Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
|Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|WikiProject Hungary||(Rated GA-class, Top-importance)|
The disputed section narrates Anonymus's report of the Hungarian conquest based on the cited reliable source (Madgearu 2005b). Madgearu writes: (4th phase of the Conquest in Anonymus's chronicle): "the fights with Menumorout, the duke of Byhor (c. 19-23, 28-29)" (5th phase of the Conquest in Anonymus's chronicle): "the conquest of the land ruled by Gelou (Transylvania) (c. 24-27.)". Please do not add information which is not based on the cited reliable source, because it is OR. Please, remember that the fact that (according to Anonymus) Transylvania was inhabited by Slavs and Romanians (not only Romanians) is mentioned under the title "Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Conquest". Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- (1) The original text of the article is the following: "According to Anonymous, the Hungarians first occupied territories between the Danube and the Tisza and fought with Menumorut before conquering Gelou's Transylvania. Thereafter, he continues, the Hungarians turned against Salanus, the ruler of the Slavs and Bulgarians in the central territories between the Danube and the Tisza who received Byzantine and Bulgarian assistance." (2) The cited reliable source (Madgearu 2005b), which was published in English, substantiates this text, because Madgearu writes: (4th phase of the Conquest in Anonymus's chronicle): "the fights with Menumorout, the duke of Byhor (c. 19-23, 28-29)" (5th phase of the Conquest in Anonymus's chronicle): "the conquest of the land ruled by Gelou (Transylvania) (c. 24-27.)" - so we can conclude that the original text was based on a reliable source (3) The text you would like to add is the following: "According to Anonymous, the Hungarians first occupied territories between the Danube and the Tisza and fought with Menumorut. After that, Hungarians attacked the Romanians (Vlachs) led by Gelou in Transylvania. After the battle with the Romanians the Hungarians turned against Salanus, the ruler of the Slavs and Bulgarians in the central territories between the Danube and the Tisza who received Byzantine and Bulgarian assistance." (4) The main difference between the two text is that in the original version Transylvania is conquered, while in the second version (instead of the conquest) there is a reference to an attack and a battle. There is a huge difference between a conquest and a battle - therefore, we should clarify whether there is a contradiction between the cited reliable source. (4) The English version of the cited source - Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1996). Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century: The Geneisis of the Transylvanian Medieval State. Fundatia Culturala Romana. ISBN 973-577-037-7 - does not contradict to the text based on Madgearu 2005b. (5) Would you please cite the Romanian text from cited the Romanian version (Pop 1996) which contradict to the original text of the article (I mean which denies that according to Anonymus Transylvania was conquered)? Borsoka (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments are only OR. We may add all historians wrote. Do you want to censor historians ?
Madgearu and Pop have in common: "the conflict was between Hungarians and Romanians and Slavs". If it was a battle, a war a conquest it is a secondary problem. We may deal the correct word. In this article about Carpathian basin there are a lot of contradictions about the conquest of Transylvania. Some lines say it was conquered after the battle with Gelou, other after battle with Glad, other after the battle with Gyula, other say there were 5 phases other ... After such contradictions in these pages is not clear what you want when you say "it is a HUGE difference". Huge differece is finding different major interpretations and not small nuances. Eurocentral (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- (1) Please read what OR means. Statement based on academic works cannot be regarded as OR. (2) Please read the article: it says, based on academic works, that there are three different (and contradictory) reports of the Hungarian Conquest in the Hungarian chronicles. Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
New section about contradiction
This page needs a new section about contradictions. Anonymus clearly wrote about Romanians and Slavs with the occasion of battle between Hungarians and Gelou and the references of Pop and Madgearu also wrote about these nations. Eurocentral (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the sentence you have been reverting: the text clearly writes of Romanians and Slavs. Would you cite the text of Pop and Madgearu you are referring to?
Both showed that Anonymus wrote that Vlachs and Slavs battled with Hungarians. Even Anonymus have these lines in latin. Can you read latin? Do you want to make OR ? Eurocentral (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop with your modifications of true history ! If authors wrote about Romanians and Slavs you need to keep the text. This is a case of history forging. Erasing data about Romanians and Slavs is CENSORING ! Who do you want to fool ? Hiding the existence of Romanians ans Slavs means CENSORING ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Before suffering a stroke, please read the article: under the subtitle "Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Conquest" there are clear references to the Vlachs and Slavs. You may not know, but WP is not a school from the early 20th century, where the same texts should be repeated several times in order to be memorized. Borsoka (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You refuse to accept references, bringing ideas that authors from the early 20th century are not valid. Read Wiki rules first and then talk! You filled Romanian history pages with titles about contradictions and you refuse the same titles in your pages. Are they false ? If you wrote a fact in Romanian pages about Transylvania you need to keep them in the pages about the conquest of Carpathian basin.
- Please read the article more carefully: there are a number of references to contradictory scholarly views. For instance, under the title "Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Conquest" there is a clear reference to the contradictions between late 9th-century sources and early 13th-century chronicles or the "Prelude (892–c. 895)" section makes it clear that there are at least three scholarly theories of the reasons of the Hungarians' departure to the west around 895. I think you should read the article before editing it and I suggest you should stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Do we need a separate subtitle for one of the many debates about the Conquest?
|requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:An editor has|
There are several unclear details of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. For instance, neither the political situation in the Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Hungarian Conquest, nor the reasons of the Hungarians' westward movements are clear. All these contradictions are presented under the proper subtitles in the article. One of these debates includes the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian Conquest which is debated by many (Hungarian, German, Britisch) scholars. Do we need a separate subsection to present this debate about the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian Conquest? Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Anonymus's work should not be overemphasized. Article of Gesta Hungarorum properly discusses the different views on its interpretation. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need a separate subsection in order to apply the same actions like in the Romanian history pages. If not, the presentation of history is not objective and as a result we will remove your sections in Romanian pages in order to apply your point of view Eurocentral (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- All records have to be treated equally. Anonymus's work isn't an exception. See: Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Written sources. The article concisely summarises the known facts and tries to avoid endless historical debates. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)