Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Clearly the title is a problem, hopefully the content isn't. As you are probably aware, I was under considerable pressure to cut the size of the "Later historians..." article, to the point where some were just splitting pieces off without coordination. So the article in question was spun off last week and, still need to cut more, the section on Travelers was moved there a couple of days ago.

I'm not 100% sure of what you are questioning, but it think it is why are they called historians. That's probably a bad word, as most aren't, and maybe sources is a better word. I can point you to a number of Crusades compilations that identify that pilgrimages, archaeology, geography, etc., are sources for Crusader histories. The first places that triggered my interest in them were the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Crusades (Bibliography and Sources), the bibliography in Setton's six-volume set and the Routledge Companion to the Crusades. This article hasn't gelled yet as the major pieces were just put together.

As to your specific questions on Michaël Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Ahmad ibn Rustah, here's what I have: Eytzinger, referenced by Titus Tobler; Origen, in Chapter II of Volume I of Setton, Eusebius in PPTS, ibn Rustah in Ency Iranica by C. E. Bosworth.

I think the title is wrong, but I'm not sure how to right it. They are all part of the auxiliary sciences of history, but that doesn't make a very good title. I open to suggestions for titles, structure and content. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Yes the title is misleading. My concern is that I do not see any references to the crusades in the sources cited in the article to verify Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius, Ibn Rusta, etc. in a list about the sources of the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka. I was reading about John Hunyadi in Wikipedia and I found some doubts. What the Long Campaign is? When I try to read about it, it redirects to Crusade of Varna. According to the article of John Hunyadi, the Long Campaign was military campaign against the Ottomans organized by the Kingdom of Hungary and Poland and it was launched on April 1443. On the other hand, in the Crusade of Varna, which took place on October 1443, participated not only the Kingdom of Hungary, but also participated other Christian countries. So, why the Long Campaign is merged into the Crusade of Varna if they are different campaigns? Furthermore, it is said that the Long Campaign was successful and the Crusade of Varna was unsuccessful. Could you solve that doubt? Greetings Kardam (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they are two separate campaigns. The success of the Long Campaign made the Crusade of Varna possible. Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New York City Police Department on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search for books on this site.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Yes, it looks helpful. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Reformation in the Kingdom of Hungary, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive sentiment on the talk page of the damned earlier. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aimery of Cyprus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for fixing Alice of Champagne. I was 90% sure that it was Lebanon but I don't know the topic and couldn't find any evidence. I've fixed most of the cases myself but had to tag several more. If you can help with any then that would be appreciated: Abaqa Khan, Antisemitism in Turkey, Ayyubid dynasty, Balian of Arsuf, Battle of al-Sannabra, Dr. Dahesh, Freemasonry in Ghana, George Azar, Great Plague of Marseille, Helvis of Ibelin, History of Jerusalem, House of Lusignan, Mongol Empire, Pisa. Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all but two. In two or three cases, the word referred to the County of Tripoli. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose the idea of Szekely language? Why? It has its own script and it's a language. Magysze (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read and apply WP:NOR and refer to reliable source when stating anything in WP. Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources there are plenty.

It does have a writing yes? Magysze (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should only refer to some reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources speak about Szekely people, you don't recognize Szekely people? Magysze (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article's talk page and refer to reliable sources mentioning the term "Szekely language". Sorry, I will ignore your remarks here. Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said "And most modern Hungarians descended from Slavic and Germanic ancestors." Really? Do you have any source for that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any if you didn't ever heard about Szekely language is because you don't speak it.

Do you recognize Szekely identity as different from Hungarian or not? This is the question. It shows what kind of Hungarian you are. Magysze (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, pls be respectful to Szekely people. It was enough you tried to push your language. Now, Szekely identity apart of Hungarian have to be restored. Magysze (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admit you have some Anti-Szekely sentiment, admit it. I see your edits, you can't support me because I said I am proud Szekely. Magysze (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ethnicity shouldn't be of concern for you. Are you a harasser? Or do you have some problems with Szekely people ethnicity? Magysze (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's ethnicity is a concern for me. It was you who have changed your ethnicity several times. Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are 2.165 in the census in 1992 why appears 40,000 now? Is it like the same lie that Hungary has more than 10 million people, when actually has less? But you love to lie? You do like to inflate the numbers right? Have no sense of reality. Magysze (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the scholars, travelers, leaders who crossed the Romanian space found the uniqueness of the Szeklers, as well as the Saxons (another element of colonization), Catholic implants in the Romanian environment.

Catholicized by the Hungarians, accepted as allies, as a medieval "nation", the descendants of the Avars continued to be, ethnically, something else. Because, apart from the runes (which the Romans, their teachers, had given up at the time of the adoption of Slavonic, as the liturgical language and the Cyrillic alphabet), the Szeklers continued to have their own language, dress and customs, still visible in the twentieth century. XVI, on the verge of extinction in the XVII-XIX centuries and which only some elders still remember today, in the Ciuc area, so effective was the Hungarianization process, supported primarily by the church, both Catholic and , later, the reformed one. The fact that they still call themselves Szeklers today, however, attests to the persistence of the consciousness of a fundamental difference from the Hungarian population, of a distinct original ethnicity.

In the 16th century, although at first sight "language, like all customs" brought them closer to the Hungarians (Georg Reicherstorffer), the well-known Paduan physician Francesco della Valle (? -1545) could not help but notice that "I am still a barbarian nation. "other" than the Hungarians. A deep connoisseur of Transylvanian realities, the great humanist scholar Antonius Verantius (Anton Verancsics) (1504-1578) concluded, following an objective analysis, that the Szeklers "differ from the Hungarians in almost all their customs, laws and way of life; religion, and it does not resemble in any way, even as a language, when they speak in the image of their ancestors.

Along the same lines, Nicolae Romanul (Nicolaus Olahus) (1493-1568), his contemporary, noticed in the Szeklers subject to the Hungarian offensive that they still had "some words of their own." Humanist scholars unanimously defined them as men made for war, a "nation of cruel men" (P. Ranzanus), "harsh and fierce, as if born for battle" (Georg Reichertorffer), with "hardened and warrior people" (Stefan Brodarics), which motivated the long-standing resistance to Hungarianization and the preservation of the privileges that the Hungarian royalty and great nobility were forced to permanently recognize.

Practically, until late in the modern era, intertwining their history with that of the native and majority Romanians in Transylvania, opposing the offensive of the royalty of the Hungarian magnates and the Saxon patricians, the Szeklers enjoyed "laws and customs quite different from others. ", dividing among themselves" their inheritances and services on tribes and tribes "(A. Possevino). Used exclusively in military service, they retained their status as free men, still living "according to their laws and morals" (Georg Reichertorffer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can help this article to develop it. Magysze (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you did edit war before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borsoka&diff=208472043&oldid=208456006 Magysze (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aimery of Cyprus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aimery of Cyprus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_the_Brave&diff=next&oldid=1006753205 stop deleting my edits. Magysze (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are not defended by WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do ask to be checked. So, live with it. Magysze (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]