Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive1

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kniezsa

Firstly, I am very disgusted and dissatisfied by ignorance of previous discussions. The map [1] was already widely discussed. The author Fakirbakir who uploaded this map (by the way showing sharp anti-Slovak attitude in the past, like statement that modern Slovakia is a neo-Nazi state and introducing hilarious things like transcription of country name into "Hungarian runes" in the lead in the article) was not able to provide any up to date relevant sources confirming the validity of the map in modern times, in the light of the modern research (the map is from 1938). On the other hand, its non-compliance with the modern research in Southern Slovakia was properly documented. The map was uploaded on 19 January 2013, 22:01:55 (!). The last request for sources mentioned above and proposal how to correct the problem is from 05:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC) (!!!). I accept other opinions but PLEASE, give us requested sources or respect that the map is really old and should not be used as an equal alternative for newer sources.Ditinili (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read Fakirbakir's remark here ([2]) which proves that Kniezsa's methodology is still regarded valid. If you read the conversation that began here [3] you will read that you exclusively mentioned Slovak historians' POV. Even so, you deleted my reference to this fact ([4]). You can also read in the same discussion that you only mentioned one or two Slovak historians who criticized Kniezsa's map. Even so, you deleted my template messages ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir's remark did not bring anything new since this discussion [6]. He was repeatedly asked for sources and he did not do it. Did he? You are obliged to do it and not to discuss your personal opinions. Simply, sources provided until now were proven to be outdated and/or from the authors with questionable qualification for research performed in Slovakia and in one case I had proven that the modern author (Lajos Kiss) who should authorize this old map reccomended also publication with clearly opposite opinion.[7]

Instead of fixing the problem after several months you began to pretend that this discussion did not happen and again, someone's opinion and general statements should compensate his inability to provide requested sources. In addition to the fact that they were not provided from Fakirbakir's side, he carefully removed any mention about non-compliance with the modern research (properly sourced) [8]. Your "reference removed by me" was a shameless trial to relativize the research results. I have clearly declared that this is not about the nationality of the historians, but about the research performed in the region. It does not matter if the author was Hungarian, Slovak, Chinese, Inuit or other. If you want some clarification or sources, please return to the text removed by Fakirbakir from the map description of Wikipedia commons or to the talk page. Curiously and this is the most interesting part, it seems that I am the only one who tried to properly source the current research results. I strongly recommend you to do the same. Ditinili (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above remarks, especially my reference to Fakirbakir's remark ([9]). Please remember that I did not insist on referring to the nationality of the Slovak historians, but you refused to accept the alternative solution as well ([10]). Please feel free to map the results of Slovak historians' research. And finally, please try to be civil when communicating with your coeditors. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I had read them very carefully - Fakirbakir's sentence cannot compensate a lack of real sources. I have refused your second proposal because I had no idea that Fakirbakir already removed properly sourced content right from the Wikimedia Commons, where there was already a sourced explanation. Ditinili (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) 213.229.64.182 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Valéria Tóth, Debrecen University, Hungary. Changes of the Hungarian Settlement Names: "The method developed for the examination of settlement names by ISTVÁN KNIEZSA in the first half of the twentieth century, and which was later called historical toponymic typology by his main critic, GYULA KRISTÓ (1976: 3), has been undermined by time and it has essentially become groundless in today’s science, in the first place because of its chronological rigidity. Its renewal and rethinking is an absolutely indispensable task not only for the toponomastics or philological historiography, but also for other related sciences, since they have built significant conclusions upon the findings of name typology: mainly the representatives of historical science, as well, who have relied on onomastics principally in questions of settlement and population history."[11]--195.91.10.201 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)