Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:30, 21 June 2012

User talk:Fakirbakir

Archives

1

Princes

Dear Fakirbakir. I am afraid you misinterpret some sources. For exemple here indeed you can find that Szőllösy (Herczeg), but it does not mean that the family had princely rank, rather Herczeg was their alternative surname. Also there is no Worum Würtemberg family, Worum and Württemberg are 2 different families, and only the last one was princely, but they were listed alphabetically. I am going to fix these problems. Thanks. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Csesznekgirl. I used reliable source. These families were presented in Kindom of Hungary.

• List of Historical Surnames of the Hungarian Nobility

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added most of the families that appear in the Royal books. Please, feel free to add more from Tötösy's list, if I have forgotten them. BTW, stay out of edit wars, you might be blocked. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you wanted to write Andlow instead of András. Tötösy lists it as Andlow. The source used by Tötösy probably was Béla Kempelen, but Kempelen mispelled the surname, correcly it was Andlau. I have fixed it. Have a good night. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Hunyadi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Lilac Soul 13:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was obvious vandalism. I added sources and somebody wanted to delete it immediately.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be neutral, I was, who added neutral sentences about ethnicity. (e.g.probably Romanian or Hungarian). Moreover, I contributed on the Hunyadi's talk page to discuss it.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your editing was more than scandalous. I had tried to fix page of History of Hungary up after User:217.23.241.3 and you reverted me with ridiculous justification.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After that User:Attilios's editing proved that I was right.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

House of Koháry

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Misplaced Pages (most entries have by them to indicate this, see e.g. ).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Misplaced Pages articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

WikiProject Dacia

Template:WikiProject Dacia Invitation --Codrin.B (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Romania in the Middle Ages Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

{{adminhelp}} Could you please explain me why I got it? I did not harm the three-revert rule. I think Yopie is a nationalist user who can not bear dissimilar point of views. I had a deal with him before (half year ago). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) If he was not right about this, please remove this edit war tag. Thank you.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Yopie is trying to be helpful. You have reverted twice on the same article in a short period of time, if you do it once more you will be in violation of the rule.--SPhilbrickT 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, an IP added a statement to the lead, presumably to improve the discussion. You reverted the addition, as it was not referenced. Yopie apparently agreed that a citation was warranted, so re-added the statement with the citation needed template. So far, everything is fine. The next step is for all interested editors to retire to the talk page and discuss the issue - does the sentence belong in the lead, if so, where is the reliable source supporting it.

However, rather than going to the talk page and discussing, you simply reverted again.

Yopie restored the sentence, with the need for a citation, again, time to go to the talk page, and rather than let you revert again, and possibly earn a block, Yopie let you know that you were close to three reverts.

I suggest going to the article talk page and discuss whether the sentence belongs, and if so, whether it can be properly sourced.--SPhilbrickT 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 13:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Navigation template

Hi Fakirbakir, since you're interested in history, maybe you would be a good person to ask this question. I would like to create a navigation template (like this Template:Turkic topics) for all the different ancient cultures that were assimilated into modern Eastern Europe and Asia. I'm not sure where to begin, but I think such a template would be very useful. Would you be interested in collaborating or advising on a project like this? For example, I'm not sure what time periods should be covered or what geographical areas to include. I think I can get technical assistance from a task force, and your knowledge of history would be very valuable. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. USchick (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunyadi

Hi

Here are some sources for you that referenced by Britannica Online. The New Advent is already used in the Wiki Hunyadi article.

• New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia
• Hunyadi, Lajos Elekes (1952) - In Hungarian

I do not know if you have access to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I have added a message about it to Talk:John Hunyadi

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TURANID RACE

It was a scientific rasist fantasy ideology before the ww2. You can't cite modern real (academic) scientists anthropologists who support the existence of that fantasy. According to modern geneticist and anthropology: The turanid race have never existed. Genetic science: Ironically, the Slovaks Belorussians European Russians and Ukrainians have more Asian (aka: Mongoloid) haplogroups than present-day Hungarians. Please learn genetics (which is a real science) instead of reading pseudoscientific fantasy books of uneducated self-appointed Historians. Many of the uneducated authors of these fantasy books about the origin of Hungarians haven't any thesis/diploma/(Huns planet-sirius, "Jesus was a Hungarian" , hungarians related to sumerians etc...)--Wrongcopy (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wiki page was not correct. Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz are renowed anthropologists, Hungarian academics use this term.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

and please stop personal attack.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

weak faulty reasoning...Lipták and Bartucz lived and worked before the discovery of DNA and Y and mt DNa haplogoups, therefore they are not relevant in modern sense yet. Czeizel deny the relations between easterners (asians) and modern Hungarians

Turanism, or Pan-Turanism, is a political movement for the union of all Turanian peoples. It implies not merely the unity of all Turkic peoples (as in Pan-Turkism), but also the unification of a wider Turanid race, also known as the controversial Uralo-Altaic race, believed to include all peoples speaking "Turanian languages". Turkish proponents of scientific racism purported that this racial group embraced"

Turanid is a now obsolete term, orinially intended to cover populations of Central Asia associated with the spread of the Turanian languages, that is the combination of the Uralic and Altaic families (hence also "Ural-Altaic race"), in human genetics, physical anthropology and historically in scientific racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this book, which was written by Czeizel: http://www.libri.hu/konyv/a-magyarsag-genetikaja.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You mix the science with the early political movements. Liptak's works are dominant in terms of early Hungarians or Avars. He was an academic, and anthropologist. Czeizel's work is just one point of view, however he established historical processions without any backround (historical).Fakirbakir (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Turanism is racism (see Jobbik party in Hungary and Turkish extremist groups) Turanism and the very early anthropology is not considered as real sciences in the terms of 21th century. Modern anthropology is based on genetics.

Phenotypes subraces are depend on genetic haplotypes. Turanism estabilish fantasy "kinship" between nations which are genetically NOT related to each other. That's why It's obsolete fantasy term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny (decades) works of Hungarian academic anthropolgists? Because, according to you Turanid race is obsolete term, It does not exist, and there are racist researchers if somebody of them dare to use it? It is ridiculous. Please read something about Liptak!s work and you will see his astonishing good knowledge about migration period, Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it estabilished kinship betweeen nations which genetically/biologically are NOT related to each other. These anthropologists were born too early. The genetic researches were changed radically the anthropology similar to the carbon isotope dating changed the archeology.--Valosag (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Slovaks "Current ethnolinguistic Slovak nationalism traces the roots of the Slovak nation to the times of Greater Moravia, claiming the polity to have been the ‘first Slovak state’. However, there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation." source: Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. This is a joke, right? They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation: example Ján Stanislav: Slovenský juh v stredoveku I.-II. (1948; 1999, 2004), Starosloviensky jazyk (1978; 1983), Dejiny slovenského jazyka I. - V. (1956, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1974) and million others grammarians and historians...

You wrote: "Please cite your source, and do not delete or transform cited sentence" Ok, for example my source: Hrnko, Anton (2009). Language is not only an Instrument of Communication. Casting of Doubt on Slovak – Causes and Consequences. in Insight into Slovak-Magyar Relations. ed. Prof. PhDr. Ján Doruľa, DrSc., Slovak Committee of Slavists in cooperation with the Institute of Slavonic Studies of Ján Stanislav of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, BRATISLAVA 2009. ss. 18 - 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

you can insert those If you have source about the subject, however we do not delete citations. These are wiki rules.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia

They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation, only stupid magyar fasist on wiki do not see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. Can you please take a look at this thread: ?

(Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Matthias Corvinus

The link refers to place of origin (the link is to Wallachia), not to ethnicity. As you put it: You are not right, He was probably from Wallachia this is a place and it does not explain his origin, and we do not know whether he was Vlach, Cuman, Serb etc. Origin and the place where from he was originated are different things. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Serban

Your sources make some strange suppositions. Serban is a typical Romanian name... (Iaaasi (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

According to the source, SORBE is the correct form.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sorbe had supposedly Tatar-Cuman origin, because the second part of his name 'Bâg' was a Cuman dignity name ('prince') and 'Sor' also means 'Calamity' ('Sor' was an Altaic people in that period as well" - Sorbe or Sorbâg? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

It is Turkic, different to write and to pronounce. But I am not linguist and they are.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

However, the Turk source may be biased when supporting Turkic origin (Iaaasi (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I have no right (and I am not enough) to decide it is biased or not, It is right or not. I insert what the source states.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Golden Team

You might be interested in the latest proposal at Talk:Magical Magyars#Requested move 2, proposing a move to Hungarian Golden Team. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to your suggestion to roll back the article to its "non-vandalised" version, can I request that you compare the article as it is now, against the version that the original author wants to roll back to? The original author has previously claimed that I have "vandalised" his work, so I referred the article for independent review, and my version was preferred. This is all documented in the Talk page if you wish to check it. I hope this helps and that it becomes apparent that my "vandalism" was just judicious editing :) Coopuk (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99

I respectfully ask you not to support the edits of his socks. As the admins said, his IP range is too wide for a range block, so the only way to stop him is reverting his edits. If we support him, he weill create tomorrow another account, knowing that his contributions will be accepted even if the account will end up being blocekd. Thank you (Iaaasi (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Move proposal

I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: . The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

A-H

You should not blindly reverting

Read the complete phrase:

The "Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867", in creating a semi-independent Hungary, entailed the rise of an assertive Magyar identity within the Kingdom of Hungary.

Hung was semi-indep because foreign policy etc were controlled by Vienna (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Vienna is just a city. The place of the common ministry of foreign affairs is not interesting, perhabs Vienna was geographically closer to Schönbrunn than other cities.

The Austrian half of the empire had the same voting-rights and delegation as Hungarian half of the Empire.

The key man of the foreign affairs was the Emperor-King, who had extra voting rights in voting-standoffs. --Lbombardiers (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Austria became semi-independent as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Black army of Hungary

There are dosens of anachronistic patingts in the black army of hungary article. Many leaders of the black army are depicted in 17th century hussar uniforms. That pictures mislead the reader.--Gyrospeen (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian nationality or Natio Hungarica?

Hello, I think that more correct term for the nationality from the Hungarian Kingdom before 1918 is Hungarus or Natio Hungarica. It covers all people from the kingdom regardless of their ethnic origin. English does not distinguish between Hungarian before 1918 and Hungarian after 1918. For example Ludevit Stur was Hungarian patriot and Slovak patriot in the begin of his political career. Hungarian because of his loyalty to Hungarian Kingdom and Slovak because he was Slovak, he loved Slovak people, Slovakian Upper Hungary and Slovak language. So in English it would be written that he was a Hungarian politic - but its not clear if Magyar or Slovak. The term Natio Hungarica or Hungarus is clear, and its historicaly recorded and more correct. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22natio+hungarica%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= --Samofi (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Natio Hungarica should be redirected as was done by administrator Dbachmann. I see you meant well by trying to rewrite it. If the topic merits an article it should be under an English name like Hungarian Nation or "Hungarian Nation in the Middle ages" or any other English name that fits the topic. And it was an administrator who turned it into a redirect which is a pretty strong action and shouldn't be undone without discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you with the help with article Natio Hungarica. Dbachamann is not an administrator, you can check his profile http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dbachmann. Hobartimus just try to manipulate with the facts. Natio Hungarica is historical term and does not mean "Hungarian Nation" or "Hungarian people" - its status, which used Magyars, Slovaks(Slavs), Saxons and next other nations. After Natio Hungarica, it was identity Hungarus in the Kingdom of Hungary (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hungarus#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22hungarus%22&aq=f&aqi=g-l1g-lm2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5915f5820557ebd8&biw=1680&bih=811). Later I would like to expand this article. Next article with which I would need help is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovaks_in_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Dbachmann is an administrator. --Nmate (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

{{help me}}

I was willing to contribute on page of Natio Hungarica however 2 administrators recommended to delete that page. I understood them because this theme is related to Hungarian nobility. The administrators redirected this page 2 times. There is another question whether it was a good redirection or not because I think page of name of Hungary can not handle this subject as opposed to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. In my opinion the page of Natio Hungarica is entirely equal with Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. After the redirection, I inserted my contributions from the redirected page of Natio Hungarica to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. I was surprised when I saw the page of Natio Hungarica exists again. So I deleted my contributions because it was duplicated (here and on page of nobility of the K. of Hungary).I do not understand how it happens. Everybody can restore redirected pages without discussion? Can we alter the redirections? I would appreciate if somebody explained it to me. I understand page of Natio Hungarica perhaps unnecessary. The redirection would be good solution if it was page of Nobility of Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy done, Reverted back to admin User:Dbachmann redirect, and protected. The page was never deleted, so the old pages were still in the history, and easy to restore. Any changes will now have to be admin approved.  Ronhjones  19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To check for an admin status - the only way is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Dbachmann  Ronhjones  19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Nobody deleted that article, I miswrote my comment they recommended to redirect and not to delete.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

Give me a link that a discussion was closed by admin. --Samofi (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think a source from the 18th century should not be regarded as a reliable source. The expression "Hungary" referring to a period preceding the formation of the state sounds strange. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• After a more than month of studying (hungarian, slovak and english) matherials I have to agree with Boroska. Majority of sources use term Hungarian tribal alliance for period before 955. From 955 (2 sources from 933) sources talks about ethnogenesis of the principality, but Hungarian principality. In 972 we can clearly talks about Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary. Expression "Principality of Hungary" on the period of the arrival of Hungarians is same anachronism like to say "Principality of Slovakia" to Principality of Nitra. --Samofi (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Careful!

These edits could be falling under WP:CANVAS. Please try to avoid them in the future. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. (Partially)Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You should fully remove the paragraph, because Samofi's edits were done before you started a new thread in WikiProject Hungary . You have to also remove Koertefa's edits as related to your canvassing activity.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolutionary War

I think your revert was incorrect. What do you think? Metricopolus (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The term Hungarian Revolutionary War is used in connection to Hungarian Revolution of 1848, please check Google Books results .(SamiraJ (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Hungary 13th cent.png

The map is not accurate. According to the original map (which I am surprised you found so fast, given the fact that the upload was done by other account), there were no Wallachian local autonomies in Hungary. In Partium the we have "románok", not Wallachians. The Banat of Severin and the Carpathian strip is not depicted as a Hungarian territory. Also, the Wallachian bubbles form the Banat of Sevein are not drawn like that in the map. Another thing I don't understand is the hole from the middle of Szekelyfold (SamiraJ (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I suggest that some minor changes should be made on the map. For example, the existence of Székely communities to the west of the Danube and in the Felvidék in the end of the 13th century is highly dubious; similarly dubious is the claim that parts of Romania (with the exception of the Banate of Severin) were under the Hungarian monarchs' suzerainty after the Mongol invasion; finally, I think that the names of the Banates should be revised - maybe the Hungarian form (Ozora, Szörény, Só, Macsó, Kucsó) should be consequently used. Otherwise, I think it is an excellent map. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Austria - semi independent?

As far as I know, the foreign policy was still an attribution of the Austrian (Habsburg) side (SamiraJ (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Please see,Talk:Austria-Hungary#Semi-independent_Austria Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read Anti-Hungarian propaganda and bias here the following: "In the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary), decisions relating to diplomatic and military matters were taken in Vienna (41). In July 1914, the Hungarian government was firmly opposed to the aggressive Habsburg policy towards Serbia (42). However, the Hungarian objections were overruled by the Austrians, and Hungary was forced to accept the decisions taken by the Habsburg government. The accusation that Hungary was responsible for the war is therefore unfounded". If Austria was dependent of Hungary, A-H would not have been able to declare war without its accept (SamiraJ (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Because the imperial/royal House (Emperor-King) had voting rights in stale-mate situations. Amen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.29 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ganxsta Zolee

hi i need a hungarian native speaker here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ganxsta_Zolee its a new article. thank you --Samofi (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nem ott kellett volna jelenteni, mivel 3RR-t sértett

So I reported this individual here.--Nmate (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Message to admin Favonian about Matthias I

You can read the original message here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Favonian&action=edit&section=47

User:Iadrian yu is romani-an chauvinist Iaaasi's meta/sock -puppet. Why do you support his edits? (you always restored his bad faith edits or chauvinist provocation in Matthias Corvinus article.

Moreover, there is no other English language (real printed!) encyclopedia in the world, which use so-called bynames/nicknames in the title of the articles. "Matthias Corvinus" is not official name it's just a nick name of the Monarch. Please Modify the title of the article to Matthias I of Hungary.

Columbia Encyclopedia

Encyclopædia Britannica

Encyclopædia Universalis

Encarta Encyclopedia (2009)

Brockhaus Enzyklopädie

Encyclopaedia Larousse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.29 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And whose little edit-warring, IP-jumping sock might you be? The current name of the article was the result of this discussion. Edit-warring to effect changes against consensus is disruptive and may well lead to you being blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

HAhaha:)))))) consensus of laymen? The voters were Romani-an users Serbs Slovaks? Who are not from native English speaker countries, who are not even Hungarians. It is an English (not romani serb slovak etc...)encyclopedia about a Hungarian (and not romani-an serbian slovak) king. British American Academic historians call him officially as Matthias I of Hungary, every english language encíclopedia use the Matthias I of Hungary title. Matthias Corvinus are represented as byname.

Hello

Hello, sorry to bother you, but please don`t accuse me for blind reverts because according to the wikipedia policy any suspicious, unreferenced data can be challenged with reference needed tag (or remove if it is very strange)/ or new data - as in this case, simply removed until a valid reference appear. Blind reverts would be If I would revert when a reference is present, which I did`t do so far. Adrian (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I tried to solve an archiving problem at talk page of Kingdom of Hungary, however I am not entirely familiar with this archiving process. There were two Archive1 pages, I redirected one of them to Archive2, however I can not see this Archive2 on the talkpage. It is a wee bit confusing. Moreover, I think Miszabot is not working well, because it left the old discussions. Could you please help me?Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are a couple things going on here. I think I have sorted it all out. The old archive was at /Archive1, when you added the bot archiving it was configured to archive to /Archive_1, which it did. The template on the right was manually set to go only to Archive1, so when you moved Archive_1 to Archive2, it didn't update. I have moved it to Archive_2, and requested a move over redirect of Archive1 to Archive_1. When that is complete, the talk page header will have the archive links, and the bot will continue archiving into Archive_2, and as new archives are made, the talk page header will automatically update with them. Monty₈₄₅ 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fz22's maps

Thank you for warning me. Regards --fz22 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Off wiki links

Do not post on Misplaced Pages links to videos that reveal personal information about users. If you do so in the future, this account will be blocked. Keegan (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You were reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors

statement about Slovakia

In this edit in June 2010, you said:

The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society.

That kind of sweeping generalization is a textbook example of a disruptive statement and it's really no wonder that it annoyed User:Samofi. It certainly violated the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTAFORUM. In January 2011, you archived the same statement yourself at Talk:Slovakization/Archive 3, so it's not necessarily clear whether you stood by it or wanted it removed or neither. What are your thoughts on the matter? --Joy (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit it was a strong statement and can be disruptive. I was charged because of this statement on the admin noticeboard. I do not understand why I have to explain it again. I know that I have to avoid this sort of behavior. I was new here and I was not familiar with wiki rules (as I have been editing here for 22 months), If you want I can remove it immediately from the archives.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I see from the comments User Samofi is working against me, again....please see this:Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you link the old explanation here please? --Joy (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Samofi continuously accuses Hungarian users (User:Norden1990, User:Koertefa, User:Hobartimus, User:Nmate, User:Baxter9, and me). I think it is incorrect.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was punished for my behaviour. Your behaviour, edits and POV-pushing are wrong but you were not even warned or banned. It was you who placed me 2 times to ANI in 2 weeks, because of your synthesis Principality of Hungary. You told you are changed and you was a newcomer then.. So why do you call other editors nationalists and hungarian-haters (a month and half ago)? It touched me, I have a basic knowledge of hungarian language, i have a lot of hungarian friends, colegues in work and i had no personal problem with hungarians. You did not change, you are the same. You are only more careful with words you say, but sometimes your true nature and your despect to Slovakian culture or scholars rise on the surface . Hungarian medievalists are right and Slovak opinion you cant accept, yes? Btw zoltan pastor is an ethnic hungarian and member of academy of science. only ferenc makk and kristo gyula write a "true" history? in the fact they are only a significant minority view - "patriots". We have Hungarian historians with different opinions such: kovacs, gyorffy, sugar, hanak, pastor, lazar, kontler, szarka, lendvai, soos.. If you have an interest you can try to read this, its cooperation of Slovak and Hungarian historians (Slovak/Hungarian book), maybe your mind will more open to cooperation and compromises: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf --Samofi (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is just your opinion about my work in connection with page of Principality of Hungary. And you always repeat that Hungarian views are in minority (I can cite you if you want) or fringle theories and Hungarian historians are nationalist (I can cite it as well). I could cooperate with you If you was not always shrill.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhi csata és a puskapor

Olvassad el lassan tagoltan ha kell többször is azt az idézett könyvet. Nem beszél semmiféle puskaporról, csak siege weapons-ról Magyarországon Lengyelországon. Nem is beszélhet, mivel sem a magyar sem a későbbi mongol krónikák nem említik. Forrás nélkül pedig hazudozás vagy spekulatív komolytalan szöveg lenne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.222 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mc Neill, cited:"Chinese gunpowder may have been used in Hungary"
• Kohn, cited:"Plain of Mohi......Mongols attacked with flaming oil and gunpowder launched with catapults"
• Cowley, cited" In this primitive form gunpowder weapons reached Europe in 1241"
• Lloyd, cited "The Mongols are known to have used gunpowder and firearms in Europe as early as 1241 at the Battle of Mohi in Hungary."
• Fakirbakir (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, spekulatív (képzelt) történelem. Nincs rá egyetlen krónika se magyar se korabeli mongol. Innentől kezdve tényként ne kezeld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.222 (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fakirbakir, the part of the article that discussed the "Role of Gunpowder and Firearms" was deleted (by a user who was later blocked for disruptive editing). I myself have never heard about that theory, but it seems sourced. What do you think, should we put it back? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should. Actually gunpowder in battle of Muhi was also new to me, but there are reliable sources about that. I can not decide whether it is false or not. Thank you for telling me.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK and I see that you have already put it back. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kuruc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magyar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Avar Khaganate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ostmark, Antes and Dulo

Sarir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		As exemplified by your work on the merger discussion at Hunnic Empire. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pelso Plate

Szia! Ebbe a cikkbe némi pontosítás kéne. Jelenleg úgy tűnik, mintha a Pelso az egész északnyugat-magyarországi aljzatot jelentené, pedig csak a Dunántúli-középhegységet és a Dunabalparti-rögöket foglalja magában. Nyugati folytatásában még az Északi- és a Déli-Alpok közötti 10-20 km-es zóna tartozik hozzá (Gail-völgyi Alpok, Karavankák, stb.). A huwikin a hu:Magyarország földtana cikkben találhatsz egy térképet is, amin a dunántúli-középhegységi egység néven szerepel. Üdv Laszlovszky András (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hungarians

Hi Fakirbakir, I have a question. The first line of the Hungarian people article was the following:

• "Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Template:Lang-hu), are a nation and an ethnic group native to the Carpathian Basin and primarily associated with Hungary."

But you have changed it to:

• "The terms Hungarian people or Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Template:Lang-hu) are used in English to mean "a native or inhabitant of Hungary"."

I think that the original one was better and more in line with similar articles (e.g., English people, Scottish people, French people, Norwegian people, Portuguese people, Greek people and Austrian people, etc.). I also think that the expression "native to" does not contradict the fact that the ancestors of Hungarians came from Central Asia. Moreover, this article should not be about everybody who live(d) in Hungary (cf., Talk:Hungarian_people#Hungarian_Nation). What do you think about that? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew it. The page of Finnish people was my example. Yes, your variation is a bit better.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx! KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Hello, I saw you removed my POV tag. Please don`t do that anymore. Please read When to remove this tag and when is this tag used. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, everybody agrees that the collapse of Austria-Hungary was one of the events (among many others, e.g., the national assembly in Alba Iulia, the end of WWI, the Bolsheviks, etc.) that led to the Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919, the dispute is only about whether this event was fundamental, whether it should be mentioned right in the lead. I do not think that it is POV issue. Anyway, if Adrian prefers, I can accept keeping the POV tag during the discussion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Du Nay is a pseudonym, not a real name and comes from Duna (Danube)

Who said he is French? Gábor Vékony believes he is Romanian:

His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.

Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": . Romorinian (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read WP:SPS. The fact that this text was published somewhere - by an anonymous author that writes under pseudonym: - does not make it automatically reliable 79.117.141.39 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Janus Pannonius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bosnian

János Vitéz (archbishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bosnian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Hi Fakirbakir, I would like to ask your opinion. Some days ago we spoke about the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (KoH), before the compromise. We said that though it was not an independent country, it was still a "proper" kingdom, for example, the kings were elected. Then, why does the article about it provide the flag of the Habsburg Empire as the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary? Just because there was a personal union it does not mean that there was no flag for the KoH. For example, the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia displays a contemporary Croatian flag, not the flag of the Habsburg empire. These two approaches are clearly not consistent with each other. What do you think, should the article about the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary display a different flag than the flag of the Habsburg Empire and if yes, what kind of flag should be used? I am really looking forward to your opinion in this matter. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did not find any flags about Habsburg Hungary on the page of Wikimedia commons. There is a good page (it is school website) about Habsburg Hungarian flags and coats of arms. This page states that the Hungarian coats of arms were used in the Habsburg Monarchy (A magyar címer (s általa a nemzeti színek) védelmében sikeresen lépett fel a Magyar Udvari Kancellária a 18. és 19. századokban. ) and -as you see on the pictures- the Habsburg coats of arms preferred to use Hungarian symbols as Árpád stripes, crown or double cross etc., moreover the Habsburgs were cognate descendants of the Árpád dynasty, but the flags were usually the ordinary Habsburg flags "officially", irrespective of the Hungarian domestic traditions (A Habsburg Birodalomban (központilag) ez idő tájt a fekete-sárga színeket használták a kiegyezésig, nálunk a piros-fehér-zöld terjedt el egyre inkább.). The question is whether the Hungarian flags were in official status or not. I am going to seek sources about it.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fakirbakir, for the information and the links. It is an interesting question and I will also try to look into this matter. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pannonian steppe

At page of Puszta was for a period one month move request, nobody reacted. I made article which coverering Puszta and Pannonian steppes. As I know Hortobagy steppe is part of Pannonian steppe (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2007&docType=pdf). You told: "I could not find this in the source: "Pannonian steppe is a steppe biom" Puszta is the grassland biom, pannonian steppe is a biogeographical or botanical expression". You probably dont know what the biom means. Why it should be article Puszta when the Puszta is non-english name for a Pannonian steppe? --Samofi (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You always want to move or delete Hungarian related pages. Why? Why do you have to move page of Puszta if there are lots of source and explanation about it. And what if it is part of the Pannonian steppe??? Actually Pannon Region is also a biographical expression "A PANNON BIOGEOGRÁFIAI RÉGIÓ" and Pannon steppe is part of it. Should we create a new page (The Pannon Biographical Region) and move the page of Pannon steppe there because it is part of it? Actually I was a bit confused because I mixed Pannon region with Pannon steppe and did not realize that Pannon steppe is synonym with "Puszta" first, but you should not be sarcastic. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Its a same biom these grasslands in south Austria, Slovakia, Serbia and grasslands in Hungary. Just a look pictures. They are in Pannonian basin, same flowers, same animals, same geology... In the English language scholar articles are these Grasslands Pannonian or Pannonic steppe. Pls say me the difference between Puszta and Pannonian steppe. It was you who removed information about Pannonian steppe in Hungary from the article . Is it your aim to create small articles with non-english names? Same like in the case of Betyars, it could be article about highwaymen from KoH or from the Carpathian region. All foreign languages are linked to articles about highwaymen from Carpathian mountains. But no, its better to make a 3 small articles about Betyars, Zbojniks and Oprisheks.. For example article about Shepherd's axe, do you wanna make a separate articles about valaška and about fokos? Valaska is a little bit different than fokos. But on the other hand you had not problem to move Royal Hungary without discussion or official merger proposal, probably you did not read WP:MERGE. This can be also useful if you have a time for study: WP:NOTDICDEF , WP:AT --Samofi (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Internationalist and National (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

John II

It is customary to wait for responses before actually moving the page. -- Elphion (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Speyer

Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Speyer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Komlosaurus.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Komlosaurus.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hungarian landtaking

Wow! Great article! I would like to congratulate. You just made ​​up for one of the biggest gaps in the Misplaced Pages about Hungarian history. Congrats! --Norden1990 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not my merit. There was a two years old proposal and I just did split the page of Hungarian prehistory yesterday.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Muhely szervezes

Szia!

Eloszor is koszi, hogy jelezted szandekod a tortelem muhelyben valo reszvetelre! Most azt szerenem megtudakolni, hogy mint az egyik legaktivabb WP HU tag, aki regota szerkeszt es ismeri a dorgest, lenne-e kedved illetve erod megszervezi a tortelem muhelyet? Akar egyedul, akar Koertefaval osszefogva. Kiindulasnak ez az iras sokat segithet, amihez hozzaadva a te sajat tapasztaltaidat ki tudnad alakitani a muhely oldalat. Esetleg nas aktiv muhelyeket is meg lehetne nezni, annak a felepitesek, mukodeset tanulmanyozni es atvenni belole ami jonak tunik. Kerlek irj, es ha ugy erzed, vedd fel a kapcsolatot Koertefaval is. Gondolom ismeritek egymast :) (Nem tudom, hova szeretsz valaszolni, de figyelolostara tettelek, ha esetleg itt irnal.)

Szep napot,

Thehoboclown (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. I am not entirely familiar with these projects, however I will try to study them thoroughly. (Egyébként nagyon jó ötletnek tartom a kezdeményezésedet!) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you are invited!

You're invited to be a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

To be honest, I don't understand yours and Koertefa's approach. The Treaty of Varad was in effect for only 2 years (1538-1540), more exactly the EHK was recognized until John Zapolya's death, when EHK should have been reunited with the rest of the medieval Kingdom under the Habsburg crown. If we mention 1538 in the infobox, we should also include 1540, the ending year of the agreement. Between 1540 and 1570 the Habsburgs did not recognize the division of the medieval kingdom Bozo1789 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to read--Nmate (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

map of Poland

It seems like what this map really needs is the addition of end dates for when the respective territories ceased to be part of Poland, rather than re-coloring "Upper Hungary" to blue, as that is not internally consistent with how other temporarily acquired territories are marked. I also see that there has been some pretty consistent edit warring over this map over at commons.VolunteerMarek 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your editing is also dubious. You have placed back that disputed and inaccurate map in the articles.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the "newer" version is the one that's disputed - per talk page on Commons . And it is the older version which is sourced. With one caveat that the thick red border needs to be redrawn to reflect the source .VolunteerMarek 14:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The newer version is sourced as well. There is an academic source by Ferenc Makk. The original map is highly dubious. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have access to that source, but all it seems to support is the fact that that portion was conquered by Hungary in 1018, which is beside the point here.VolunteerMarek 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is the Polish occupation lasted only 3 or 15 years. The presented map is misleading because it states that the Polish occupation was from 1003 to 1025. Moreover it features a non-existent entity "Slovakia" instead of the proper designation of that territory (around 1000 AD) "Upper Hungary". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested that the end dates be added. As to the "Slovakia" vs "Upper Hungary" stuff - well, the source says "Slovak region" so we should follow the source. My understanding of the history is that before the Polish conquest the area under consideration was part of the Principality of Nitra, which might have been controlled by Kingdom of Hungary, though apparently there's some dispute over to what extent this control was exercised directly. At any rate, it doesn't make sense to color that portion blue when all other temporary conquests are colored in pink.VolunteerMarek 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if Fakirbakir quoted his source correctly here then his source says that area in question "stayed as part of Poland until 1018", so there is no basis in this source to paint this part of Poland with the color of neighboring country like Fakirbakir done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Polska_around_1000.png Furthermore, is there an evidence that term "Upper Hungary" was used in year 1018? As far as I know, term "Upper Hungary" originates from much later time period. PANONIAN 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Upper Hungary", "Northern Hungary", "North Hungary" etc... It is just localization issue.... It was part of medieval Kingdom of Hungary, it's fact.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after 1018. But the source refers to this part as "Slowanszczyzna" which means "Slovak region" (not "Slowacja", btw - there's no implication that there was a political entity called "Slovakia" at the time). It just simply means that it was an area inhabited by Slovaks. Again, my understanding of the matter is that while after 1018 the region can properly be called part of kingdom of Hungary, before the Polish conquest this is not the case. At any rate, the source says "Slovak region" so we follow the source.VolunteerMarek 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no such political entity as "Slovak region" in medieval Kingdom of Hungary. It is misleading, false. In this case we should call Szekler Land in Romania "Hungarian region" or "Szekely region" !officially! because those Romanian counties are inhabited by Hungarians?!?! Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was no such political entity as "Slovak region" in medieval... Europe, but that's exactly why map says "Slovak region" rather than "Slovakia" - it indicates that the area was inhabited by Slovaks, nothing more. I have no idea about "Szekely region". And at any rate, we follow the source.VolunteerMarek 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually we know nothing about ethnic ratios in Kingdom of Hungary at the beginning of the 11th century. Moreover, the Carpathian regions were mostly uninhabited, covered by mass of woods. Why do we use a "modern" name if we have the proper political name of the territory? Because an inaccurate source states that?.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is reliable. What has happened here is that you first edit warred over the map over on Commons, trying to upload "your" version over the existing one, and when that didn't work you uploaded a POV-fork version of it and have been trying to replace the previous version with it. But there's several problems with your version (and as I already indicated there is actually one problem with the original one, in terms of the borders in 1025) - specifically, there's no reason to color this particular region a different color from other regions temporarily captured by Chrobry, and the source for the map specifically refers to the region as "Slovak region" rather than "Upper Hungary". You may think the source inaccurate. But it's still a reliable source, and that trumps your own personal opinion. Honestly, the most likely reason why it refers to the region as "Slovak region" is because before the Polish conquest the political control over the region is uncertain, but what is relatively certain is that it was inhabited by Slovaks (ethnic composition of Kingdom of Hungary overall is neither here nor there). Rather than edit warring over the map, this should probably be worked out over at Commons.VolunteerMarek 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What if I find some reliable sources to justify my version? I am sure I can find academic sources about Polish occupation of "Upper Hungary" in the era of St Stephen. Actually I think you disregard "the historical accuracy" in this case. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have other reliable sources, let's see them. Links and all.VolunteerMarek 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting map.....Fakirbakir (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: even though a source supports the name "Slovak lands" it still pretty much sounds like a fringe theory, as it is quite controversial whether we can speak about the Slovak nation that early. Even if we can, we hardly have enough information about the ethnic composition of that territory in the 11th century, as Fakibakir has pointed out. Providing a map with such a text sounds like violating the neutrality point of view principle, since it would mean an obvious side-taking in that question. On the other hand, PANONIAN is also right that using the term "Upper Hungary" may also sound anachronistic. The map should not contain either of these terms. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: Another problem with these maps is that they are not in English, so they should be avoided in English Misplaced Pages... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur "Upper Hungary" may sound anachronistic, however a simple geographical term "Northern Kingdom of Hungary" seems to be fine in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Main point here is: during Polish administration the area was not "Northern Kingdom of Hungary" - it was rather Southern Poland. PANONIAN 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the question of "ethnic composition of that territory in the 11th century", is there any serious source that says that Slovaks did not lived there in the 11th century? I do not see why lands where Slovaks are living should not be named "land of the Slovaks". Also, Polish sources are certainly more reliable than Hungarian ones when history of Slovakia is in question - it is because of the simple fact that Poles do not have territorial pretensions towards Slovakia and therefore, I see no any reason why an Polish source would be biased when it speaks about history of Slovakia. Contrary to this, some nationalist Hungarian authors would include bias in their work in order to support Hungarian territorial pretensions towards Slovakia. But, even if we have this in mind, I am not aware that any Hungarian author claimed that Slovaks did not lived there in the 11th century. PANONIAN 13:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we followed your reasoning, Pomerania and Lusatia would be "West Poland", Moravia would be "South West Poland" etc etc... OR Kosovo would be "Northern Albania" (I am just joking)?!?! I know that according to you all of the Hungarian academic works are rubbish... I am used to your point of view. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa - I don't see how calling the region in question "Slovak region" or "Slovak lands" is a fringe theory. And I agree with Panonian that while there aren't going to be any sources which give you the exact % break down of various ... ethnicities, I guess, since nationality was not well defined, it's pretty clear that the area was inhabited by Slovak people (more strictly speaking pre-Slovaks, who probably spoke old form of Western Slavic).

With regard to the map being not in English, this is often the case and we use non-English maps on English Misplaced Pages all the time. If someone wants to make an English version of the map and upload it (as a separate file) that'd be great (I'd do it myself but I'm not very good with graphics).

Fakirbakir - actually I have a problem with Droysen's maps in general as they tend to represent 19th century nationalistic viewpoints.

If you guys want an exact answer as to what the area should be called then it'd be something like "Slovak lands, at the time controlled by Poland, but which became part of Hungary in 1018" or something like that - but you can't fit that into a map.VolunteerMarek 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek: as far as I know, the first written evidence in which a part of this territory was referred to as "Slovak region" (without clear definition) is from the 15th century. It is most likely that the word "Slovak" only became widespread in the 15th century, as well. Therefore, writing "Slovak region" to a map showing the 11th century is highly questionable. Of course, I do not doubt that there were significant Slav population in that area, but whether they were the absolute majority or whether they were all ancestors of the modern Slovaks is doubtful. The population of that region was always quite mixed and mainly consisted of Slovaks, Hungarians, Ruthenians (they are also Slavs, but not Slovaks!) and Germans. Identifying it as "Slovak lands" sounds like projecting back the current borders and inhabitants to 1000 years earlier, which is clearly unacceptable.
• PANONIAN: you wrote: "I do not see why lands where Slovaks are living should not be named "land of the Slovaks"". The problem is: it is doubtful whether the Slav population of that region can be called "Slovak" in the modern meaning of the word, also we do not know whether they where the majority. We simply do not have enough data about that. You also wrote " Polish sources are certainly more reliable than Hungarian ones when history of Slovakia is in question - it is because of the simple fact that Poles do not have territorial pretensions towards Slovakia". That's a very strong POV. Of course, you cannot say that Hungarians in general have "territorial pretensions towards Slovakia". I am sure that there are some radicals who have (as there are radical nationalists in Serbia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, etc., as well), but it is unacceptable that you want to decry Hungarian scientists based on that. Regarding the claim that "I see no any reason why an Polish source would be biased when it speaks about history of Slovakia", have you ever heard in Serbia about that concept of Pan-Slavism?
• Summary: we do not know the ethnic composition of that region, thus, we should not suggest the reader an interpretation. The map should not talk about that at all, since if it does, it violates verifiability. Also, since the map shows the area between 992 and 1025, but that territory only belonged to Poland between 1003/1015 and 1018, the map should give information about the state where it belonged to outside that period. This is the Kingdom of Hungary (or the Principality of Hungary before AD 1000). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa - it really doesn't matter whether the population living in this region was called "Slovaks" contemporaneously (in 1000 AD) or not. What matters for our purpose is how modern sources refer to this population and, more specifically, region at this time. And here we have an explicit source which calls it "Slovak region". You say that the map fails verifiability but this is simply not true - we have a source that the map is based on, hence WP:V. Rather putting in "Upper Hungary", since there's no source for that, fails verifiability.

As regards bias, honestly, if anything Polish maps would tend to be pro-Hungarian. But I don't think this has anything to do with bias one way or another here.

(The question of ethnic composition of this area in 1000 AD or so is an interesting one, but actually besides the point here).VolunteerMarek 14:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This case is typical falsification of history. This debate is senseless. I am going to make a good, accurate map with reliable sources in the close future. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the original map can indeed be seen as an attempt to falsify history, or at least as an attempt to push a strong POV. I encourage the creation of a better, more accurate, English map about the area in that period, which is based on reliable academic sources (and not on fringe theories as the one we were talking about). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no single evidence that this map is made with purpose of "history falsification". Do you have an reliable author that supports your claim or it is just your personal opinion? Furthermore, do you want to say that Polish and Slovak historians should not write about history of their own country or what? PANONIAN 06:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying such thing, i.e., that they should not write about their own history, would be foolish. You were the one who said something like that with respect to the Hungarian historians. And of course, it would be quite hard to find an academic source which claims about this specific map that it falsifies history. Naturally, that fact does not mean that it doesn't falsifies. :) I could also draw a map showing Europe under Martian occupation and there would be no specific source claiming that it was false. The question is whether a map is in line with the mainstream views (i.e., no weakly supported fringe theories, please). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words - I spoke about "some nationalist Hungarian authors", not about "Hungarian historians in general". In fact, by my opinion, reliable Hungarian authors are proven to be the best sources that disproving stupidities written by these nationalist authors. So, do you have any evidence that this map is falsification or you just based your opinion on a fact that author of that map is from Poland and that he might follow "Pan-Slavic ideas"? Not to mention, that it is ridiculous that we speak about an 19th century liberation movement in the 21th century when Slavs are no more oppressed by foreign powers. Contrary to this, Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago (and contrary to Pan-Slavic movement which advocated liberation of Slavs from foreign rule, Greater Hungarian idea is and always was an idea of imposition of such foreign rule on other nations). As for maps, you can draw any map, but you should have source for it - if you draw such sourced map then one cannot claim that your map is wrong if he does not provide source for his claims. So far, the Polish map is the only one here that is sourced: http://ingner.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/boleslaw_chrobry_mapa.jpg Hungarian source provided by Fakirbakir fully supports this source and we have no source that contradicts it. PANONIAN 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)