Talk:Ajtony

The website

It will be fine with me to insert another website next to Samuil of Bulgaria#Other theories as long as it is not a news/portal site of a city. Please get a website from the Serbian academy of sciences or something of that sort. Mr. Neutron 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hunagrian POV vs Romanian POV - Please try to read the referred sources even if you are tired

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtum&action=historysubmit&diff=326546416&oldid=326486271

Borsoka, it is a matter of putting words into one's mouth. And I'm afraid it is not the first time you are doing this. Hungarian sources could say anything outrageous about the Romanian POV. It doesn't mean that the Romanian POV claims that, it only means that the Hungarian POV thinks that is what Romanian POV claims. And similarly in the opposite sense. Hungarian sources must be used to explain the Hungarian POV and Romanian sources to explain the Romanian POV. It is elementary common sense. Otherwise, NOPV is prejudiced from the start. I would appreciate if you could revisit also other articles where you have might done this. Dc76\^talk 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Dc76, please read the referred source which is Transylvania around A.D. 1000 written by Florin Curta (in: Urbańczyk, Przemysław (Editor): Europe around the year 1000; Wydawn. DiG, 2001; ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18). On page 144 he writes that "Romanian scholars see Ahtum as the last member of a native dynasty established in the early 900s by Glad, who is mentioned in the 13th century Gesta Hungarorum as opposing the invading Hungarians." Therefore, the sentence is based on the work of a Romanian scholar (i.e., Florin Curta); therefore, I do not understand your above remark. Similarly, could you please list your examples when Romanian authors' views are cited based on Hungarian sources in any of the edits I have made? Borsoka (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire of Samuil

Pakko, please stop with this nationalistic POV pushing. The older version of the map is more NPOV and present both wiews about character of empire of Samuil while your map present only one-sided Bulgarian view completelly ignoring valid views of Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian historians. Here is list of sources that show that usage of word "Macedonian" for empire of Samuil is valid and videly accepted:

• http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/samuil.htm
• http://www.makedonija.info/samuil.html
• http://www.mysticalmacedonia.com/default.aspx?mode=1&id=471&lang=1
• http://www.macedonia.co.uk/client/index1.aspx?page=25
• http://www.soros.org.mk/konkurs/068/Sredvek.htm
• http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/hid/hid4.htm

Also, this article is mainly related to the history of Vojvodina and Banat and this is not a place where question whether empire of Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian should be resolved. It is better that this article have NPOV map in which both views are presented, not just one-sided nationalistic Bulgarian view. I hope that everybody can agree about that. 212.69.12.165 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Panonian, you quote only sources from former Tito's Yugoslavia... They are not relevant. So read more about Samuil's Bulgaria on en.wiki... Best regards my friend! --Пакко (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I quote sources and it is not up to you to judge are they relevant or not. However, I propose compromise that both maps are used in the article with proper description on which sources are they based. Also, you cannot point to Wikipedia article as a source since we very well know that people can add just anything to Wikipedia articles. Certainly, the sole reason why aricle about empire of Samuil looks the way it looks is because Bulgarian and Greek editors in Wikipedia are more numerous than Macedonian ones so Macedonians cannot contest anti-Macedonian POV in proper way. 212.69.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

I moved the page because use of "Ajtony" is clearly in majority. It has 6300 hits[1]as opposed to "Ahtum"(871 hits)[2] and "Achtum" (1530 hits)[3]. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm, looking at the "Ajtony" hits it rather looks like a substantial part of them are actually about other people. And "Ohtum" seems to deliver 2,230 hits. You could have discussed the move prior to actually carrying it out. It does not look justified to me. --Laveol ^T 12:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ajtony's 6300 hits are mainly about the historical person Ajtony. Do you suggest that we should use a less prevalent name? But you are right I should have discussed it before moving. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ajtony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written as always. Only a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Background

• When you begin the article, I think it would be a good start to say "AD" though it is evident.
• I think it is helpful to add something like "churchman" before Regino of Prüm, some readers may not wish to chase links to know who he was.
• is the subject of scholarly debate I think it should be "a" and not "the"

In primary sources

• "Florin Curta", "county" and "Gerard" are duplinks

In modern historiography

• Who are László Makkai and Alexandru Madgearu?
• Makkai is mentioned a second time but with his full name, only the last name will do. Likewise for Ioan Aurel Pop and Florin Curta.

Sainsf, thank you for your comprehensive review. Sorry for waiting so long, but I am quite busy in real life now. I made all the changes you suggested above, but I think "county" could remain a duplink (it is a quite special category in the context, and it is linked in the lead for the first time). I must be grateful to Miniapolis for the style of the article, because his/her copyedit highly improved its quality. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Indeed, I must thank the copyeditor for giving me such a beautiful article to read! I am happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

undue

"....Ajtony's former duchy was not fully incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary until the 13th century because frequent internal conflicts had enabled the Romanians to preserve their idea of a "Romanian country".... Is this for real? What does it mean "idea of a Romanian country"? We are talking about the 11th-12th centuries..... Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a quite strange theory, because a Romanian country without Romanians/Vlachs could hardly exist in Banat. However, the theory is proposed by one of the leading Romanian historians. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)