Archives

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

Dear Borsoka,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your fifteen-year participation! - Gyalu22 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 06:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Charles I of Anjou, introduced (in 2020): "This article is about a 13th-century French royal prince who established a powerful Mediterranean empire before his and his retainers abuse of power led to a popular revolt, known as the Sicilian Vespers. He is also the founder of a powerful dynasty, with members ruling southern Italy, Greece and vast lands in Central and Eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries."! - Happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I saw you have a history with Noconteos on the Cuman wiki page. Did he join community and later get banned? Is it possible to join this community? I'm relatively new to wiki editing.

~ Gibby01 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I hope you will enjoy this community experience as I do. Sorry, I do not remember Noconteos but he seems to have been a sockpuppet of a banned user with whom I had some debates on wikipages. Which community do you want to join? Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patarenes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 16:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why you do this? Do you have something with slavic language? Those words you can find in dictionary, and yet you just errase them. If slavic origin word Blato is albanian, also albanian Zjar is direct borowed from slavic žar, and yet those words can stand and other not. Also bulgarian word Bor can stand there and you cant make it right and write slavic bcz all slavs call bor same ot breza, bereza.. i give many words that south slavs use stil, and gotmany derivated words from them, and on some places they are better to describe word thst is reconstructed but yet you push Lith, Lat alb why? Do you want truth or you just doing your job that you got paid for..? Rrgnuti (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to this edit: [1]. I explained my edit in the edit summary WP:NOR. That means we are not here to share our own thoughts with the community but to present a summary of scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These arent my thoughts, all words are still used in language. Also, you or who wrote didnt give prof for example word balta in albanian, i know albanian language, rooth bal if for forehead (balli), so how is there sense to be same as mud? Balta word in albanian is loan word, and how to be objectivw and use many loan words here. Also, all words that i posted arent loan words in any south slavic languages. So, if i did wrong in summary you can ask or infor me, and not to errase all without actualy cheeking it. Also i think many words that we got can cotribute to understand better history, not to decline all that you think its personal opinion. For some words in this table i didnt find match in my language or other south slavic so this is all true without fabrications. How this page can be true when i who know s. Slavic languages can contribute and also see mistakes there, like zjar, balto, also tym (is smouke, you give fog, and fog is mjegull loan word from prob slavic), and many other mistakes, can you cheek this that i write. Also for albanian you got more mistakes like diferent words or loans, and you miss some places where albanian word is most close to word you decifer here... Rrgnuti (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Látom, sokat dolgoztál a Coloman of Galicia cikken, és megvannak a forrásaid is. Nekem nincsenek. Volna kedved a magyar cikkbe is átvinni ezt az információt a forrásokkal? hu:Kálmán herceg. Nekem nagy kedvencem, de nincsenek ilyen könyveim. Bináris (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Nem igazán. Nem tervezem, hogy a magyar WP-n is közreműködjek. Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nem mellesleg még az angol változat is - jóindulattal - félkész állapotban van. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valóban, elég kevés benne a muhi csata. Bináris (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you introduced an sfn reference to "Bánó 2004" in this edit to Hungarian nobility. Unfortunately you did not define the reference, so nobody can look it up and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix it that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got the Charles I of Anjou article to FA status. Granted it was in 2021, but would you happen to recall any information concerning any mention of a Pierre Charlot in the capacity as chancellor for Charles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember him. I checked the indices in Dunbabin's and Runciman's works and they do not list him. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I figured it was a long shot. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the Romanians article where I'd like to add:
According to Encyclopædia Britannica from the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history.^[1]
Do you have other references that confirm this statement? Apparently there are Byzantine and Arabic sources contradicting this. RF354 (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Arab sources do not contradict this (only certain historians try to associate uncertain people living somewhere in Eastern and Southeastern Europe with Vlachs living in the lands now forming Romania). Byzantine sources indeed refer to Vlachs of the Balkans from the 10th century and Vlachs living in the lands to the north of the Danube from the late 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift response, so we may leave out Britannica's quote. RF354 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, why is the file with the link for "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271–895); The Hungarian–Slav Period (895–1172) chapter 6: "Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule" wrong? What is a good link for reading the book online if this is wrong? Why did you add back 11th century when in chapter 6: "Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule" it clearly talks about Balkan Latins/Vlachs under Bulgar Rule (that covered the territory of Romania today) in the 8th and 9th centuries. It even cites historian István Bóna that Hungarians quote so much...Also in History of Transylvania Volume 1: Introduction to the English Edition it clearly says that writing the book was politically motivated: "Official policy turned virulently nationalistic in the Ceauşescu era. The above-noted theories and biases became firmly entrenched, and political as well as administrative measures were applied to repress the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Hungary's persevered in its policy of accommodation, but hopes dimmed regarding its effectiveness. The growing stream of biased interpretations from Romanian historians impelled scholars in Hungary to emerge from their officially-sanctioned silence. In the late 1970s, the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences rose to the challenge. The result was the three-volume Erdély története (History of Transylvania), published in 1986." So it's just as biased as Romanian communist historians of that time period...But he still wrote 8th-9thth centuries instead of 11th century. Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. Bóna explicitly writes that the migration of the Romanians to Transylvania did not start before the end of the 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is he talking about Balkan Latins (Vlachs) under the Bulgar Empire (that reached Southern Transylvania in the 8th-9th centuries?) "The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs). One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups. In the case of Transylvania, the answer lies in burial rituals, for the graves contained skeletons; and there is general agreement that in Danubian Bulgaria's 'pagan' cemeteries of the 8th–9th centuries, these graves held the remains of Bulgaro-Turks. To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group. It is therefore likely that Bulgaro-Turk soldiers and their families — the ethnic group that gave the empire its name — were present in Transylvania, a militarily and economically insecure border zone." Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you said 12th century, wasn't it 11th century, now you're contradicting yourself? " Scholars who reject the Daco-Roman continuity theory say that the first Vlach groups left their Balkan homeland for the mountain pastures of the eastern and southern Carpathians in the 11th century, establishing the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube." is what you kept. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bóna does not write that the Bulgar Empire reached southern Transylvania in the 8th century. 2. Yes, Danubian Bulgaria had a mixed population, including Vlachs. 3. Bóna explicitly writes that Bulgars (not Vlachs) were settled to Transylvania in the 9th century. 4. My reference to the 12th century was a typo. Borsoka (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also he says something very interesting: "To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group."

I wonder what that local Balkanic population population in the 8th, 9th century in Southern Transylvania is?...The only other time it mentions Balkanic people in this chapter is "Balkan Latins (Vlachs)".

Hmmmm... Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the whole chapter and understand that when writing of the mixed population of the Bulgarian Empire, Bóna does not refer to Transylvania Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian Empire reached Southern Transylvania in the 8th and 9th centuries, including having control over salt mines Transylvania: "In all likelihood, the Maros valley was occupied by a detachment from Khan Omurtag's army. Perhaps it was a unit that veered away from the Tisza in the direction of Transylvania; one of its chiefs, Tarkan Onega(bon) of the Küviar clan, drowned in the Tisza. Or, perhaps, it was another detachment that came up along the Olt River. Following the conquest, which must have occurred around 830, the Bulgars established settlements along the Maros. The settlers came from the right bank of the Lower Danube, in Bulgaria. Their material legacy — jewellery, and dishes, complete with potters' marks on the bottom — is entirely the product of Danubian Bulgars. The settlers, who enjoyed military protection (grave with spurs at Tatárlaka), were charged with the task of putting back into production the salt mines at Marosújvár, Mezőakna, Sóvárad, and Torda, and to organize the transport of salt on the Maros River. Some of the shipments, towed along the Tisza to Csongrád, went to the Moravians, but most of them were directed downstream towards Belgrade. Since the bulk of the salt was probably shipped to the Bulgar khanate on the Lower Danube, the settlers had easy access to Bulgar products and luxury articles (jewellery). None of the finds indicate that they changed their way of life."

It also shows trade and movement, from Mureș/Maros, to Tisza, to Csongrád to Belgrade in the South. The Balkan Latins/Vlachs under the Bulgarian Empire in the 8th century traded and transported salt, that way they were in contact with local Balkanic people from Southern Transylvania (and also Slavic settlers). Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkan Latins/Vlachs under the Bulgarian Empire in the 8th and 9th century. Sorry. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is not based on Bóna's text. Bóna writes of the conqest of Southern Transylvania around 830 and the archeological evidence of the presence of Bulgars in southern Transylvania, without mentioning Vlachs living in Transylvania in this period. Borsoka (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he mentions graves in Southern Transylvania in the 8th and 9th century that are a local Balkanic population (along with Slavic graves) as well as Balkan Latins/Vlachs under the Bulgar Empire in the 8th and 9th century (during that time period the Bulgar Empire reached Transylvania). It also mentions that those under the Bulgar Empire (which would include Balkan Latins/Vlachs) transported and traded salt in the 9th century throughout the Bulgar Empire in the 9th century. Balkan Latins were useful for traded especially because they spoke a form of Latin, that's why he calls them Balkan Latins.

Why do you deny it? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

were useful for trade* Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stop discussing this issue in parallel on two pages (here and the article's Talk page). The Talk page is the proper page to continue the discussion. Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we will continue here and not the article's Talk page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When he says "Following the conquest, which must have occurred around 830, the Bulgars established settlements along the Maros. The settlers came from the right bank of the Lower Danube, in Bulgaria." He is very vague about who those "settlers" were, but taking into account Balkan Latins/Vlachs were already part of the Bulgar Empire, they could have easily been a part of this settler group. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninhursag3! You mentioned Hungarian historians had political motivation to write a book about the history of Transylvania which is part of the Hungarian history. The political motivation came from Romania by irredentist reason:[2]

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania: “In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

Romanian historiography with the Daco-Roman theory produced a lot of absurd fake maps to justify the territorial claims againts Hungary. Romania in the 9-13th century by Romanian historiography: fake map from 1920: Dacia!? in the 9-13th century [11] fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10] fake modern map, Romania 9-13th century: [9] If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality this "Romania country" did not exist, which occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in those maps. I think it is also strange that we have no records about that allegedly "always majority Romanians" in that huge area which presented on the fake maps in that long period between 300-1100. It was also a joke when in 1980s in the national-communist Romania, the Romanian state celebrated its 2050th anniversary... just purlery the existence of these faks maps is clearly a testimony of the quality and the political purpose of the Daco-Roman theory. Because international and Hungarian historiography does not match with these fake maps, it is not a Hungarian political motivation, but simple they have right to present their own historography which are by the way matching with the international historography and the historiography of the other surronding countries regarding Transylvania. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did acknowledge it "So it's just as biased as Romanian communist historians of that time period", so why did you even bring it up? That's not to say we now have generalize EVERY Romanian historian and say they're wrong about everything. Just as we should say that Hungarian historians are wrong about verything. There should be a balance.

And again, I quoted from a Hungarian historian, István Bóna that said Vlachs were part of the Bulgarian Empire and that the Bulgarian Empire conquered Southern Transylvania in the 8th and 9th centuries and exploited its salt mines. I didn't quote a Romanian historian. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as we shouldn't say that Hungarian historians are wrong about everything.* corrected Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor - They both had territory in today Romania. Before you deleted the Diocese of Dacia because of its 5 provinces which were in the Balkans. Dacia Ripensis is one of the provinces of the Diocese of Dacia and had cities that are in today Romania like Sucidava. Dacia Ripensis along with Moesia Prima were the northernmost provinces of the Diocese of Dacia (that reached the Romanian-Bulgarian border and the Serbian-Romanian border respectively). The capital of Scythia Minor was Tomis, now Constanța, in today Romania. The wikipedia page is called Romania and the section is Romania's History. Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor are part of Romania's territory and history. Ninhursag3 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case why did you delete the reference to Scythia Minor from the article ([3])? You should use the article's Talk page when discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I didn't write about Scythia Minor before. I wrote about it just yesterday. Oops. Ninhursag3 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open the link above: it was you who deleted the reference to Scythia Minor and the Roman forts on the northern bank of the Danube at 12:11 on 11 April 2023. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I mention Scythia Minor as a historical place in a historical context, irregardless of theories about the origins of Romanians. The majority of Vlachs/Romanians could have lived in Scythia Minor and Dacia Ripensis, that doesn't mean there couldn't have been Vlachs/Romanians living North of the Danube, alas fewer in number. Especially since even István Bóna mentioned local Balkan graves together with Slavic graves in Transylvania even before the Bulgars arrived in the 8th and 9th centuries.

So in conclusion: Scythia Minor should be on the page as a matter of fact, without theorising pro or anti Daco-Roman continuity. The theorising should be left on the 'Origins of the Romanians' wikipedia page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. István Bóna does not mention local Balkan graves together with Slavic graves in Transylvania. 2. The text you deleted mentioned Scythia Minor as a historical place. 3. All scholarly works about the History of Romania shortly mention the theories about the Origins of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know where John Hunyadi was born. Just that in 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary bestowed Hunyad Castle (in present-day Hunedoara, Romania) and the lands attached to it upon John's father, Voyk and Voyk's four kinsmen, including John himself, so John Hunyadi was already born by then. Does it say how old John Hyundai was? Modern historian Kubinyi wrote that Voyk most probably joined Sigismund in 1395. But we don't know for sure from primary sources. So John Hunyadi could have been born in Wallachia before 1409 and joined his father in Hunedoara, Transylvania under the Kingdom of Hungary by 1409. Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kept "John Hunyadi (c. 1406 – 11 August 1456) was a leading Hungarian military and political figure" and rephrased it to make his ancestry more clear: "of Vlach (Romanian) descent in Central and Southeastern Europe during the 15th century." Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka What do you mean "the main text verifies this version"? Where does it say John Hunyadi was born in 1406? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say. Would you use the article's talk page if you want to discuss edits in an article? Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, if you're okay with that? I don't understand the specificity of the year 1406. Was he 50 when he died so is that why? Did anyone know his age at certain times so we can do the math?

Btw: Happy Easter and wish you lots of good things ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]