Talk:Principality of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hungary (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Establishment of the principality and the main seat of principality[edit]

Dubious, the first source says ( that Arpad was a prince but nothing about principality. There is written about the principality of Geza at the end of 10th century. And book has not a scholar style, its like fairy tale or legend. Who is the publisher? Second source ( Hungarians came at the end of 9th century and Hungarians established the principality of Hungary. Okay but a Hungarians could came in 9th century as the tribal union or seminomadic tribe and they could established the principality of Hungary in 972. In the source are the no years.. 3th source ( this source talks about principality in 830 between Don and Lower Danube river. So when it was established? What was the main seat of principality? --Samofi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Samofi, please read WP:DR before launching yourself into a request of move, request of merge, AfD, and so on. You should first AGF and discuss these sources, and, if there is no agreement, bring them to WP:RSN. The first source is Imre Lukinich, publication of 1968 by Ayer Publishers in New Hampshire, but it seems like the first publication was 1937. Why do you think that he is not reliable? The second source (Hodos 1999) is reliable and the third (Lendvai 2003) is also reliable.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The problems is they are only 3 sources which speaks about "Principality of Hungary" and there are no exact years. But 14 and more sources says about the Hungarian tribal union in the Panonia - it covers this period much more better. Principality of Hungary is anachronism, it was no Hungary in that time, it was tribes, proto-hungarians. It was no "Natio Hungarica".
  • Manipulation with the date of establishment of the Principality all sources in the article says that the hungarian state was established in 895 or 896 - but it could be a Hungarian tribal union and no principality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talkcontribs) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not page moved: no consensus; no discussion for 21 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Principality of HungaryHungarian tribal union – Majority of scholar sources use the term "Hungarian tribal union" see this search. Its just a 2 or 3 english sources who talks about the principality of Hungary before 970. Samofi (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Dear Samofi, you were who launched the topic about renaming and you are agreed with yourself? Additionally, It is very specific theme and Hungarian sources (in Hungarian) are in majority. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment2 Daer Fakirbakir, you can edit Hungarian Wikipedia and use Hungarian sources insted of your disruptions and original researches at English Wikipedia. And I agree with rename, so I wrote it here. --Samofi (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hungarian tribal union "magyar törzsszövetség": 320 hits. Hungarian principality "Magyar Nagyfejedelemség": 8 hits. --Samofi (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment As you cited: András Róna Tas's book, 1997: '670 körül tehát a magyar törzsszövetség' Translation 'In 670 the Hungarian tribal union...'Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It was the same tribal union as in the 10th century. Look: Look this one: " augsburgi csatavesztés (955) után a magyar törzsszövetség élére került apja, Taksony, pogány fejedelemnek nevelte..." Majority of the sources dont talk about the principality of Hungary. --Samofi (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please translate into English what you just said, Samofi? And, if the majority of the sources doesn't mention the principality of Hungary in the 10th century, there are some sources which do mention that principality. Based these sources brought forth we did have a principality.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Iam not Hungarian but its should be something like (Google Translate): "losing the battle at Augsburg (955) after his father was head of Hungarian confederation, Taksony, pagan prince raised". But we are in the situation when 2 or 3 sources talks about principality and 14+ about Hungarian tribal union (confederation) in 10th century. A both term covers the Hungarian history of the 9-10th century. Principality was used by the Gyula Kristo for a first time I think, so its only in the Hungarian patriotic historiography. Its somethink like a "Slovak principality": or "Principality of Slovakia":,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=144a467f858ec791&biw=1246&bih=645 The main stream of the Hungarian historiography is at least patriotic (better to say nationalistic). In the Slovak historiography its also nationalistic stream, but not such as in Hungary. They teach a legends about the Hungarians at the schools, based on the old chronicles without any reliability, which were written a lot of years after the events. We should not name the articles with the names from the minor theories, we have to use the most frequent and neutral name. --Samofi (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Books which talks about Hungarian tribal confederation (union, federation...) in 10th century:
  1. Antal Bartha, p 118. [1]
  2. Sandor Laszlo Toth, p 23. [2]
  3. Peter F. Sugar,Péter Hanák, p 10. [3]
  4. Alfried Wieczorek, Hans-Martin Hinz, p 370. [4]
  5. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia p. 59 [5]
  6. Nora Berendm p. 5 [6]
  7. Peter B. Golden p. 6 [7]
  8. Miron Constantinescu, Ştefan Pascu, Petre Diaconu, p. 244-245 [8]
  9. Slovenská akadémia vied p. 420 [9]
  10. Paul Lendvai, p. 12-15 [10]
  11. Karl Leyser, p. 64 [11]
  12. Nemzetközi Magyar Filológiai Társaság, p. 155 [12]
  13. István Nemeskürty, Tibor Klaniczay, p 18. [13]
  14. Béla Köpeczi, p 390. [14]
Samofi (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The proposed name, THE HUNGARIAN TRIBAL UNION can cover the full period of the age of Migrations (400-800 AD) and +200 years. We can talk about Hungarian tribal union in Khazaria, Magna Hungaria, Levedia, Etelköz, Carpathian basin etc. Principality of Hungary means from 895 to 1000. The suggested name is incorrect.

  • Books about Principality of Hungary (Magyar Nagyfejedelemség in Hungarian):
  • George, Hodos, p. 19, [15]
  • Paul Lendvai, p- 533 [16]
  • Council of Europe. Art Exhibition, p. 372 [17]
  • Lajos Gubcsi, p. 20 [18]
  • Imre Lukinich, p. 14, [19]
  • Hadtörténelmi közlemények, Volume 114, p. 131, [20]
  • Mészáros, István, p. 386 [21]
  • Nagy, Kálmán p. 141 [22]
  • Acta historica, Volumes 92-98, p. 3 [23]
  • Antal Bartha, p. 84 [24]
  • Ferenc Pölöskei, p.10 [25]
  • Acta historica, Volumes 105-110, p. 28 [26]
  • Ferenc Glatz, p. 10 [27]
  • Hölbling Tamás, p. 127 [28]
  • Books where the title of the Grand Prince of Hungarians is mentioned (all of the books about Grand Prince Géza) (fejedelem in Hungarian):
  • Magyar nyelvőr, Volume 129, p. 324 [29]
  • Századok, Volume 109, Issues 5-6, p. 963 [30]
  • Egyed Hermann, p. 12 [31]
  • Dr. Zoltán Székely, p. 43 [32]
  • Júlia Lévai, Lilla Pócza, Zsuzsi László, Éva Rabi, p.33[33]
  • Ferenc Glatz, József Kardos, p. 69 [34]
  • István Zombori, Cesare Alzati, p. 9 [35]
  • Archaeologiai értesítő, Volume 119, p. 126[36]
  • János Thuróczy, p. 85 [37]Fakirbakir (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
btw fejedelem can means the lord or ruler, so fejedelemség means a teritory ruled by someone - not only Principality. and this is a english wikipedia and we have a enough english sources about this topic, so stop to use a hungarian. why dont you edit at hungarian wikipedia? now you make only problems and manipulations with the translation of the hungarian language coz you are not neutral in this topic. --Samofi (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)--Samofi (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Manipulation with the Hungarian term fejedelem Fejendelem means: lord, monarch, prince, rajah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talkcontribs) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi, you have inserted your comments inside a single argument of Fakirbakir. We should let everybody to express his/her views and a message should not be interrupted / broken apart by comments. Comments should only be added before the start of the message or after the signature of the user. Therefore, I have moved your comments here, right after the message that you were replying to. I hope that you do not mind that. Koertefa (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Samofi, please stop your personal attacks against me! All of the books are about Grand Prince Géza. I can provide more sources about Prince Géza, Grand Prince Taksony, Fajsz, Árpád etc..Fakirbakir (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I have just realized that the comments starting with "-" after the books were also added by user Samofi. I think that this kind of editing behavior should be avoided because later it is very hard to tell which arguments were written by the original author and which comments are additions by someone else. We should not edit messages written by others... Koertefa (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Problem with the translation of Hungarian sources Dear Fakirbakir, its not personal attack. You manipulate with the words. Fejdelem according to dictionary means also the monarch or just a lord - noble person. It does not proof that he has a Principality. Its YOUR original research my friend because you want to create the Principality of Hungary in the 9th century. And the name prince in the english sources can means also "A nobleman of varying status or rank." So he could be a prince of the Tribal union. --Samofi (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, assume good faith. There is no manipulation involved. For example, the one and only translation of the word "fejedelemség" is "principality", see [38][39] (and you are welcome to check this in several other online dictionaries) . The Hungarian word "fejedelem" is almost always translated to "prince". The other possible translations that you have found are rare exceptions. They are uncommon translations and applied only in very special circumstances. You will not find many references that, for example, call Árpád a "monarch", "rajah" or even simply a "lord". Koertefa (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on the argument and sources presented by Fakirbakir. -- Koertefa (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: User Koertefa was involved in this discussion by canvassing from the Fakirbakir [40]--Samofi (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, user Samofi, but it is not true. Your link shows that I replied to a message that might have been canvasing, but (1) it was related to the redirection of the article, not this conversation and (2) I was aware of the redirection before replying to that message. Since I also participated in other earlier discussions related to this article (for example, about its possible deletion or renaming to "grand principality"), it is quite manipulative to accuse me of being involved in this discussion by canvasing. You should focus on replying to the arguments instead of trying to discredit participants. Koertefa (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Another question, Does tribal union issue coins (as Prince Géza did it)? Answer No, because it was a principality, a state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Answer - Books about Principality of Hungary (Magyar Nagyfejedelemség in Hungarian):
  • George, Hodos, p. 19, [41] -they came in the 9th century, but in the source is not a year when was the principality established, it could be in the end of 10th century
  • Paul Lendvai, p- 533 [42] -it talks about Hungarian principality in Etelkoz, river Don is not in Carpathian basin (again its 20x more sources that this early entity was a tribal union)
  • Council of Europe. Art Exhibition, p. 372 [43] - -its about principality after 970, taken from context - i know this source, steinhubel is the slovak historian and he writes about the Nitra principality in the Kingdom of Hungary. author also writes that to the caprathian basin came a proto-hungarians
  • Lajos Gubcsi, p. 20 [44] - -its not scholarly writen and based on legends, neutrality of this source is disputed. btw the author used the term Tribal alliance much more time for the period of 10th century than the term principality. For example page 19
  • Imre Lukinich, p. 14, [45] - it talks about gezas principality not about principality of Hungary
  • Hadtörténelmi közlemények, Volume 114, p. 131, [46] - i dont understand this source
  • Mészáros, István, p. 386 [47] - i dont understand this source
  • Nagy, Kálmán p. 141 [48] - i dont understand this source
  • Acta historica, Volumes 92-98, p. 3 [49] - i dont understand this source
  • Antal Bartha, p. 84 [50] - it talks about the principality in 10th century, so after 970 - but no "Principality of Hungary" mentioned in article
  • Ferenc Pölöskei, p.10 [51] - its about evolution of the principality and the Kurszan. According to Britannica teh Kurszan was a Tribal chieftain: and the is not used the term Principality of Hungary
  • Acta historica, Volumes 105-110, p. 28 [52] - there is no term Principality of Hungary, and talks about 10th century
  • Ferenc Glatz, p. 10 [53] - therm principality is used but we dont know a year, and there is nothing about "Principality of Hungary". It could be in 5th century or in 10th century.. and its not about the history of hungary but about khazar jews on that teritory
  • Hölbling Tamás, p. 127 [54] - it talks about geza principality
Accorging to your source (Gubcsi, p. 24: "A törzsszövetségnek (illetve a kialakulóban lévő Magyar Fejedelemségnek) állandóan készenlétben kellett tartania csapatait a megszerzett területek védelmében." In the 907 he speaks about Tribal federation and the principality was only emerging. Please to translate it properly from Hungarian if you want to discuss about Hungarian sources. So we have a 2 books which speak about "Principality of Hungary" in this context, majority of english sources use the term "Hungarian tribal union". So it can be Hungarian tribal union before 896 = "Hungarian tribes", Hungarian tribal union after 896 and Principality of Geza from 972 ([55]). --Samofi (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Page of Magyar tribes belongs to page of Hungarian prehistory in my opinion. The page of Magyar tribes has another merging suggestion and I think that would be better solution, because that article covers a much bigger period than the era of Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the problem here? I am myself a mergist and trying to prevent content overlap between articles whenever possible, but I simply fail to see the problem with this article. It has a very clear scope, the Magyar polity (or "principality") between their conquest of Pannonia and the coronation of Steven I. It basically covers a single century, the 10th. If there is any article with a fuzzy scope, it would be "Magyar tribes". This could be a topic, if there were any sources about the Hungarians prior to the 9th century, but since there aren't, it basically fails to be any different from Hungarian prehistory.

Also, what is this prancing around with the "Western Tourkia" name? There is only a single scholar, Golden, who ever used that term. It is idiosyncratic, because it translates "Western" but not Τουρκια. Basically, the upshot is that the Byzantines in the 10th century called the Magyar polity "Western Turkey", meaning "Western Khazaria". That may be an intersting factoid, but it is also just that: a factoid. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources used that term "Tourkia" till the end of the 11th century. I did not vote against merging. It was just a comment.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is relevant, and interesting. The "Principality of Hungary" was closely associated with Khazaria up to and until its Christianization. Tourkia is just the contemporary term for Khazaria. In Medieval Greek, we would say Tourkia, but in Modern English, we say "Khazaria" or "Khazar Khaganate". --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia[edit]

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Its no neutral scholar source which use the term "Principality of Hungary"[edit]

Hodos cant be a expert for this topic - he use the fictive names, anachronism - Czech-Bohemian Kingdom of Moravia? What is this? Weciorek call also principality of nitra the Slovak principality. Again anachronism. Gubcsi calls territory simultaneously principality and tribal union. So dear Wikipedians, you created a new country in the 9th century based on the term which is mentioned in 3 books written in English. 2 of these books are written by Hungarian authors, so neutrality is disputed. One author created "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" and second author use terms principality and tribal alliance for the same period. Polish author created 2 countries: Slovak principality and Principality of Hungary. Btw the term Slovak principality only mentioned in the article Principality of Nitra was attacked by the Fakirbakir: All this article is crap and about fictionaly country and I dont believe it can be repaired because of patriotism of some editors. --Samofi (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lajos Gubcsi author mentioned by Fakirbakir is political active, he is not expert in the topic. He is nationalist and problematic person: He is boss of zrinyi media and he can writes what he wish.

Absence of the neutral 3th party reliable and veriafiable sources written in english language is reason to add this article here: --Samofi (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop your personal attack. You are the only one who questions this page.Could you please stop repeating your personal opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
'Political active'- Barack Obama also wrote books.
'He is a nationalist problematic person', please cite your source. Nationalist? What are you talking about? Because he wrote books about history or composed 'rock-operas'?
The page contains 29 sources at the moment and Gubcsi's source is just one of them.
The only problem is that this page offends your 'patriotic' point of view you can not bear its existence. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This state was mentioned in Byzantine primary sources It is fact.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a principality from 895. Cited: (academic source): Megas archon next to the name of Árpád means 'Great prince', on the other hand all the 10th century princes who ruled the Hungarian principality held this title.[56]Fakirbakir (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
SOURCE SPEAKS ABOUT HUNGARIAN PRINCIPALITY IN 10TH CENTURY. YOU SPEAK ABOUT PRINCIPALITY OF HUNGARY FROM THE 9TH CENTURY - IT DOESNT EXIST. And stop to blame me from personal attacks Iam disgusted from your blameing of me and crying here - you are an adult person Fakirbakir. Read this: --Samofi (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
a) Megas archon next to the name of Árpád means 'Great prince' - Svätopluk was called rex - king in latin texts and Great Moravia was not kingdom. Its again only your original research. --Samofi (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not my research, It is an academic source.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Cited: warrior state into a nation: the Principality of Hungary. from Susan Wise Bauer,[57]
I think English historiography uses this name.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a synthesis[edit]

Evidences are here: --Samofi (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Principality: "A principality (or princedom) is a monarchical feudatory or sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a monarch with the title of prince or princess, or (in the widest sense) by a monarch with another title within the generic use of the term prince." See: Principality,It is definitely correct in connection with the Hungarian Principality. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Cited:"Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD"[58] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Again its only original research. Which kind of the principality is meaned in article? Principality of Geza? Principality of Nitra? Principality of Transylvania? Look [59]: "Duke of Nitra, united the other Magyar chiefs under his rule and became the ruler of the Transdanubian principality" It was a tribal union before 955 and after that it was a lot of smaller principalities united around 972-1038 by Geza and Saint Stephen. --Samofi (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It is an Academic source (Hungarian Academy of Sciences). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have problems to understand English texts?

A) Source says: "Age of principality", so Principality of Nitra and Principality of Geza? Its your original research to connect "Principality of Hungary" with this principality. Source doesnt speak about Principality of Hungary. You make a original research in this case.

B) Principality is connected with feudalism. Say me name of 1 principality which was a nomadic, Hungarians were nomadic or semi-nomadic in 9th century and there was a no feudalism. About feudalism we can talk around 970. All Sources which use term "Duchy of Hungary" talks about polity during the reign of Geza or Stephen, so after 970. Term "Principality of Hungary" is unscholar. And about Duchy of Hungary or Hungarian principality we can talk after 970. --Samofi (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is obvious that the text talks about the Hungarians, since it explicitly mentions the "princes of Árpád dynasty". The text calls the period between 896 and 1000 the "age of principality". Moreover, as Fakirbakir pointed out, the concept of principality does not strictly indicate feudalism. And it also does not contradict that there was a union of Hungarian tribes, since they were ruled by a prince. There are very many sources in several languages that call the leaders of the Hungarians in that time (from the end of the 9th century), e.g., Árpád, a "prince", "Fürsten" or "fejedelem". Here is a German one [60] that speaks about the "land conquering" between 895 and 900 under "prince Árpád". But you can easily find more on Google Books. So if the territory was ruled by a "prince", then isn't "principality" the natural name for it? Koertefa (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Prince, Fursten is name used for a monarchs and for a princes of course, but dictionary is not source. Arpad was called a prince before conquest of Carpathian basin. Almos is called a prince and he was a nomad. What is the name of the principality of Prince Almos? All this concept of "Principality of Hungary" is a fringe theory. Look page 13: Source speaks about duchies of Arpad dynasty - one of the most eminent hungarian historians. It was not united Hungarian principality before 972, and after 972 it was a "Duchy of Hungary". You and Fakirbakir make a original research. You connectig few non-scholar sources talking about princes with few nonscholar sources talking about "principality of hungary" and ignoring 95% of seriouse english, slovak and hungarian sources (they doeasnt works with term Principality of Hungary). Find a source which speaks that "Principality of Hungary was established" in 895. Rakoczi called Upper Hungary a "tot imperium" or "tot fejedelemseg": So it was a Slovak principality? Thokoly was entitled "tot kiraly": so was it a Slovak kingdom in Upper Hungary? Iam more and more sure that your motivation here is not to make better articles but a nationalism. Its sad.. It should be a no place here for a fringe theories and original research.. --Samofi (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
We have Byzantine primary sources about Árpád after the conquest, they called him Megas archon. See: "Megas archon next to the name of Árpád means "Great prince", all of the 10th century princes who ruled the Hungarian Principality held this title."Academic source
We could call Hungary Khaganate in the 10th century (I am just kidding), If you do not like the title, but it means empire. The word of principality is a wide expression. If you check the medieval East there are a lot of principalities and khaganates.
I think your statements are original researches because there are no primary sources about Nitrian Principality in the 10th century, and according to you Taksony is a Nitrian Prince. I cite you from the original research noticeboard: " (Taksony)...but was he a ruler of the "Principality of Hungary"? He was a Dux of the Duchy of Nitra - earlier Slavic principality was not destroyed but was ruled by new monarchs - Magyar tribal chieftains. " This is the real original research. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
And the original name of the country was Tourkia, Principality of Hungary or Hungarian Principality are latter names. Hungarian historiography frequently uses this name instead of Tourkia.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No its not. About Taksony and Nitra: Kovacs is member of Hungarian academy of science: taksony started a process of integration of fragmental tribal units into larger teritory. Gyorgy Gyorfy agree that Duchy of Nitra was a principality of first Hungarians. Western Tourkia was only small part of Onogur empire. Read all your source which you cited in article. I will consider a next proposal for deletion. --Samofi (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Those books are not primary sources. Onogur empire? What? Tourkia means Hungary. All of the Byzantine !contemporary! sources call Hungary Tourkia. See for instance de administrando imperio or Tactica. Árpád was the prince of Tourkia (Taksony when he visited Constantinople he told everything about Hungary to the Byzantine emperor in 948).
There are no medieval sources about your statements. Nobody called Taksony Prince of Nitra, instead, all of the sources negotiate Hungarian princes in Tourkia, they write about Hungarian state organization (they mention the titles, they discuss the power structure). Moreover there are Muslim (Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Ahmad ibn Rustah etc) and Christian (Widukind of Corvey, Liutprand of Cremona etc) !primary! sources too from 10th century about Hungarians. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Iam surprised that a person with so small knowledge of the rules of wikipedia is creating a new articles. Please read this: - espetialy a part about primary sources and synthesis. I dont care about your interpretation of primary sources, its irelevant here what thinks wikipedian "Fakirbakir from Hungary". Who are you? Do you have a expert publications? Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Find a reliable secondary source which says that Western Tourkia is Principality of Hungary. Stop to bombing with primary sources and your interpretation of them. Iam realy tired from you. Arent you able to work in the lines of the rules? Use sand-box and stop with original research and "romantic nationalism". Tourkia was a region in the Carpathian basin inhabitet mostly by Hungarians and it was just mentioned in byzantine sources because of their Christian mission to this area. But its no connection with Principality of Hungary. If you have such source than show it. About synthesis "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." All this article is synthesis and should be deleted. --Samofi (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It is just your personal opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal opinion? :) You have not a basic knowledge of the rules, please read it. I cited from the Wikipedia´s rules: and Read espetialy parts about synthesis and if you wanna create a crap articles than use sandbox. --Samofi (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the article, not other editors. Excessive criticism of others can be considered personal attacks.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
As Fakirbakir pointed out, there are many modern references which claim that Byzantine (so primary) sources called "Hungary" "Tourkia" or sometimes "Western Tourkia", and it was lead by Hungarian princes, such as Árpád, Bulcsu, etc. [61][62][63][64][65] Koertefa (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And where in this sources is connection with "Principality of Hungary"? I see just a connection with Hungary and Hungarians. In ONE primary source was Arpad called the prince of Western Tourkia, but its not principality of hungary. I wanna see a source which says its same polity. Its just a original research, you connected with FRINGE term "Principality of Hungary" this: Duchy of Hungary, Principality of Nitra, Western Tourkia, Hungarian tribal alliance, Hungarian tribal union, Hungarian tribes, History of Christianity in Hungary, Conquest of Hungary and Hungarian prehistory. Duchy of Hungary or Magyar Nagyfejedelemség was for a first time mentioned in 972 with connection with Geza - hungarian sources ( and ( and english ones its used this term only in the connection with the reign of Geza and Stephen (so after 970): ( ( --Samofi (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For instance "...a 945-963 közti szűk két évtizedben a Magyar Nagyfejedelemség... - ...The Hungarian Principality...between 945-963.."[66]Fakirbakir (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
All of the Byzantine sources called Hungary Tourkia from the beginning (conquest) until the end of the 11th century. "ΓΕΩΒΙΤZΑC ΠΙΣΤΟC ΚΡΑΛΗC ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑC" (Geōvitzas pistós králēs Tourkías, meaning "Géza I, faithful king of the land of the Turks" (inscription from the Holy crown of Hungary).Fakirbakir (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its only FRINGE theory. This is ONE book, author is not expert in the early medieval, he is expert about Austria-Hungary in 19th century. But at least 4 books from Hungarian academy of sciences use term Duchy of Hungary or Magyar Nagyfejedelemség after 972. And much more english language sources use this term after 955. BTW in the text is mentioned an existence of 3 rulers in 963 and 2 of them did not accep christianity - so principality was not united, author contradicts in the text and its FRINGE theory of Mr. Gero Andras. But if I would accept this source (for me its a minor theory or fringe theory) we will be in the 963 and not in 895. And we are talking about Duchy of Hungary and not about "Principality of Hungary". Find a source which use this terms as equivalent. About western tourkia.. Stop with this, write a book about this topic and than cite yourself. Now its only your original research and your interpretation of primary sources. On the other hand, if you would a write such book it will be a fringe theory or minor theory - so article about "principality of hungary" should be deleted. we can make about "duchy of hungary" after 955 or 972 and i will participate. --Samofi (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the difference between Géza's title and Taksony's title or Géza and Zoltán's title? Nothing. They wore the (same) Grand Prince title. This title was higher rank than the rank of 7(8) chieftains. Moreover, It was shaped from Khazars (dual principality-joint rule) at the time of the conquest and later the country became a "single-head" principality (around 904 or 907). Árpád's Hungary was more powerful than Géza's Hungary, because that was strongly centralized.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
1. Please add source about connection of Taksony with "Principality of Hungary". 2. "Geza (940-997) Prince of Hungary from 971, son of the chieftain Taksony .",+son+of+the+chieftain+Taksony+.%22&dq=%22Geza+(940-997)+Prince+of+Hungary+from+971,+son+of+the+chieftain+Taksony+.%22&hl=sk&ei=6OGWTo_lHcfm4QTM-u2QBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA They were called princes, but principality did not exist. For example Almos is called prince and he was a nomadic chieftain ( Stop to connect term prince with principality. its your original research. --Samofi (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Álmos lived in Etelköz. Etelköz was first known Hungarian state, another pagan principality. Álmos was the Grand Prince of the Hungarians and he was also chieftain of the Megyer tribe. Taksony was the same, he was both a chieftain and a Grand Prince (Géza as well).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand you, I was same patriot like you.. I know that it was a tribal polity of Hungarian tribes and they were moveing from Etelkoz to Pannonia and they wanted to move western before 955. But there is no connection with Principality of Hungary. Term "Principality of Hungary" is not widely accpeted and is fringe. If you make a google search about 60% of sources talks about Transylvania, 20% sources about Slovaks in Northern kingdom of Hungary and 20% about Hungarian tribal alliance. But it was a more tribes and majority of them were not unified until the reign of Geza. It was a tribal structure in this polity, tribal structure was until the reign of Geza or Stephen, its much more sources, here examples: [67][68][69]. Term "Duchy of Hungary" or "Magyar Nagyfejedelemség" is connected in 90% of sources with Geza. BTW according to archeological findings Hungarians before 955 did not cross line: Bratislava, Hlohovec, Rimavska Sobota, Trebisov. Its about 20 % of Slovak area, you written in page about Slovak history, that Slovakia was incorporated into Principality. Northern parts of Slovakia were independant with local Slovak (Slavic) rulers till 12th century (for example findings in Divinka or Spis (Szepes)). Incorporation of Slovakia to Hungarian kingdom finished in 12th century. So according to the majority of sources: Hungarian tribal structure was very strong until the reign of Geza, term "Magyar tribes" is normaly used in this time. Majority of sources use this. They had a princes, chieftains, rulers (depends about author), polity was called "Hungarian tribal alliance" and authors did not connect is with "Principality of Hungary". After 955 it was a transformation of Magyar tribes into a nation and this process was finished with Geza who become a Nagyfejedelem in 972 and in next 29 years Duchy of Hungary become a Kingdom of Hungary. --Samofi (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags[edit]

Since the discussions on the factual accuracy of the article and on the original research/synthesis allegations are stalled and there were not edits in the last months, shouldn't the tags be removed? Koertefa (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left only one.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, you would remove tags once the issue had been resolved, not when the discussion "stalled". The claim is that this is not an independent topic in its own right, but a "fringe" or patriotic take on what would be more naturally discussed under a neutral title such as "The 10th century in Hungary". --dab (𒁳) 07:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that you are right, see: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags, it says: "If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed.". The claims of the article are well-referenced, if you think that some of them are not correct, please, highlight your issues (preferably with reliable sources), so we can discuss them and refine the article if needed. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think dab is right. Its strange expression "Principality of Hungary" for this period. Sources says about at least 3 principalities in this territory and other sources says that Hungarians were united around 972. So they were not unitied, they made a pagan wars - but it was principality of hungary in 895? About term "Hungary", it was firstly used in 15th century, its anachronism to use it for 9th century. --Samofi (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Majority of neutral sources dont use term principality of hungary before 972. At least 10 are mentioned above. For example this: [70] --Samofi (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Accoding to new researches[71] we have to forget the existence of the Hungarian family cemeteries ("nagycsalados sirok") in the 10th century. In the graveyards the deceased were not related with each other. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, we should wait until the publication of these researches. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)