User talk:Borsoka/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Miklós Zrínyi

Hi Borsoka!

I would like to ask you to help us. We have an old problem , duplicated pages about Miklós Zrínyi. Could you please participate in this? If you have time. :-) Talk:Miklós ZrínyiFakirbakir (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Full citations

Can you provide full citations where needed in that article about the origin of Romanians? Thanks. Daizus (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any proper text to the sentences. You are probably well aware that WP is a community experience. Cheers! Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but some claims in the article seem dubious to me and in opposition to what I want to add. Example:

"all settlements ceased to exist due to violent destruction" with ref. to C. H. Opreanu, The North Danube Regions

while Oltean suggests only hill forts and in general settlements in the central area of the Dacian kingdom (Orăştie Mountains) were destroyed.

Thus I would like to see exactly what Opreanu has to say, to see where is the point of disagreement, if any. Daizus (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• "All settlements, fortified or not, including the Dacian fortresses, ceased to exist due to violent destruction."History of Romania: compendium/2006Fakirbakir (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Then how to make NPOV? I have an archaeologist saying the habitation continued. And a general compendium saying it didn't (with no footnotes or further explanations). I'll try also to find some site reports about "non-Roman" (in terms of material culture) settlements in Roman Dacia. Daizus (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a full citation from Oltean. There are also figures (maps) and details in previous chapters about those settlements, also arguments why Dacian occupation is assumed and when. Daizus (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I second Daizus here. But I recommend that we move the conversation to the article talk page so people can pitch in. Best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oltean on continuous occupation

pp 212-213:

But continuity of population is manifested by continuity of occupation in a number of settlements throughout the study area and by survivals from the pre-Roman period in both the typology and architecture of sites. Very few settlements in Dacia have been proved to be continuously occupied from the pre- to the post-conquest period (Figure 6.2). Within the study area, the most famous examples are the settlements at Cetea and Cicau (see Chapter 5). As is clear from the case of Cetea, the Romans did not move all the Dacian settlements into the lowlands by force. Sometimes, however, settlement movement towards lower altitudes involved only short distances, which may reflect no more than minor adjustments in response to different economic and social circumstances. At Varmaga, for example, Dacian occupation was identified on the top of the hill to the north of the modern village, while occupation of Roman-date was discovered a little distance further down the hill, closer to the modern village. Some 46 sites throughout the area have been documented on the same location in both the La Tene and Roman periods (see Figure 6.2), and future research could prove their continuous occupation more explicitly. One such example is at Hunedoara, where traces of both Dacian and Roman occupation have been identified on the Sampetru Hill near the medieval castle. This was documented largely by pottery, until limited rescue excavations identified traces of ’romanised’ buildings there (in the area of the modern cemetery). In this context, one might have assumed that the Dacian pottery found there might have been of Roman date too, but recent excavations nearby revealed the presence of a Dacian cemetery of infants. This was dated to immediately before the Roman conquest (see Chapter 4) and was perhaps still in use immediately thereafter – as one coin of Trajan associated with one of the burials seems to indicate. In this context, continuity of occupation on the site from the late Dacian to the Roman period becomes evident.

As you can see, she clearly states that for "very few settlements in Dacia have been proved to be continuously occupied" and she brings one example at Hunedoara where she could "prove the continuous occupation more explicitly". So it's entirely unfair to suggest there are no proofs. If you want to put that in the text, then you have to add also that some for some very few sites this was proven. Daizus (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman Dacia

This user helped promote Roman Dacia to good article status.

Well done. It would be worth the time and effort to put in the page numbers on the cites - but that's not really a GA issue, so that doesn't hold up the pass. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Báthory

I did read this "But the sultan appointed Stephen Báthory, a Catholic politician, voivode." in the Romania in the middle ages article. When he became prince of Transylvania he made a secret oath to Habsburg Maximilian II. However, the Ottomans and Maximiliam II both wrote 'athnames'for him. According to the oath, Bathory's prinipality was a Habsburg tributary in his early reign. Later, when he became King of Poland (and he had to compete for this title with Maximilliam II) this vassal status ceased (in my opinion).

• Could you please clarify me, which was the real 'overlord' for Báthory's principality in his early reign?
• Can we state Transylvania was an independent state under his latter reign?

Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some misunderstanding in the above summary. (1) Stephen Báthory began his rule as voivode/vajda of Transylvania, and he adopted the title prince only after he had been elected king of Poland and named his brother to rule in Transylvania in his name (2) Formally, Báthory was elected voivode by the Transylvanian Diet, but in fact the Diet had no choice, because the sultan' deed of confirmation was addresed to him (3) Báthory did not formally deny the special title of the kings of Hungary (that is the title of the Habsburgs) to rule over Transylvania, but in fact the Habsburgs were not in the position to practise their theoretical suzerainty in Transylvania and in the "parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" (4) The Báthory princes had to pay tribute to the Ottomans, with the exception of some years under Sigismund Báthory. Therefore, I think the status of the "principality" of Transylvania was an autonomous state under Ottoman suzerainty. For further details, see [1] and the following chapters. Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the "Habsburg" connection was only formality. Now I can see the process more clearly. Thank you for your help! (and the link)Fakirbakir (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. I see you have a lot of knowledge about the history of Romania in the early Middle Ages and I'd like to invite you to express your opinion in this discussion: [2] (Iaaasi (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Foundation of Moldavia GAR

Hello. Foundation of Moldavia has received a Good Article Review. It is proposed the article be failed due to the poor readability of its prose throughout the article. It also has significant (fixable) problems with the copyright status of its images. Please visit the review page to join the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

- Thank you for your email. If you address the concerns in the (now-failed) GAR and re-nominate, I would be prepared to fast-track your second review so you don't have to wait in the queue again. Let me know on my talk page if you re-nominate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

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

NItrava

Since Nitrava has been identified, although not unanimously, with modern Nitra in Slovakia

HA Ha ha Who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job! I highly appreciate your work to create the page of History of Christianity in Hungary! Fakirbakir (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

Dear Borsoka, as I see you possess much more knowledge about this theme than me. I have read that page and there were three interesting statements:

• "independent state" Was it an independent state? I think it was a vassal state for the Franks.
• " diestablished in the 12th century". Was it lasted till 12th century? I have reverted this. After that, I changed to 902. But I am not sure, because the editors of the page mix 'Tercia Pars regni' and the 'principality'.
• 'Slovak principality' -- Can we use this appellation for the state? I think it is anachronism.

I think we need to deal with this because of the historical accuracy. Moreover, if the editors can question the name of Principality of Hungary I think we should question those statements as well. Sorry if I bore you with this. Thank you for your answer in advance.

• About Principality of Hungary. What do you think it is the proper appellation for that state? The editors questioned its name and they doubted the useage of the 'state' form.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

The Grand Princes were called Megas archon or Magnus princeps, Taksony was called Taxis-dux or dux Tocsun in primary sources. What would be the appropriate name of the page? Fakirbakir (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• [3] !English! source about Duchy of Hungary (1764)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• I know I can not use it as reliable source, I just wanted to demonstrate the English usage of the "Duchy" form. Hungarian historiography uses the 'Magyar Nagyfejedelemség' form for this period. Etelköz was also a 'principality'.(See Paul Lendvai's book)
• According to Byzantine primary sources, the territory of the Hungarians was "Western Tourkia", however they meant it to the early 10th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think 'Western Tourkia' would be perfect name of the page. What do you think it could cover the full period of the 10th century?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

About Bendefi's work, about Julianus

A good critic, perhaps you are interested in it:[4], [5], [6]Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary_13th_cent.png

The original source is [7], but it is not perfectly reproduced:

• According to the original map, there were no Wallachian local autonomies in Hungary.
• In Partium we have "románok", not Wallachians.
• The Banat of Severin and the Carpathian strip is not depicted as a Hungarian territory.
• The Wallachian bubbles form the Banat of Severin are not drawn like that in the map.
• I don't understand is the hole from the middle of Szekelyfold (SamiraJ (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I have fixed it up mostly. The Banat of Severin was annexed by the kingdom (see the colours on the original map) as a vassal state or something similar. 'Moldavia' is the same. However I corrected the main borders to prevent any argument.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Borsoka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Daizus (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP

Hi, Borsoka! Please help, There are serious problems with the "Michael The Brave" page. You can read about it the Discussion, Treatment & November 2011 sections. There I have pinpointed the problem. Now the page is protected, and hoax are advertized in the article...as I can see, you are a trustable, good person, I've met with your comments, contributions many time, that's why I decided to ask your help! It is quite sure you know the current wikipedia policies much more better than me...I hope you can help to make order....Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Talk:Roman Dacia.
Message added 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I think you have been involved a lot with the GA of Roman Dacia. We need help to salvage the article. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)