This is an archive of past discussions with User:Borsoka. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your message. I have been collecting books on the history of Hungary written in English; so sooner or later, I will continue to edit those articles as well. For the time being, sincerely, I am more interested in editing articles in connection with the history of the Rus' principalities, Cilician Armenia and Romania - and I managed to buy some really good books on these topics. Happy New Year for you and for yours, as well. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Criztu, thank you for your note on my Talk page. I agree with you that any of the solutions you suggest in order to avoid edit warring is acceptable. I think if both of us had used reliable sources without faking their content, this situation would not have developed so far. Please note that the three revert rule does not apply to obvious vandalism. And pretending that an editor uses reliable sources but he/she falsifies its content is pure vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
A "harc" :)
Szia!
Látom Te is belenyúltál rendesen... Én ezt már végigjátszottam vele Románia vitalapján, (érdemes lenne elolvasnod) amikor egy másik felhasználóval egyszerűen kitörölt jó pár angol forrással megjelölt részt, és semmi esetre se akarta felfogni a lényeget (wiki szab.: POV, OR, RS, PRIMARY). Az adminok + leszarják az egészet (én is írtam nekik).--B@xter910:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw Your contribution on Stibor of Stiboricz and was wondering if You have time to help me in this subject. Im writing the article about tthe Clan of Ostoja where Stibor of Stiboricz and his family is granted quite a lot of space. I also have some more information about Stibor and Im interested to find out what is in slovakian and hungarian sources. Polish sources, except Sroka are quite poor and I cant read slovakian or hungarian. You might be able to check some info in the books?
Also, I would like to improve the article on Stibor of Stiboricz and I wonder if we could do that together! Because You started the article, I find myself obligated to tell You about my intensions but I also would be really happy to work with You in this! :) I think that we could improve this great article to be really outstanding one!
I saw that the picture in the article was gone because of copyright problems, I add one of Beckov in teh article. Hope You dont mind!
I look forward to receive You answer on this matter!
Taking into consideration your very good knowledge of Romanian-Hungarian relations during the Middle Ages, I would ask you to express your opinion regarding Janos Hunyadi's ethnic origin and about the way the problem is presented in the wikipedia article. Thanks in advance (79.117.193.149 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC))
Thanks a lot for your edits at John Hunyadi, I want to ask you only one thing: what do you think about the following paragraph:
"The Hunyadi family are a Hungarian[4] noble family — according to most sources — of Romanian[5][6][7] origin. There are also alternative researches suggesting Cuman[8] or Slavic[9][10][11] descendance. According to H. Munro Chadwick John Hunyadi was presumably ethnic Hungarian,[12] Lonnie Johnson thinks he was a member of the lesser Hungarian nobility of Transylvania.[13] Other researchers affirm that the overwhelming evidence supports the view that he indeed was not Magyar.[14] According to Hugh Seton-Watson "the ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians."[15]
Others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins.[16][17]"
I appreciate your work at John Hunyadi article and I want to consult you about the reliability of the book The growth of literature, Volume 2 By H. Munro Chadwick, Nora Kershaw Chadwick (a book about literature, not about history), where it is stated that Hunyadi "was presumably a Magyar". (79.117.154.94 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC))
Another remark: In the article it is affirmed: Vojk was described as being of Vlach descent by medieval chroniclers[18] and the majority of modern historians[19][20][21][22][23] although there are others[who?] who think he was of ethnic Hungarian origin[12]
I think this text is not correct: The sentence is about Vojk, which is referred in medieval documents as John's father, while source 12 (Chadwick, H. Munro) tells that Hunyadi himself (and not Vojk) was "presumably a Magyar". So it is a mistake here, because we don't even know if Chadwick supposes that Janos's father is Vojk or somebody else (e.g King Sigismund ,according to the legend)(79.117.195.226 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC))
Pierre Lascalopier
Hello...I don't understand very clear what is wrong with the quote from Pierre Lascalopier. It is referred for example in The making of the Romanian unitary national state 1918, Ştefan Pascu, 1988, which is a secondary source
And what is the additional interpretation = OR? Are you talking about the equalization between "romanechte" and româneşte(Romanian)? The connection seems obvious for me...(79.117.138.55 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC))
Hi. Hát egy kis (rövid!) eredeti idézet itt-ott nem érdekes? És még épp az angolnyelvű wikiben, amelyik a leg jobb. Ráadásul, az első forrás még sem a... másodlagos forrás (tehát Makkai, Kristó, Gyóni stb.) hanem a Schwandtner, Endlicher (stb.) könyvek, tehát a forrásgyűjtések és az oklevéltárkiadások, sőt az eredeti krónika ill. oklevél, ha már ezekből szedünk idézeteket. Nem csak szerintem épp így lenne helyes, és mét ott ahol oly sok vita létezik. (Ezzen kivül: van jó fordítás, van gyenge fordítás is. Pld. Rubruck. A Nibelung-ének angol fordításából nem látható, hogy németül azok versek, hősi eposz. Stb. Felraktam volna egy idézetet a Stájerországi Ottokár rímes krónikájából, viz. "a Kroissenbrunn csata" és IV. Béla. Jó, hogy abba hagytam, mi?). Üdv. - Ralsog Iref (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
for peer reviews it is simple: add at the beginning of the talk page the text {{subst:PR}}, then select the topic (probably history), then leave a text for the reviewers, and then wait for a week or more. check wp:PR for full details.
for good article nominations it is slightly more tricky: add {{subst:GAN}}, then add the name of the article in the appropriate section at wp:GAN. Then wait (sometimes for over a month) for a reviewer.
eventually, when the articles become very well polished and "among wikipedia's best", you may even aim for a featured article status. This one though is a loooot more stringent. The upside though is that at that point is eligible to appear on the main page for a day.
Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Talk:Great Moravia. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Talk:Great Moravia. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Reference query in History of Slovakia
Hi. It's a bit of a blast from the past, sorry, but I've raised a small query here: Talk:History_of_Slovakia#Hidden_folksong_text about an edit which was originally yours. If you had time to pop along and take a quick look I'd be most grateful ... but if not, please don't worry as it is not exactly a major issue! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please use the talk page on Origin of the Romanians. Sorry, it was not Nicholaus Oláh but Anton Verancsics who wrote after 1549 that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations - Szeklers, Hungarians and Saxons. I should add the Romanians too, who, even though they easily equal the others in number, have no liberties..." Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (2005); History of Romania: Compendium; Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). ISBN978-973-7784-12-4. pages 303-304 Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We can not decide whether Greek-Orthodox church was a significant or marginal element in Transylvania (and Southern Hungary, Pannonia) at the time of the East-West Schism. We know the presence of the Orthodox church. It is fact. If it was significant i would correct the map.(blue-orange stripes in Southern Hungary and Transylvania). However Kingdom of Hungary was a 'western' Christian state. I have a similar problem with Raguza. I think it was under Croatian control at 1054, I would like to repair its the borders as well. You are expert and have a lot of knowledges about Transylvania, Romania in connection with middle ages. Neutrality is really important in this case. What do you think about it?Fakirbakir (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Here is a good summary about churches of St Stephen's Hungary.[2] I tried to find source about Tihany what I mentioned on the debate page. Now I have some doubts in reference to religions in Pannonia in the 11th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am just wondering, according to this source Andrew I was Eastern Orthodox. Is it true? His name was Andrew the Catholic. I am really confused.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I need to reassess my point of view. That dissertation seems well established and contains good sources. Where can we presume Orthodox presence and population in Kingdom of Hungary in the middle of the 11th century?Fakirbakir (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest:
WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
