Jump to content

Talk:Ugrin Csák

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed map?

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugrin_Cs%C3%A1k&diff=276945784&oldid=276100906

Nmate wrote: "I del PANONIAN's disputed map". So, would you please explain what exactly you consider disputed here? PANONIAN 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New version of the map

[edit]

I made a new version of this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Srem04.png Now, this is one of the sources that I used for it: http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/4het/terkep.jpg So, if anybody still think that my map is not correct in any way, please compare my map with this source and please elaborate is map now OK or something else should be improved in it? PANONIAN 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map has some problems. Its notable that it was made by a multiple times blocked user [1] who was for example blocked for "mass edit-warring, see WP:ANI#POV pushing and edit warring by User:PANONIAN)" POV pushing. So we should be extra careful with maps like this, and wait for reliable sources to be presented before including any such map. First a random internet link is not a reliable source, second even that internet link is completely different from the map presented. It should be explained how you found this internet link why is it reliable. It's a minor point that all the city names are incorrect "Pecs" instead of Pécs and so on... It's also clear that there was no Stefan Dragutin on that map so that could not be the source. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hobartimus, please stop this personal attack and insults against me. I was not active in Wikipedia for almost a year. I was more active before, and I was temporary blocked only 2 times for revert war (and only because I tried to stop vandals to destroy my work in the articles), but I have no intention to be involved in revert wars any more. I now mostly draw maps, and I do not see why you have so unfriendly attitude towards me. As for map, I presented to you one of my sources (not the only one, since I used several sources to make this map), but, do you claim that this Internet source that I presented is not correct? Why you claim that? Also, the borders in my map and in this source are same (if we speak about realm of Ugrin Csak and other territories in the north of rivers Sava and Danube), I used another source for territories in the south of these rivers (since they are not shown in the internet link), and I can show these other sources to you if you want. As for names, official language in the Kingdom of Hungary in this time was Latin, so in Latin, it would be "Pecs", not "Pécs", since there is no letter "é" in Latin. As for Stefan Dragutin, I will show you other source for this, just give me a minute. PANONIAN 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't deny that you were blocked for "mass" POV pushing(which means that it took place on many-many articles) it's not an "insult" to qoute it if anybody did the insult it was the admin who issued that statement. Fortunately these things are all public record. I hope you know that Latin (which is not spoken outside of the Vatican and is a dead language) is not used on wikipedia, therefore these are simple mistakes. Do you claim that you have reliable sources or not? Please read WP:RS. It's not enough to let's say use a map copied from a random internet link it has to be reliable for example let's start with the author. Who authored the map(s) you want to use as a source, once we have the author we can discuss if it is reliable. The first problem that makes the map in that version nonsense is the lack of borders. Borders between countries cannot be drawn the same as borders between regions or borders between spheres of influence/jurisdiction between Hungarian oligarchs. For example if you draw a map of today's Serbia the border between countries Kosovo-Serbia border will be different from the border of administrative units inside Serbia. Hobartimus (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly deny that I was "blocked for mass POV pushing". What I was blocked for is "mass edit-warring" and "3RR violation" as everybody can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APANONIAN So, please stop spreading your lies in attempt to discredit me, ok? As for sources, I showed them to you in following section and I do not see that any of them is not reliable. As for Latin language used in the Kingdom of Hungary, it is not question whether it was dead language or not - it is fact that majority of population of the kingdom did not spoke Hungarian as well and that Latin was more close to them than Hungarian, and it is in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions to use official names from every time period, since modern Hungarian letters were really not in use before 1867 and there is no reason that we use them in year 1300. As for country borders in map, I did draw country borders in map - all these realms were in fact independent countries since Kingdom of Hungary collapsed as a state in this time and Hungarian king ruled only small part of it. PANONIAN 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a thick red line showing the frontier of the Kingdom of Hungary in your map. Pécs' name is "Quinque Ecclesiae" and Temesvár's name is "Themesiensis" in latin. So the city names aren't correct
neither in Hungarian nor in Latin.--Nmate (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do you understand that Kingdom of Hungary in this time period collapsed as a state and was broken into small realms ruled by local oligarchs? Before and after this period Kingdom of Hungary was united state with border which you want to present, but my intention was to show this specific time period when big kingdom did not existed as such. As for Latin names, thank you for showing me those. Can you tell me Latin names for other cities as well, so that I correct the map accordingly? PANONIAN 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the Latin question see above you simply try to cover up your mistakes writing and Latin is not used on wikipedia maybe you missed it while you were away so your map will also not be used unless corrected with diatrics "Pécs" etc. "all these realms were in fact independent countries" really? How many countries recognized the independence of these "realms" which were in fact landholdings of Hungarian nobles. How many countries recognize the independence of Kosovo and how many recognized these Hungarian nobles as independent? In fact they never declared independence any of them, however Kosovo did declare and was recognized by some though not all countries would you say Kosovo is independent? It's really an absurd claim that Hungarian nobles were "independent countries" ?? Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: 1. the main problem is that I do not know exact Latin names for all these cities, therefore, I in fact wrote Hungarian names with Latin letters, so the question whether there would be diatrics in these names or not is irrelevant, I can use diatrics if that will satisfy you, but even usage of form "Pecs" instead "Pécs" is completelly legitimate in English language (and this is English Wikipedia if you did not noticed). 2. the second thing are state borders: if I understand correctly you have no objection to borders between oligarch realms, but you say that we should indicate that these realms were part of the Kingdom of Hungary. It is really futile to discuss here international laws from 20th century in the events related to 14th century. Mutual recognition of countries is very new concept that simply did not existed in the 14th century - in that century who ever was able to make himself independent was independent, so I do not understand what declaration of independence you speak about in relation to 14th century. the basic thing what made one ruler independent in this time was the fact that he stopped to pay tribute to any other ruler, so if these oligarchs did not payd tribute to Hungarian king how we can claim that they were part of his state? The second problem with borders is the fact that even if we would try to draw fictional borders of Hungarian Kingdom in this time, we would not know where that border might be: for examle, realm of Stefan Dragutin was made of territories that before creation of his state belonged to 3 different countries: Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Hungary, and Bulgaria, and even Bosnia and realm of Severin belonged to Kingdom Hungary before this time (for example in 1270). So, where exactly border of the Kingdom of Hungary would be according to you? If anything, I can change description on map which refer to the "Kingdom of Hungary" into something like "territory under control of the Hungarian king", so we would have neutral statement that do not imply whether any territory on map was part of the Kingdom of Hungary or not. PANONIAN 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i do not know all medieval latin names from your map. However this questionable frontier clearly appears in your sources. it would be very strange to omit this, it was very relevant. But i think the informations about the local oligarchs sholud be appeard in the caption. Ok you are right the Hungarian Kingdom was a multiethnic country so, the correct Serbian, Hungarian and Latin city names are same relevant. --Nmate (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The frontier of the Kingdom of Hungary do appear in these sorces, but not in relation to year 1311, which this map tend to present. for example, see this source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Map-hun17.jpg - this source in fact mention the border of the Kingdom of Hungary with this description: "farthest extent of Hungary during the reign of Matyas Corvinus 1458-90", which in fact was border established much after year 1311. The map from "Geokarta" historical atlas also show borders from several time periods from year 1282 to 1321. Nobody would dispute that this border of the kingdom of hungary existed in time periods such are year 1270 or year 1328, but there was time period between these years when the border de facto did not existed. PANONIAN 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now we are getting closer. The border of the Kingdom of Hungary did not change, there were some nobles who thought they were strong enough not to pay tribute and then they were defeated and punished for this. Now if they were not Hungarian nobles but a foreign power it could be said that the territory was occupied for a short time, but even then it would be still part of Hungary just occupied. But what we have here is a dispute between the King of Hungary and the nobility of Hungary there were some periods when the nobles got out of control. I think the most what can be said is that these oligarchs had some degree of autonomy for a time until they were defeated, Voivodina too has some degree of autonomy but still part of Serbia. At the very least it's debatable that these nobles were "independent". If you look at the situation most of these territories are just described by the names of nobles. For example Territory controlled by Ugrin Csák, jurisdiction of Borsa Kopasz and so on and on everywhere they are referred to by the name of the person not "country of eastern Upper Hungary" or any other type of country names. However I think this debate can be better solved in the text part of the encyclopedia it is difficoult to incorporate all these issues into maps. Hobartimus (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the border of the Kingdom of Hungary did changed - as I already pointed out, Bosnia too was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before this, and we would have problem to define whether ruler of Bosnia was Hungarian or South Slavic ruler. Also, the Kingdom of Stefan Dragutin (and he was king, which means that he was undisputed ruler of an country) included territories that formerly belonged to Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Hungary and Bulgaria, so if you claim that his country was "illegal" or something and that its territory in fact belonged to 3 other countries we would have an absurd situation (one country cannot belong to 3 other countries). As for other ruler, Ugrin Csak, even Euratlas list his realm as independent: http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1300.html In medieval times, borders between countries and rules often changed and we cannot use terms such are "occupied lands" in relation to this time period because who ever occupy any land in this time was also the "rightful" owner of such (even if term "rightful owner" could mean something in any part of the history and it certainly does not mean anything). As for issue whether these oligarch territories were refered by name of ruler or not, see map from Euratlas again where you can see that realm of Ugrin Csak was refered as "Sirmia", and in the same map you will see some other countries (in the area of present-day Turkey) where some countries are also refered by the name of its ruler only. Anyway, I changed some things in my map, so look it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Srem04.png 1. I included diatrics in the names as you suggested, 2. I changed reference "Kingdom of Hungary" to "Lands under the direct authority of the Hungarian king", so the map now does not imply whether any other territory is part of Kingdom of Hungary or not (unlike previous description that implied that other territories are not part of it), and 3. I specifed that Ugrin Csak was Hungarian oligarch. So, is map now acceptable for you or not? PANONIAN 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better than it was before. Hobartimus (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I add it to the article without expecting your revert or what? PANONIAN 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it already. Hobartimus (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Here are all my sources (I hope that user:Hobartimus will see that every info from my map could be found in some of those):

I hope you are satisfied, Hobartimus, and I hope you will assume good faith before accusing somebody to draw unsourced maps. thank you. Now, we can see that first map show situation in 1308 where Ugrin Csak ruled only Syrmia, Bačka and Slavonia, while map number 2 show situation in 1311 where he also ruled Banat (same aply to other lands, since their borders have changed in different years). The third map show borders of state of king Stefan Dragutin (with broken line) - "Granica oblasti kralja Dragutina (1291-1316)". PANONIAN 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for presenting these maps, one question remains, who drawn these maps originally, who was the author of these maps. This is the first step in the process to decide if the maps were reliable. Hobartimus (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Hobartimus, you do not trust to sources from your own country in your own language (the third map is from historical atlas for school published by "Geokarta" in Belgrade in 1999 and is used in Serbian schools). As for first two, yes, I did found them on google image search and I have no idea who author is, but I do not see good reason to think that maps are not correct. Do you have any reason to think that maps are not correct and would you please explain such reason to us, thank you. PANONIAN 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with language I do not judge sources by language but by quality. Thank you for admitting you did google image for unknown images without even knowing the author and tried to present it as reliable sources. Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info on these maps do agree with data from my history books, so I do not have reason to think that they are wrong. Do you have any reason to think that maps are wrong instead your opinion about their origin? PANONIAN 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the map number 2 come from http://www.sulinet.hu/ so, if you have any reason to believe that this web source is fake or something like that, please share your opinion with us. PANONIAN 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look into it. Hobartimus (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ugrin Csák. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugrin_Csák&oldid=1206837109"