozással hogy az "sérti a körüllakó 'nípek' érzékenységét". Neked minden fáj ami a nemzeti nagyságról szól, de ha így van miért nem saját sivatagi anyaországod történetét szerkeszted a magyar helyett? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.222.173 (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Melyik könyvnek melyik oldalán szerepel ez a térkép? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP-editor, (a) use English on English Wikipedia (so other users who cannot speak Hungarian can also understand and contribute to the discussion); and (b) do not make personal attacks (like you did above when you attacked Borsoka). It it perfectly OK if you do not agree with some of the edits other editors make, but in this case concentrate on the content not on the editor who made the edit. And, of course, (c) support your opinion with reliable sources. Beside these issues, I see your point that including such a map can be interesting here, even if this article is about the Kingdom of Hungary. Croatia was also not integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary, still it is interesting to show maps which also include the Kingdom of Croatia. Why is it that different in case of the Kingdom of Poland? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My concerns are the following: (1) Louis I's rule in Poland is interesting in an article on Louis I, because it was only a personal union which ended in 1382. Croatia, I think, is not a good counterargument, because Hungary proper and Croatia were united for a thousand years and their connection was more than personal union. (2) The map presents a situation which never existed at the same time: Wallachia and Moldavia only accepted for small periods his suzerainty. (3) The map contradicts to modern reliable sources. For example, a map presented in one of István Schütz's books (Fehér foltok a Balkánon: Bevezetés az albanológiába és a balkanisztikába, Balassi Kiadó, 2002, ISBN 963-506-472-1, p. 183.) contradicts to this old map from the 1880s: according to István Schütz's book only a small part of Bulgaria accepted Hungarian suzerainty. Otherwise, our Hungarian (?) correspondent's remarks are really entertaining. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What about these maps (sources in their descriptions)?: [37] or [38] Could we use them here? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that these maps are seemingly based on the same old source. We should use modern reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that they are too old and derive from the age of "Hungarian national romanticism". Unfortunately, we can not use modern maps unless we design a new one (based on reliable sources like this [39]). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this map is also wrong. For instance, it does not present the Duchy of Mazovia, although it was a semi-independent duchy up until 1526. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Medorm

Dear Medorm. You might have not had a chance to realize that there are several levels of communication. For instance, the Hungarian word "fos" is not used in this community. Please try to avoid these words. If you are uncertain what are the terms to be avoided, try to read books on the subject. Please also try to accept that there are many people without any political preference, even if it is a surprise for you. Egyébként BUÉK. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortresses

I do not know wheather most fortresses were made of stone or of earth in Western Europe a f t e r 1000, but the source cited refers to early medieval fortresses (that is to the period p r e c e d i n g the year 1000). Therefore, this source cannot be cited to substantiate the claim that in "contemporary Western Europe" (that is in Western Europe a f t e r 1000) most fortresses were made of earth and timber. Borsoka (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is well known, that the vast majority of stone fortifications appeared during the crusader era in Western Europe. Thomas Patrick Neill, Daniel D. McGarry: A history of Western civilization.--Medorm (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You know nothing is well known in our community. Please, try to add proper references (at least ISBN and page). I suggest you should read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Otherwise, I still do not understand why we should add that the vast majority of forts in 10th-13th century Europe was made of earth and timber, if it is a well known information. What do we want to emphasize by adding this piece of information? Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann, Robert M. Jurga : The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts and Walled Cities of the Middle Ages

You must to know some more interesting facts: Western European (English) cities were wooden cities until the 16-17th century. Paris was a wooden city (most houses were wooden houses in Paris, until the 16th century. German cities were wooden cities untl the late 15th century.

Medieval stone and brick houses (and cities) existed only in Italia, Iberia, and from the 14th century in Hungary.--Medorm (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The typical late medieval city panorama in medieval France Germany and England: Only the church/cathedral and city hall were stone buildings :)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medorm (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please add proper citations (ISBN, page). WP requires a strict citation style, similarly to universities in Hungary. Anything can be added but we all should follow our community rules. Borsoka (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Until the 12th century, stone-built and earth and timber castles were contemporary,[75] but by the late 12th century the number of castles being built went into decline. This has been partly attributed to the higher cost of stone-built fortifications, and the obsolescence of timber and earthwork sites, which meant it was preferable to build in more durable stone.[76] Although superseded by their stone successors, timber and earthwork castles were by no means useless.[77]

Allen Brown 1976, p. 13 Allen Brown, Reginald (1976) [1954], Allen Brown's English Castles, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, ISBN 1-84383-069-8 Allen Brown 1976, pp. 108–109 Cathcart King 1988, pp. 29–30 Cathcart King, David James (1988), The Castle in England and Wales: an Interpretative History, London: Croom Helm, ISBN 0-918400-08-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.57.92 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Forests in Western Slovakia

Dear Omen1229, I desperately try to understand your logic, but I cannot. Here are two text from Engel's book:

• "The speed and scale of the changes in both the life of the peasantry and the field of urban development can be illustrated by the example of the enormous royal forest of Zvolen, which comprised the districts, later counties, of Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Orava. In spite of the importance of the silver mines of Banská Stiavnica, this part of modern Slovakia seems to have been sparsely inhabited before the Mongol invasion...." (Engel 2001, p. 113.)
• "The process bean in the thirteenth century with the settlement of the hunge royal forests in Zvolen, Turc, Liptov and Spis. During the Angevin period the hitherto deserted woodlands of Trencin, Orava, Gemer, Saris, Zemplin and Ung were gradually spotted with human settlements" (Engel 2001, p. 268.)

Would you, please, cite verbatim a reliable source which states that those forested regions were not sparsely inhabited? Borsoka (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My logic is logical, but I will ignore your personal attack. To the point - in the cited source is also: "a forest was a well-defined district which comprised both the land (open territory as well as woodland) and all those who inhabited it". In the source are no results for term "so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia)", where in the source do you see the term Western Carpathians? And this is resultant synthesis of User:Borsoka in the wp article: "For instance, the settlement network of the so far scarcely inhabited forests of the Western Carpathians (in present-day Slovakia) began to develop under Béla IV." --Omen1229 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another citation to support Engels's view: "The Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký...... also admitted the population of only (approximately) south-western Slovakia and the most southern parts of central Slovakia before the thirteenth century; the rest of the Slovak territory was according to him a primeval forest until the thirteenth century and an intentionally unpopulated frontier region of the Kingdom of Hungary" (in Richard Marsina, Ethogenesis of Slovaks, 1997, p. 16). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one: "....the Saxon settlers (really Germans from the Rhineland), who cleared the forests and developed agriculture, mining and trade in the mountainous, sparsely populated northern Hungary (Slovakia) and Transylvania....." (Victor S. Mamatey, Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1815, 1978, p. 19). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention that the northern territories were also parts of the Gyepű system until the 13th century. These lands were mostly uninhabited or sparsely inhabited. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And these Hungarian editors like User:Fakirbakir or Borsoka edit Slovak relating articles...

OK, the full citation (Richard Marsina, Ethogenesis of Slovaks, 1997)[40]:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Substantially different opinions concerning the origin of the Slovaks were pre- sented at the beginning of this century by the Hungarian historian J. Karácsonyi and towards the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century by the Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký. Although their opinions have only been accepted by a small part of historians, they still survive, often only latently, and this is why we have to get acquainted with them. At first, in his study on the probable borders of the King- dom of Hungary under Stephen I (1001-1038), Karácsonyi (1901) thought that only a small part of Slovakia was populated, predominantly south-western Slovakia and the most southern parts of central and eastern Slovakia. On these grounds he then, twenty years later (1921), published a work, written allegedly during World War I, entitled “Our historical right to the territorial integrity of our country” and he ar- gued that the ancestors of the modern Slovaks are not identical with the original Slavonic inhabitants of this territory in the ninth century since they were allegedly integrated into the Hungarian nation. The modern Slovaks are allegedly descen- dants of the White Croats who moved from the upper Morava and upper Odra rivers gradually by the twelfth century to the Kingdom of Hungary and only thus suc- ceeded in preserving themselves as an independent ethnic group. The Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký also based his ideas on research into the development of settlement. In his work “Old Slovakia” (1923) he also admitted the population of only (approximately) south-western Slovakia and the most south- ern parts of central Slovakia before the thirteenth century; the rest of the Slovak ter- ritory was according to him a primeval forest until the thirteenth century and an in- tentionally unpopulated frontier region of the Kingdom of Hungary. He argued that the Slovak people was not created from one Slavonic tribe but represented a real Slavonic microcosm. As for the language, its core was (allegedly) Czech. He em- phasized his opinions in his work the “Walachians in Slovakia” (1947), also consid- ering the Walachian population, especially in the sixteenth and the seventeenth cen- turies, to be significant co-agents in the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks. Regardless of the fact that modern historical and archaeological exploration in the last decades showed the opinions of both Karácsonyi and Chaloupecký about the lack of population of the greater part of Slovakia before the thirteenth century to be wrong, their views can be said to be both identical and controversial in many directions. They almost agree in characterizing the extent of the oldest settlement; however, in the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks there is a principal controversy. J. Karácsonyi has com- pletely eliminated the possibility of the continuity of Slavonic population in Slovakia before the twelfth and after the eleventh centuries (when, according to his visions, there were probably no original Slavs in what is today the territory of Slovakia). V. Chaloupecký has no doubts about the fact that after the eleventh century the Slavonic inhabitants of south-western Slovakia (from the Morava river up to the re- gion around the river Hron) were descendants of those Slavs who had lived there in the ninth and the tenth centuries. Their opinions can be considered in a way identical because they both wanted to put forward arguments that would lead to a political solu- tion to the Slovak question or, better to say, the integrity and legitimacy of the King- dom of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the period of writing their works. None of them concealed their intentions, they even underlined it. By arguing that the Slovaks are later immigrants to the already existing Hungar- ian state, J. Karácsonyi wanted to prove that the separation of the territory of Slovakia from the historic Kingdom of Hungary was unjustified. On the other hand, V. Chaloupecký tried to prove that original old Slovakia was small, mostly unpopul- ated, and its original inhabitants were really of Czech origin, who also later created, in spite of their state and legal affiliation, a linguistic, geographical, and cultural unity with Bohemia and Moravia. These circumstances should have been, accord- ing to him, understood as a basis and historical justification or apology for (the newly formed) Czechoslovakia and as the primary characteristic of Slovak history; he thus tried to justify historically the formation of Czechoslovakia and also the theory of one united “Czechoslovak nation”. If J. Karácsonyi through his thesis about the lack of population of central and eastern Slovakia and the annihilation or complete assimilation of the original Slavic inhabitants throughout the Slovak terri- tory tried to prove primary contribution of the Magyars and the Hungarian (or rather Magyar) state to populating these areas, V. Chaloupecký, with his good com- mand of Slavonic languages and dialects, also had to defend the thesis of the lack of population of central and eastern Slovakia because he knew that the dialects spo- ken in central Slovakia could hardly considered Czech and their bearers (from an ethnic point of view) could not be Czechs. Both these scholars politically updated the account of the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks in order to prove the historical justification of the existing situation or the unjustness of this situation from the historical perspective. From the historical point of view it is a complete fiction to speak of a Czechoslovak nation since for instance the Annals of Fulda evidently show that towards the end of the ninth century the Czechs regarded themselves as a completely different ethnic group from their east- ern neighbours the Moravians and the ancestors of the Slovaks – Slovaks lived still further to the east of the Moravians. Denial of the continuity of the Slavs living in the territory of what is today Slovakia before the eleventh century and those who have been living there since the eleventh century is also incorrect. In particular the oldest local names in a written form can serve as evidence. On the basis of the known development of the (Slovak) language these names can serve for determin- ing the time of their formation (before the thirteenth century; in the tenth century or before the tenth century). Therefore it should be adequate to deal with the ethno- genesis of Slovaks in more detail."...

Regardless of the fact that modern historical and archaeological exploration in the last decades showed the opinions of both Karácsonyi and Chaloupecký about the lack of population of the greater part of Slovakia before the thirteenth century to be wrong, their views can be said to be both identical and controversial in many directions. --Omen1229 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent!!! Now everybody can read that how scanty Marsina's reasoning is (about this subject). And actually he wrote mainly about Slavic continuity what is another issue. His reasoning about Chaloupecký does not sound like a historian but a politician:

"On the other hand, V. Chaloupecký tried to prove that original old Slovakia was small, mostly unpopulated, and its original inhabitants were really of Czech origin, who also later created, in spite of their state and legal affiliation, a linguistic, geographical, and cultural unity with Bohemia and Moravia"

There is only one !linguistic! reason from him to argue population: "In particular the oldest local names in a written form can serve as evidence. On the basis of the known development of the (Slovak) language these names can serve for determining the time of their formation (before the thirteenth century; in the tenth century or before the tenth century)."

So this is the "evidence" against the sparsely populated areas covered by mass of woods???  :) .......I admit the sparsely population could be Slavic, but this matter is not about continuity. And of course he forgot to write about 300 years of Gyepű system in Kingdom of Hungary or the environmental circumstances of the Middle Ages in connection with mountainous regions (It is pretty straightforward the medieval people lived mainly in the fertile plains). Fakirbakir (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir, why are you so nervous? Only your edits and arguments are "scanty" in this discussion. 1. This user - Fakirbakir wrote manipulated (not the first time) and incomplete Marsina's citation > so Marsina was good source for his POV. 2. After I wrote full citation > so Marsina's reasoning is scanty for Fakirbakir... Prof. Marsina wrote it clearly in his short summary: "Regardless of the fact that modern historical and archaeological exploration in the last decades showed the opinions of both Karácsonyi and Chaloupecký about the lack of population of the greater part of Slovakia before the thirteenth century to be wrong, their views can be said to be both identical and controversial in many directions." Your OR and personal opinions about Marsina are not interesting or important. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing Marsina's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. --Omen1229 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Péter Rabb, Natural conditions in the Carpathian Basin of the middle ages, Periodica Polytechnica, 2007

"There is no information on significant deforestation carried out by the conquering Hungarians. The level and hilly wooded fields, where they settled, were perfect for the semi-nomadic people who were mainly raising livestock although next to the winter settlements had also started to cultivate plants. The grazings and woods by the border of the settlements were in undivided common property, the memory of which can be seen in sources for centuries. The dense and in early times uninhabited woods of the Carpathians and the inner medium height mountains, with the strengthening of central power and the establishment of the institutional system of the kingdom, became the private property of the king [24] p. 193. In these areas by the 12th century an independent forest-overseer system had been set up, the profit of which was absorbed by the king and his close court. The ownership of the first areas of land to be transferred were typically areas of woodland or forest, thus by the 13th century most parts of the forests had gone into ecclesiastical and noble hands, while the rest was either absorbed into the neighbouring counties or was used for hunting."

Fakirbakir (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity map

Should we mention the ethnic situation in the kingdom? (See:[41]) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have acces to István Kniezsa's Magyarország népei a XI. században from 1938? (It was reprinted in 2000, ISBN 963-85954-3-4). It attempts to describe the ethnic situation based on place names. I guess that the above map is a simplified version of Kniezsa's work. I suggest that the original should be preferred. Borsoka (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the original version from Kniezsa:[42]. It is quite old map I am going to check whether we can use it on wiki. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about this dubious map is conducted here ([43]). Please don`t use this historically controversial map until we discuss it. Adrian (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This map shows the Hungarian academic point of view. Do not remove it. If you have problem with this map design another map and demonstrate the Romanian POV in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop re-adding this map as long as there is no consensus to include it Transerd (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You should not remove a properly sourced map without valid reason. What kind of consensus are you talking about? Can you accept that the page needs to show the Hungarian point of view in connection with Kingdom of Hungary? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not the general POV of Hungarian authors, other historians also place Romanians in Transylvania in the 11th century Transerd (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So what is the general POV by Hungarian authors? I am really curious. Do not forget we are talking about 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd, please, argue based on sources. Who are these other historians? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Latin as "official" language

Latin was only official written language in Kingdom of Hungary. The latin was the official written language in all medieval Roman-Catholic European countries. The official spoken language was Hungarian, because very few people knew latin (the clergymen and some very few higher educated individuals), very few noblemen knew the latin language even in the era of Matthias Corvinus.--Balkony (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no reference to the Latin as official language in the article. Would you refer to reliable sources suggesting that Hungarian was the "official spoken language" (???) in the kingdom. For the time being, I cannot imagine that Hungarian was used for official purposes in most of the towns (which were inhabited by predominantly German-speaking burghers) or in many villages where Slavic- or Romanian-speaking peasants lived. This claim seems to contradict to the reliable sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Important political/military/ juristical decisions weren't born in the councils of some towns/cities. They happened in the royal court later also in the parliament and in the courts of the county-seats. Despite they appeared first in the Sigismund era in the parliament, the delegates of the cities/towns hadn't important political power in the nation-wide political questions. --Balkony (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In defence of Hungarian language, I have an example. "As Galeotto Marzio tells us, Hungarian 'heroic sagas', and love songs were often sung on special occasions in the king's court alongside the international, 'modern' Burgundian-Flandrian music."(Roy Porter, Mikuláš Teich, The Renaissance in national context, Cambridge University Press,1992, page 173) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, do you suggest that X-faktor and other similar shows on the television where mostly English songs are sung prove that English is the official language in Hungary? Sincerely, I do not understand the relevance of the above text in the context of the debate. Borsoka (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, the Hungarian language was not peripheral. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And I've doubts that villages had so-called "offices" in medieval Hungary.--Balkony (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that your doubts are not relevant for WP purposes. I suggest that you should read WP:Sources. Borsoka (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that all your doubts were defeated by the clear & simple logic and the common sense.--Balkony (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Balkony, WP is a strange community of peoples: clear and simple logic and common sense can hardly be used against reliable sources. Therefore, I still suggest that you should read the article again. There is no reference to "official language" and the use of Hungarian in the Diets is clearly mentioned. Furthermore, any information added should be substantiated by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Balkony, you should not be so sarcastic. I did read somewhere after the Poles Hungarian nobles were the second most numerous in Europe. Most of them did not even read or write. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliebale comtemporary sources? Borsoka, can you cite some contemporary documents which support your theory? I'm afraid : you can't.--Balkony (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Balkony, I do not understand your above remark. Did I make any change in the article without adding reliable source to substantiate it? When and what? What "reliable contemporary source" means in your vocabulary? Please read what a reliable source means for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Pejin's map

I am willing to put back Pejin's map to the article if its source is verifiable (Jovan Pejin, Velikomađarski kapric, Zrenjanin, 2007) and his POV is supported by the majority of Serb academics. However his view seems OR in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That map is just a joke/provocation. As far as I know it contradicts modern scholars, contemporary chronicles, archaeological findings, etc. I suspect that it is simply fake, so I also would like to see the source. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same for some other map... let`s just try to keep our personal opinion for ourselves. It has a source, it is a Serbian academic. True, it is not mainstream as many others are not, but that doesn`t change the fact that this map is not a fake. Offline sources are just as good as online WP:OFFLINE. If you wish to check it, I am afraid you must find this book and see. Adrian (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it was true, you could write whatever you want and then cite an obscure, inaccessible book... How do you know that he is an academic? How do you know that the source is reliable, for example, what is the publisher, what page the map is located on, etc.? Anyway, even the map was real (I have doubts), it would still be a marginal opinion and hence presenting it would give an undue weight to a fringe theory. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You can doubt it or not, by wikipedia this map is OK. If you think so, please be free to do whatever you think is best. It is a Serbian published academic, actually an historian, he was the director of the Serbian historical archive [44] and here are books published by him [45] - as you can notice, he published several books.Adrian (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the other map (I guess this one [46]) is different in the sense that it is supported by several scholars, not just one. I think that your main problem with it is that it presents the "immigrationist" theory with respect to Romanians (and not the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity), but this immigrationist theory is not a fringe theory, it has considerable academic support (as well as the Daco-Romanian theory, none of them can be claimed to be the mainstream in general, see Origin of the Romanians). Moreover, in that case you have very precise citations to academic works and even a link [47] to the original version of the map. This map, on the other hand, seems to be a typical fringe theory. I think that the two cases are different. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the Google Books link. This quote tells a lot about Jovan Pejin: ""historian Jovan Pejin, notorious for his chauvinistic stands." [48] and this one: "once again Serbs are alleged to be the oldest people in Europe" [49]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion this 2 cases are different... I disagree. Yes, he is not the best author, you can imagine that I have read this link before I posted it, but nevertheless, you asked if he is an academic, I demonstrated that it is, with several published books and that is all that matters for wikipedia. If you wish to contest it, you know how. Since we already established an extreme case of a map, I don`t see why this one should be excluded and since some sources for the Hungarian map were added later(with no changes to the map) I believe we can find more sources that support Jovan Pejin source. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG. "Soros-engineered Hungarian revisionism"[50] Poor George Soros...... So, Pejin is an academic? He sounds like an extremist politician. Anyway, we should see the original Pejin map at least. You would think Kniezsa's map is propagandistic, but it is not. He was a recognized academic ( his research interests included Slavic studies, historical linguistics). I know it is not important, but he was an ethnic Slovak. His mother tongue was Slovak..... Latter (Hungarian) academics never really questioned or I should say they have not been able to disprove his view. Pejin however contradicts a couple of things as Koertefa said that above. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don`t believe you or me are qualified to determine if someone is an academic or not, there are certain publications to determine that. I think that Kniezsa`s map is propaganda, such as you think this one is but what we think is not important. Academic sources are academic sources and it is not our job to determine any further. Jovan Pejin is respected in Serbia, published historian with strange views, such as Kniezsa. We don`t need to see that map as I couldn`t see your sources if you remember. Offline sources are acceptable. If you remember, you yourself said it is one viewpoint with your map, and wikipedia should have all of them, I guess this is just another viewpoint. If you wish to disapprove Jovan Pejin, you know where to do that, until that happens I don`t see a valid reason why not to use this map.Adrian (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that you could not see "my sources"? The online version of the Kniezsa's work verifies the map. The website (Hungarian Digital Archive of Pictures, keptar.oszk.hu) belongs to a library[51]. The full Kniezsa's work can be found here:[52]. However, I can provide you more Kniezsa maps. Look at this:

• Transylvania just before the Romanian and Saxon resettlements

Or this,

• Romanian place-names in Transylvania

I forgot to say the Historical World Atlas (Budapest 1991, p. 109) also has Kniezsa's ethnic map (simplified version).

Fakirbakir (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When we talked, you had only one source online (and don`t forget that you made a map based on placenames only which is WP:OR), and you added several sources AFTER you created the map, without influencing the map at all. Anyway, there is no need to open an old discussion, it is not constructive(what is done is done, I am letting it go). That was, how it was, when you were asked for that offline sources you ignored that and now we have the same case - and as in your case, according to wikipedia, WP:OFFLINE that is fine too. Adrian (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

At least I have online sources. Pejin's map has nothing. As you read the description of the map historical studies of place-names belong to historiography (by Makkai). "Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography" It is not OR. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn`t make it any more unreliable. It can be used as any other map on wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the two maps. The first one is acceptable for a large number of scientist (e.g., to those who think that Vlachs started to immigrate to Trasylvania from the late 13th century [53] and hence they are not shown on the map). I am, of course, well aware that there is an other point of view (Daco-Romanian continuity) and since both approaches have significant support from academics, *both* should be presented on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Jovan Pejin's map seems to be his own single invention and I do not know whether there are other researchers supporting his view. Please, read WP:FRINGE, it states "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.". It seems to me that Jovan Pejin's view is "supported only by a tiny minority". We can, of course, always make an article about minority views on the history of the Kingdom of Hungary. The situation would be different, e.g., if this view was the mainstream among Serbian academics. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please bare in mind that if you doubt that this is fringe(or unreliable) you must discuss it on a related noticeboard or gain a consensus between editors. It is obvious that we don`t agree about the last case(We had a chance to discuss this, there is no need to do so again here, or I can just paste my comments again and again..) so please as I let it go, please do it yourself (WP:DEADHORSE). As for this map, please read this Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. - From the Fringe WP rule. Even if this is a Fringe case, it can be used we just need to watch for is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.. It is a minority view, we can use it we just don`t need to overemphasize it. Adrian (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, there is a difference between alternative/minority scientific views and views supported by only a *tiny*-minority. These latter ones need not be presented (see the quote I have cited above). Moreover, presenting it as one of the very few maps of the article would surely give it an undue weight. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tiny by you, but in Serbia many would disagree. However, tiny or not, it can be used according to it`s importance. Adrian (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New map in article will be good for NOPV (a fundamental principle of Wikipedia), because map by István Kniezsa and Lajos Glaser is also not global mainstream view. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view.--Omen1229 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, an amateurish map based on the work by ""historian Jovan Pejin, notorious for his chauvinistic stands." [54] would surely make the article NPOV. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and map based on a source from 1938 Hungary. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

István Kniezsa was an ethnic Slovak (e.g., he was born in Trstená) and he was a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (which only gathers the top scientists, it is extremely hard to become a member of this organization). He should be considered as mainstream. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

István Kniezsa was Hungarian historian of Slovak origin.--Omen1229 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Using of this Serbian map is absurd. Who will be the next? Ferenc Badiny Jós who said that the Hungarians are descendants of the Sumerian people? Wikipedia is not a a collection of extremist, purblind and idiot historical theories. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Norden I understand and somewhat agree with your idea about this matter, but if we use Kniezsa`s map I am for using this Serbian map or any other for that matter as long it has a published academic source. If we have one extreme, why not have them all then.Adrian (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Recently, an infobox was added, which I do not think is appropriate here. This article is *not* the Kingdom of Hungary article, which should have the infobox of former countries. This article is about a *period* of a country. The more proper name of the article should be "History of the Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538)" (similarly to, for example, the History of the United States (1865–1918) article ). Also the article was renamed *without any consensus*. Dear Codrinb, please, do not do such unilateral moves in the future. The infobox contains a flag and a coat of arms. I do not think that the displayed flag was used from 1000 to 1538. Please, cite sources. Finally, the Kingdom of Hungary was *not* disestablished in 1538 (1526) - cite me any serious academic work which states such nonsense - only its borders changed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I only tried to bring clarity and consistency with the Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) and Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) articles. The {{Infobox former country}} template is really great for capturing information and provides great navigation between predecessor and successor states. Please review the mentioned template documentation regarding which flags, coat arms etc are suggested to be used. Regarding the disestablishment, that is a subject of debate of course, but please check the Kingdom of Hungary article regarding the full period. Also, please keep in mind that the Kingdom of Hungary article would be too large to incorporate all history in one, so breaking down in periods like 1000-1538, 1538-1867 and 1920-1946 is standard practice, and would be more accurate to use the {{Infobox former country}} for these better defined and shorter lifespan entities. Using the {{Infobox former country}} template in the Kingdom of Hungary could be a bit anachronistic and forced, but that is just my opinion. --Codrin.B (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrin.B, of course, the Kingdom of Hungary article would be too large to incorporate all its history, I never said that this article is superfluous. I just stated that this article is not about a whole country, but about a historical period of a country, and as such the usage of an infobox does not seem appropriate. I've checked the {{Infobox former country}}, as you have suggested, but I did not find any clear reference that periods of a country can have different infoboxes. Do you have other examples, where articles about *historical periods* of a (former) country have their own infoboxes? I do not think that any academics would say that the Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist in the 16th century, so it is not a matter of debate (unless you cite some sources). Finally, a practical issue which I already asked: where did you find the flag which you put in the infobox? Could you cite some sources about that? Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)