Talk:Ajtony

Serbia Unassessed Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bulgaria Start‑class Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The website

It will be fine with me to insert another website next to Samuil of Bulgaria#Other theories as long as it is not a news/portal site of a city. Please get a website from the Serbian academy of sciences or something of that sort. Mr. Neutron 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunagrian POV vs Romanian POV - Please try to read the referred sources even if you are tired

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtum&action=historysubmit&diff=326546416&oldid=326486271

Borsoka, it is a matter of putting words into one's mouth. And I'm afraid it is not the first time you are doing this. Hungarian sources could say anything outrageous about the Romanian POV. It doesn't mean that the Romanian POV claims that, it only means that the Hungarian POV thinks that is what Romanian POV claims. And similarly in the opposite sense. Hungarian sources must be used to explain the Hungarian POV and Romanian sources to explain the Romanian POV. It is elementary common sense. Otherwise, NOPV is prejudiced from the start. I would appreciate if you could revisit also other articles where you have might done this. Dc76\^talk 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dc76, please read the referred source which is Transylvania around A.D. 1000 written by Florin Curta (in: Urbańczyk, Przemysław (Editor): Europe around the year 1000; Wydawn. DiG, 2001; ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18). On page 144 he writes that "Romanian scholars see Ahtum as the last member of a native dynasty established in the early 900s by Glad, who is mentioned in the 13th century Gesta Hungarorum as opposing the invading Hungarians." Therefore, the sentence is based on the work of a Romanian scholar (i.e., Florin Curta); therefore, I do not understand your above remark. Similarly, could you please list your examples when Romanian authors' views are cited based on Hungarian sources in any of the edits I have made? Borsoka (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Samuil

Pakko, please stop with this nationalistic POV pushing. The older version of the map is more NPOV and present both wiews about character of empire of Samuil while your map present only one-sided Bulgarian view completelly ignoring valid views of Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian historians. Here is list of sources that show that usage of word "Macedonian" for empire of Samuil is valid and videly accepted:

Also, this article is mainly related to the history of Vojvodina and Banat and this is not a place where question whether empire of Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian should be resolved. It is better that this article have NPOV map in which both views are presented, not just one-sided nationalistic Bulgarian view. I hope that everybody can agree about that. 212.69.12.165 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]