Talk:Hungarian nobility/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

slovak nobility is a part of nobility in the kingdom of hungary. it is no reason for censorship of this article and threats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.37.195 (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude try to take a look at Slovakian noble families and tell me how many you can count:D When you have finished with counting the ridiculously few families, please correct "great mayority" to small amount:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.161.34 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone is trying to delete any information about Slovak origin of some Hungarian nobility, with "argument", that article is not "nationality based". But, why are in article informations about Magyar, German, French and Romanian origins of other families. This looks like a anti-Slovak attempt. We can discuss about how many families were of Slovak origin, but this edit war is simply against rules.--Yopie (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but You sould have used the appropriate paragraph what I opened before you wrote that contributions (bottom of the page). Please use the adequate section in the future.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not deny the fact that the vernacular spoken by many noblemen in the northern territories of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was Slovakian or (maybe properly speaking) one of the local Slavic dialects based on which the Slovakian would develop. Neither do I deny the fact that, probably only from the 19th century, many of them were aware of their Slovak origin. And I think this information could be added to the relevant parts of the article, but only based on reliable and relevant sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NOBILITY NOT ETHNICITY

http://www.snk.sk/swift_data/source/NBU/Zborniky/Zemianstvo_2/206.pdf It is not an ethnic based topic, Hobartimus' editing was the last appropriate page. I disagree with Waldthelmat and Yopie, because they have malicious activity. This page does not need to emphasize the etchnicity of the people, they can use the proper pages (Slovaks)to release those things. Moreover, That 'source' what they use is unreliable maybe 'false'.The other part of the historians have other opinions. If they wanted to use these sources They would have to seek other sources to justify the different opinions. We need to show the clashing options, because we should have to reach neutrality.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, study something about wiki rules and history. --Yopie (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I am new that does not mean I am stupid. Thank you for your help. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the historians say 'after the Hungarian conquest, Great Moravia disappeared without gradation. The nobility of Great Moravia vanished (in Hungary)'. The opinion of the others 'After the Hungarian conquest the nobility of Great Moravia was elemental part of the Hungarian (Hungarus) Nobility'. Clashing options, If we want to demonstrate the process we needs to know those things, Not just one of them. Moreover, page of [Slovaks] negotiates that. Yopie announces the 'Slovakian or Bohemian point of viewFakirbakir (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the bias I admit maybe Yopies's source is reliable I can accept that, however, I would like to see other point of views (If those sentences have to be here). Until It does not happen, please delete it.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You!!!! Yes You, 'historians' who teach in the schools, universities. You are foolish, You are not capable to solve problems. Wikipedia is for the layman (for everybody, not just your country). You do not want solutions. You want nothing. I am not able to know what was the true history because of your behaviors (I am not interested in just one historical possibility). I started to hate this system! Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you know names and books of "other historians", add them with references. --Yopie (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I added source from an academic.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, I beg your pardon for deleting the sentence you added. I do not deny its credibility, but I think the sentence debated by both of us should be deleted, because the latter contains weasel words ('a great majority', 'other languages spoken'), self-contradictory statements ('noblemen of Slavic origin, who are aware of their Slovak origin') and anachronistic terminology ('gentry'). Moreover, it uses highly dubious and not defined expressions, like 'Slovak ethnic territory' for a not defined geographical region (presumably for modern Slovakia) whose inhabitants, at that time, were of Slavic ('proto-Slovak'), Czech, Polish, East-Slavic ('Russian', 'Ukrainian'), Hungarian, German, Kabar, Italian, Walloon, Khwarezmian, ... origin. Borsoka (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The dubious sentence should be deleted.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.sk/books?id=lVBB1a0rC70C&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=slovak+nobility+in+hungary&source=bl&ots=EEc62CKRPa&sig=13GQRJ79ahdjFsYQZGcj-ANTYkc&hl=sk&ei=6sStTKPMH4iVswbT__C2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=slovak%20nobility%20in%20hungary&f=false lot of slovaks were in lesser nobility. ethnic teritory is not historical term, but its territory where is the domination of one ethnicity. (http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1354/Slovakia-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html) Slovak land was normal name according to heltai. (http://www.mult-kor.hu/20090909_szlovakok_totok_tirpakok) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.37.195 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But we do not have to emphasize those facts here. Moreover, I just cite Borsoka: "the latter contains weasel words ('a great majority', 'other languages spoken'), self-contradictory statements ('noblemen of Slavic origin, who are aware of their Slovak origin') and anachronistic terminology ('gentry'). Moreover, it uses highly dubious and not defined expressions, like 'Slovak ethnic territory' for a not defined geographical region (presumably for modern Slovakia) whose inhabitants, at that time, were of Slavic ('proto-Slovak'), Czech, Polish, East-Slavic ('Russian', 'Ukrainian'), Hungarian, German, Kabar, Italian, Walloon, Khwarezmian, ... origin. " I concur with this. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, a few leaders of "found" population of the Carpathian Basin were merged among the leaders of the Hungarians (mainly Avars and Slavs), however it is unscholarly and beased to speak about 'Slovaks'. If we spoke about this we had to speak about a lot of people (Avars, Kabars, Kumans, Pechenges etc.)Fakirbakir (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

However, If I am thinking about (for example) Britain, The Norman conquerors did not give 'immediately' 'privilege of nobles' to the subjugated Anglo-Saxons. Likely, The 'Slovak' nobles emerged centuries later.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Its about ethnicity. Look how many times the Magyar editors used word "Magyar". Its clear ethnical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.37.195 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 1907 it was 230 Slovak lower noble houses in Turoc (Ivanka, 1907). In 1907 we can speak about Slovaks and not Slavs.--84.16.37.195 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians means Magyar In Hungarian. English language prefers to use Hungarian instead of Magyar, because English language does not know "Magyar". But it is another theme. Could you explain me what it means "Slovak ethnic territory"? Where were the borders? FROM TO? We are speaking about middle-ages. What sort of people did live in the "Slovak ethnic territory"? I think this area was a mixed 'Slavic' (Poles, Moravians, Czechs, 'proto-slovaks',Hungarians, Rusins, Ukrainian, Avars, Germans, later - Pechenges, Romanians, etc.) population in Upper Hungary. Why should we use Slovak ethnic territory in the middle ages? These sentences are wrong and unscientific. Moreover This sentence is biased "aware of their Slovak". There was Nobility, nothing else. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We can speak about Slovak nobles "noblemen of Slavic origin who aware of their Slovak..." from the age of Enlightenment.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobles of Slovak origin might get place in the appropriate part of the article (from 18-19 century),like Borsoka suggested before, but in the middle ages that would be more than obscure. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree: http://books.google.com/books?id=80tDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=heltai+g%C3%A1sp%C3%A1r+sklov%C3%A1k&source=bl&ots=MkMu7RdXHr&sig=WIumPZ46alWQVxzNb5MktcdHaag&hl=sk&ei=PsG6TMvRKISSswb4i6HBDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false --85.216.253.245 (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It proves nothing. Could you describe what it means "Sklovák orfzág"? Where was that settled? It is doubtful, obscure. The 'Slovak' word like name of Slovak people did spread after the First World War. Moreover Heltai wrote that book in 1575. It belongs to the Modern era (not source of Middle-ages). Moreover, what is the connection between 'Slovak nobility' in the Middle ages and 'Sklovák Orfzág'? Heltai was a literature writer. Additionally, I cite Borsoka "the latter contains weasel words ('a great majority', 'other languages spoken'), self-contradictory statements ('noblemen of Slavic origin, who are aware of their Slovak origin') and anachronistic terminology ('gentry'). Moreover, it uses highly dubious and not defined expressions, like 'Slovak ethnic territory' for a not defined geographical region (presumably for modern Slovakia) whose inhabitants, at that time, were of Slavic ('proto-Slovak'), Czech, Polish, East-Slavic ('Russian', 'Ukrainian'), Hungarian, German, Kabar, Italian, Walloon, Khwarezmian, ... origin. ". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sklovák orfzág" in the context clearly refers to Slavonia, the territory between the Drava and Sava rivers, which was a separate province with its own common law within the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Therefore it does not refer to modern Slovakia, but to parts of modern Croatia which used to be mentined also as "Tótország", because "tót" was the ancient Hungarian world for all the Slavs living within the Carpathian Basin (for example in modern Slovakia, Slavonia, Transylvania). Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We could use that source for the Croats (in this case). Everybody forgets that fact, Hungarian (ethnic Hungarian) population of Kingdom of Hungary (without Croatia) was approximately 80% in the middle ages, if I want to be more accurate to the Turkish wars. Additionally, the population of non-Hungarian ethnic origin usually lived under ethnic Hungarian Nobles in the manors of nobles(in the middle ages).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me english source where its written that "Sklovák orfzág" refers to "Slavonia". Thx--85.216.253.245 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto's_encyclopedia) its written that Csak family was of local Slovak/Slavic origin and the members of Csak family were magnates in Croatia and Slovakia coz they were slavic speaking. Of cours they were proud "Hungarians" but in sence of "natio Hungarica". Its neutral Czech source. Add neutral source (English, German, Spanish, Japan...) about 80% of Hungarians.--85.216.253.245 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Csák was a Hungarian noble family and was an ethnic Hungarian GENUS!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csák_(family)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? 'neutral Czech source'Fakirbakir (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? 'Czech source is not neutral and Hungarian yes?'--85.216.253.245 (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kristó was an academic (Csák family page). You can use academic source, because it is reliable. But If Otto's encyclopedia contained important informations about Csák family you could use that source on the page of Csák family like another point of view. You can insert more contribution there. But here it proves nothing. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) Czech chronicle recorded that Máté Csák spoke to his troops in Hungarian language (for the sources I refer to the proper article), therefore it can be assumed that an aristocrat of Hungarian origin who spoke Hungarian was proud of his Slovak ethnicity, but this claim should be substantiated. (2) I would like to repeat that it is a fact that there were many noble families in the territory of modern Slovakia who were of Slavic (local Slavic, Czech, Polish,..) origin, and their members spoke a Slavic dialect. However, before the 18th-19th centuries speaking of noble families with Slovak ethnic consciousness is anachronistic. Please remember that until the 19th century, it has not even been decided whether the Czech language or some local dialect spoken within the Kingdom of Hungary became the basis of the common language of the Slavs living in the territory. (3) For "Sklovák orfzág" please read the context, which list this country after Croatia and Bosnia. The kings of Hungary were styled as kings of Croatia, Slavonia, Rama (Bosnia), ..... (4) I think that the idea that 80% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary was ethnic Hungarian is only an assumption which cannot be proven. For example, in the course of the 11th-15th centuries there was a permanent process of colonization, and therefore many people of Slavic, German, French, Romanian, Italian, Cuman, Iazyg ... etc origin migrated to the kingdom. It is hard to assume that the Cumans, the Germans and the Romanians who settled in well defined territories spoke the Hungarian language as their vernacular. In most of the territory of modern Slovakia the vernacular was probably one or more Slavic dialects. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This chronicle (Ottuv slovnik naucny) says in the page 457: "...Matus Csak took power in Slovakia, regent of Trencin and Nitra districts. He was from autochthonous local nobility..." Its opinion. Hungarian author from Wikipedia´s article about Csak family used primary source the Gesta Hungarorum and Anonym Chronicle, honestly, its more fairytale than historical source of early Middle Ages. Dont you agree? I dont agree with this from article: "They descended partly from the leaders of the Magyar tribes and clans and partly from the immigrant (mainly German, Italian and French) knights who settled in the kingdom in the course of the 10-12th centuries." Its a lot of theories that a big part from the nobility was made up of indigenous Slavic persons. And a Slovak nobility existed (12500 hits in google books) and article Slovak nobility is redirected here. I agree that edit wars are not beneficial, but its a necessary to rebuild this article and write something about Slovak nobility - not only to delete the supplements about Slovaks and to promote only Hungarian POV. I believe in meaningful cooperation.--85.216.253.245 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1490 full population 4,000,000 million/Before the Ottoman conquest/ (3.2 million Hungarians, 80%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary It is an assumption of course, but everybody uses it because they could not estimate better rate about this age. I also admit that there were a lot of Slavic nobles in Upper Hungary (especially from the Modern age), but I think the nobles of Slovak or Slavic origin is very complex matter. We do not know the procession exactly. What since have they been in Hungary, Who were they, Where were they come from, the exact numbers of Slavic nobles, What can we mean about Slovak or Slavic nobles etc. It could worth another article.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix it up. It is not biased sentence what I inserted.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)