Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

OR

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)

Pop work is a reliable source according to WIKI rules. Your forgot. Even you added Pop in several articles ! Your lies are too visible. Eurocentral (talk) 07:14, 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)

And both Madgearu and Pop state that Transylvania was conquered by the Hungarians. Please read their work (which are academic works) instead of interpreting Anonymus's text. You have been edit-warring for a couple of days. I think you should stop it. Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 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.

You have to be objective and balanced and not subjective. Eurocentral (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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?

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)

The treatment has to be equal in all pages. Erasing this section means censoring

Eurocentral (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody wants to decide which theory is the correct theory in the article. You want to overemphasize the dissimilar interpretations of Anonymus's work. Why don't you want to open a subsection, for instance, for the interpretations of the nearly contemporary work of Constantine VII. His work is quite debated.... Fakirbakir (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, Could you please read the WHOLE article? How many times do you want to mention Anonymus's work? See?: Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Consolidation (902–907), Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Written sources, Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Conquest, Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#First phase (c. 895–899). You can read quite a lot about Glad, Menumorut, Zobor etc... There is no need for another section. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Romanian POV is presented in the article (for instance):

According to Anonymous, who does not write of Moravia, the Hungarians invaded the region of Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) and defeated and killed Zobor, the local Czech ruler, on Mount Zobor near his seat. Thereafter, as Anonymous continues, the Hungarians first occupied Pannonia from the "Romans" and next battled with Glad and his army composed of Bulgarians, Romanians and Pechenegs from Banat. Glad ceded few towns from his duchy. Finally, Anonymous writes of a treaty between the Hungarians and Menumorut, stipulating that the local ruler's daughter was to be given in marriage to Árpád's son, Zolta. Macartney argues that Anonymous's narration of both Menumorot and of Glad is basically a transcription of a much later report of the early 11th-century Achtum, Glad's alleged descendant. In contrast, for instance, Madgearu maintains that Galad, Kladova, Gladeš and other place names recorded in Banat in the 1300s and 1500s attest to the memory of a local ruler named Glad.

The Russian Primary Chronicle may also reflect the memory of this event when relating how the Hungarians expelled the "Volokhi" who had earlier subjugated the Slavs' homeland in Pannonia. These Volokhi, however, have also been associated either with the Romans or with the Vlachs (Romanians), for instance by Cross and Spinei, respectively.

Although early medieval fortresses were unearthed at Bihar and other places east of the Tisza, none of them definitively date to the 800s. For instance, in the case of Doboka (Dăbâca), two pairs of bell-shaped pendants with analogues in sites in Austria, Bulgaria and Poland have been unearthed, but Florin Curta dates them to the 9th century, while Alexandru Madgearu to the period between 975 and 1050.

Madgearu proposes that Kavar groups were already settled in the Tisza plain within the Carpathian Basin around 881, which may have given rise to the anachronistic reference to Cumans in the Gesta Hungarorum at the time of the Hungarian conquest

Fakirbakir (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of leader's names instead of the nation name

Using phrases like: Hungarians attacked "John's" country or Hungarians conquered "James's" land is not clear and starts confusions. Even in speaking we need to be clear and to not use names that majority never heard. Majority of users may be beginners and this approach creates confusions Eurocentral (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeds, it would be confusing. However, the text say that "Gelou's Transylvania" was conquered before the conquest of the "central territories" under Salan. There is no confusion. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

But Gelou had a country smaller than all Transilvania. Transilvania was fully occupied only at the beginning of the XIIIth century as other documents talk.

Here is a false interpretation of Romanian historians. They emphasized the fact that Gelou's country was of Romanians. Borsoka and all Hungarian commentators avoided to mention this aspect. Using disruptive edits. This is an argument that this page is based on political reasons. This is why this page is not objective. Eurocentral (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Slavic loanwords.

Concerning the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Carpathian Basin at the time of the conquest, we know that the north-western region was populated by Slovene speaker Moravians, the eastern territories were inhabited by eastern Slavs (and Bulgarians), and Transdanubia (and Slavonia) was the home of the Pannonian Slavs. I have read recently that the most of the Slavic loanwords in Hungarian actually come from Pannonian Slavic. This language unfortunately died out, however linguists were able to determine that it was close to the Proto-Serbocroatian language and was not closely associated with the Slovene spoken by the Moravians. It means that Hungarians adopted their loanwords from Pannonian Slavs and not from Proto-Slovene speaker Great Moravians. It also means that Pannonian Slavs were far more numerous than Slovene speaker Slavs or the Slovene speakers did not really have interactions with the Hungarians (the conquerors settled in the central territories). I think it is an interesting information. Perhaps it is worth to mention in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source, any information can be mentioned. :) My only concern is that I cannot imagine how the language spoken by the Pannonian Slavic was determined. Maybe toponymy? Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

R. Richards analysed the vocabulary of the Old Hungarian. "There is a high likelihood that Proto-Serbocroatian is a source for Pannonian loanwords", "Pannonian Slavic was either linguistically homogeneous, in which case it was probably an extension of Proto-Serbocroatian, or it was heterogenous and an extension of Proto-Serbocroatian and Proto-Czechoslovak.", "The probability that Proto-Slovene is the source of Pannonian loanwords is low." (Language, Volume 81, Issues 3-4, Linguistic Society of America, 2005, p. 786) [1] His book: [2] and some reviews:[3], [4], [5]. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Our results suggest that, if Pannonian Slavic was linguistically homogeneous, then it is most likely that this dialect was associated with, or an extension of, the Proto-Serbocroatian (i.e. the Common Slavic dialect which developed into Chakavian and Shtokavian), while if it was heterogeneous, then it is most likely that this dialect was associated with, or an extension of, Proto-Serbocroatian and Proto-Czechoslovak, although association with the Proto-Sorbian or Proto-East Slavic dialect groups would remain within the realm of possibility. Our results do offer strong evidence against the proposition that Pannonian Slavic was associated with, or as an extension of, Proto-Slovene. Likewise, while our results cannot shed light on the question of the Urheimat of the Slavs or the exact nature of the rel ationship which obtained between Slav and Avar in Pannonia, they do show evidence of center-periphery phenomena which would be consistent with a Pannonia-centered linguistic expansion (be it primary or secondary) of Slavicists" ([6])Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing

"For instance, the Hungarian names of the rivers Danube (Duna), Dráva, Garam, Maros, Olt, Száva, Tisza and Vág were borrowed from Slavs and Romanians"

I do not think that Goga ever stated that. I have to accuse Eurocentral of misusing the sources. You simply changed the meaning of a sourced sentence in accordance with your POV. Please cite your source. Verbatim citation needed. Goga probably wrote about Romanian-borrowings in Hungarian, I do not deny it, however, I am pretty sure that Goga's assertion is dissimilar from Kristo's statement. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I am pretty sure that Goga only wrote that the names of the rivers Mures, Cris, Timis are of Dacian origin. Eurocentral cannot make distinction between Dacians and Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for this error. correct is: Mures, Cris, Timis are of Dacian origin and were borrowed from local population.

I propose: "There are also opinions that Mures, Cris, Timis are of Dacian origin." Entering this proposal is not "disruptive editing" I know Fakir will erase all contrary opinions (and this is a disruptive editing) Eurocentral (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please cite verbatim what Goga wrote. I am sure that he did not write this. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you either cannot understand basic texts or you have been making disruptive editing: that there are river names of Dacian origin in the Carpathian Basin is mentioned in the article. We do not need to repeat all information. Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The adiacent text is about Slavic origin !!!! Eurocentral (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those names were of Dacian, Celtic or German origin, but the Hungarians borrowed them from a Slavic speaking population. For instance, the name of the Danube is of Celtic origin, but the Hungarians did not borrowed it from the Celts, but from Slavs. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But there are and other opinions. Are you ready to add and other authors with other opinions without censoring ?

Eurocentral (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

Eurocentral, would you please refer to an academic source which states that those river names were not borrowed from Slavs by the Hungarians? As far as I know, even Romanian scholars agree that those river names were transferred through Slavic mediation to modern times (I refer to Nandris's work which is referred to in the "Origin of the Romanians" article. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As Romanians were in Transilvania according to Anonymus and Keza, around Gelou's land and in Banat around Glad's land it is necessary to examine the influence of Romanians. Do you really agree to add Romanian historians opinions ? It will be a wander ! Eurocentral (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Benkő

Eurocentral, please refrain from abusing scholar's name in order to substantiate OR. Benkő does not write that those loanwords are connected to the Hungarian conquest. For instance, the Hungarian word for Romanian ("román") is borrowed from Romanian, but it was only borrowed in the 19th century (at least eiight century after the Hungarian Conquest), because the original Hungarian word was "oláh". Please read WP:OR. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Romanian loanwords in Hungarian language

According to Benko there are over 130 loanwords:

First examples from A to C:

ardéj “ardei” (I, p.173);

ármás “armaş” (I, p.178);

arnót “arnăut” (I, p.178-179);

bács “baci” (I, p.213);

bálmos “balmoş” (I, 0.232);

baraboly “baraboi” (I, p.243-244);

baráncsik “borangic” (I, p.244-245);

batul “pătul” (I, p.259);

belice “beliţă” (I, p.275);

berbécs “berbec”(e) (I, p.281);

beszerika “biserică” (I, p.269-290);

bojár “boier” (I, p.224-225);

brindza “brânză” (I, p.370);

bulándra “buleandră” (I, p.386);

buszujog “busuioc” (I, p.395);

cáp “ţap” (I, p.411);

cigája “ţigaie” (I, p.428-429);

cigány “ţigan” (I, p.429);

cimbora “sâmbră” (I, p.436-437);

cincár “ţânţar” (I, p.440);

cinemintye “ţine-minte” (I, p.441);

cujka “ţuică” (I, p.460);

csercse “cercel” (I, p.505-506);

csetenye “cetină” (I, p.514);

csimpolya “cimpoi” (I, p.531);

csirtityas “ciritiş, ciritel” (I, p.540-541);

and the list is very long. The author is Hungarian but of course you are ready to censor these items. Eurocentral (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please do not open a new subtitle for a debate which is in progress. Is there a reference to Benkő's book that those loanwords are connected to the Hungarian conquest? Borsoka (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin a claim ?

In our days a title like The conquest of the Carpathian Basin may seem dubious: Slovaks, Ukrainians, Romanians may think it is a claim. In order to avoid any interpretation a new title is necessary. Maybe the Conquest of Pannonian basin. The page contains data about Panonian and other territories conquest. Here I ask the opinion of commentators from Slovakia and Ukraine. Eurocentral (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you please refer to academic works in order to substantiate your proposal for a new title? The first sentence of the lead proves that the present title can be found in at leas one academic work. Please also read WP:Name. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that Hungarian commentators have sentences like John's land instead of presenting the inhabitants of the land. This shows that Hungarian commentators intend to avoid the names of Slovak, Ukrainian and Romanian population. This is a strong argument

of dubious intentions of Hungarian commentators, leading to a claim. So I still wait for the opinions from other commentators. My opinion is this page opens a dubious debate, Hungary against Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania. Eurocentral (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, first of all read WP:Battle. Furthermore, there is nobody who wants to hide the peoples inhabiting the territory on the eve of the Conquest. Please read the "Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Conquest" section: there are many references to peoples inhabiting the territory. There is no need to repeat all information in each sentence. Please, also read Wikipedia:Summary style). Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Irredentism (from Italian irredento, "unredeemed") is any position of a state advocating annexation of territories administered by another state, or the independence of those territories, on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. It is often advocated by pan-nationalist Hungarian movements and has been a feature of identity politics, cultural and political geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.99 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, irredentism has a long history. For instance, before 1918 Romania advocated the annexation of territories administered by Austria-Hungary on the grounds of ethnicity and an alleged priority. However, your remark is not connected to the above discussion. Or I missed something. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)