Content deleted Content added
Robby.is.on (talk | contribs) →János Zsinka: Thanks |
|||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 228:
:{{ping|Kenessey Aurél}}, yes, the Bátori de Gagy family was not related the Báthorys of the Gutkeled clan (Somlyó, Ecsed and Szaniszlófi branches). However, I am not sure that Nicholas Sirokai was progenitor of the Bátori de Gagy family. According to the genealogical works of János Karácsonyi and Pál Engel (which are still the most frequently used works in this subject), this Nicholas (son of Peter) was a member of the Aba clan's Szalánc branch, while the Bátoris descended from the same clan's Atyina branch (from a certain Gereven, whose name is mentioned once in 1285). --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response! Unfortunately, it seems from your message that you haven't reviewed the sources provided in the article. The historians you mentioned are, unfortunately, mistaken. You should consider the accounts of Iván Nagy, which are supported by the 1678 family tree held by the Központi Antikvárium [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa.jpg]. In the lower section of the family tree, you can read the exact lineage in Latin, which clarifies that Péter of Szalánc had six sons, the eldest being Miklós, also called Gereven, who was the Voivode of Transylvania. This original family tree refutes all other incorrect claims.[https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/ [https://www.arcanum.com/en/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/elso-kotet-2/bathori-csalad-gagyi-764/] [https://www.arcanum.com/en/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-siebenburgen-erdely-AC44/iv-a-wappen-der-waywoden-herzoge-landesverwalter-12911552-b-der-vice-waywoden-13631490-c-der-szeklergrafen-d-der-gubernatoren-e-der-sac-AE45/a-herzoge-AE46/?list=eyJmaWx0ZXJzIjogeyJNVSI6IFsiTkZPX0tPTllfU2llYm1hY2hlcl8xIl19LCAicXVlcnkiOiAiQlx1MDBlMXRob3JpIElJLiB2IEdcdTAwZTFneSJ9] [https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa_1678.jpg] [https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1901-C2B2/1901-2-C4B3/az-arpadkori-orszag-es-udvarbirak-genealogiaja-masodik-befejezo-kozlemeny-C4E2/65-aba-nb-szalanczi-peter-1280-C4FB/] Please take a thorough look at the attached sources. I hope this will be a convincing argument. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 06:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::Báthory (nem Bátori) [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabrielis_B%C3%A1thory_de_Gagy_al%C3%A1%C3%ADr%C3%A1sa.jpg] [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 06:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::The historians you mentioned were likely confused by the fact that Miklós was sometimes referred to as Gereven, due to his title (Grafen or Greven, the German count title). He was also documented under the name Sirokai, after his father's new estate. You can read about this in the description of the Sirokai family, which explains that Péter of Szalánc was occasionally called Péter of Siroka after exchanging Szalánc Castle with William Drugeth for, among other things, the Siroka estates. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::The German encyclopedia states: "Greven" is an archaic German term meaning "counts" or "earls." It is an old variation of "Graf," which is the title for a count in the German nobility system. "Greven" was used in certain regions or older texts as a synonym for "Graf. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 07:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::"Comes," meaning count, appears often as "Grewin," "Greven," or "Gereven." in archaic documents not only in Hungary. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 08:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::Dear Norden,
::In case you didn't get the message from my page:
::: Dear Norden,
::: Here is yet another perfect piece of evidence [https://archives.hungaricana.hu/hu/charters/view/38165/?pg=3&bbox=5249%2C-2523%2C7550%2C-1204 <nowiki>[14]</nowiki>]. The document's text refers to Gereven. If you look at the original document, you will see and read the names if you are accustomed to reading archaic Latin texts. On the back of the document, it says in Latin: "Tractatus inter Nicolaum, Vajvodam Transylvaniae, et religiosos fratres congregationis, ratione discordiae inter Laurentium Vitez et Nicolaum de Peren, occasione qua praenominatus Laurentius de Vitez Korlathfalva etc. sibi expropriatus fuit etc." The English translation of this text is as follows: 'Agreement between Nicholas, Voivode of Transylvania, and the religious brothers of the congregation, regarding the dispute between Laurentius Vitez and Nicholas of Peren, on the occasion that the aforementioned Laurentius of Vitez was dispossessed of Korlathfalva, etc.' In the original document, Gereven is mentioned, but on the back, they write Nicholas the Voivode. I suggest, if you do not believe me, to have the text of the charter reviewed by someone knowledgeable! [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Báthory family (of the Aba clan)#c-Kenessey Aurél-20241010095100-Norden1990-20241009154700|09:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)]][<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Báthory family (of the Aba clan)|reply]]]
::: I reviewed the text of the archaic latin document, and it mentions 'voivodam Gereven' in more than 20 places! [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Voivodam_Gereven.jpg <nowiki>[15]</nowiki>] What can you say to that now? '''I''' '''hope that after this you will acknowledge that Voivode Miklós's nickname was Gereven.'''
::: Please be kind and be friend and modify your opinion on my page of deletion.
::: Thank you!!!!!
::[[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 12:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::'''Dear Norden,'''
::'''I’ve found the mistake! I apologize for all the back and forth in our discussions.''' I couldn't understand how it was possible that the Bertóthy family, whose archive contributed countless medieval documents to the National Museum, could have been mistaken about their own family tree. Several researchers have identified Gereven Miklós, the Voivode of Transylvania, as the founder of the Gagyi and Báthory families. These notes can also be found in the National Archives. The correct explanation is in Tóth Sándor's book and can be read in the monography of Sáros County, Volume I, on pages 213 and 325. Gereven is none other than Voivode Miklós, who held the position three times between 1272 and 1274. I will rewrite the Báthory family (of the Aba clan) page accordingly, provided it’s not deleted in the meantime.
::Thank you for your understanding! [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 14:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Dear {{ping|Kenessey Aurél}}, this is another outdated information, that voivode is [[Nicholas Geregye]] whose clan (Geregye) originated in Transdanubia and and it has nothing to do with the Aba kindred. I checked the aforementioned work and it contains, even compared to the standard of the time, incorrect data regarding the descent of the Abas (for instance, Tóth did not consider that Finta, Amadeus and Peter were brothers e.g.) --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 20:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the family itself is notable enough to have its own article, but the current status does not reach the level. I deleted some of the inappropriate, essay-like wording, but why does the article not contain factual information about individual members of the family, from the 14th century to 1689? --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 10:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the article. I completely agree that the family is notable enough to have its own article. I appreciate your efforts in refining the content! I want to assure you that I will be adding the missing information about the key family members from the 14th century to 1689 shortly. The copies of the documents related to the book are all original archival records, providing us with credible sources to support our claims, but additionally, I will be gathering more online evidence to further support our claims and enrich the content. I truly appreciate your assistance in this process, and I would be happy if wi could collaborate on creating a professional and comprehensive article. Thanks again, Aurél [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:In the meantime, I asked Tibor (we are relatives) about your questions. He pointed out the complexity of historical research, especially in the case of a dual-gens family that operated in the eastern part of Hungary. Since the family prefixes, such as "somlyói" or "gagyi," were not always recorded, there are often errors related to individuals with the same name. Tibor has also found several instances online where names that are certainly connected to the Báthory of Gagy family are listed only as "Báthory," which further complicates identification. This issue is compounded by the difficulty of selecting and verifying the correct references from among the hundreds available online. Since Wikipedia does not accept original research and documents, Tibor assured me that he will search for the appropriate sources among the reliable online references and use them to add the missing key family members. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:Dear Norden,
:'''I believe I have finally uncovered the source of the misunderstandings. Please allow me to explain.'''
:The 1330 document, in which the Drugeth and Szalánci families exchange the Szalánc estate for the Pertolat, Frich, Hedri, and Siroka estates, is not disputed. It is also mentioned in Iván Nagy’s writings. However, Nagy also states that Voivode Gereven acquired the Gagy estates, which is corroborated by the Anjoukori Oklevéltár (Charter of the Angevin Period) VII. 1323 that you shared. Gereven acquired the Gagy estates before the exchange of Szalánc. In the 1323 document, it is described how, under the orders of King Charles, royal men, along with Gereven’s sons '''Lawrence, Michael, and Nicholas''', separated the Gagy estates from neighboring properties. The names match 100% with the Báthory family tree.
:You sent the Drugeth document to prove that Gagy was not part of the exchange. But that '''was never in dispute'''. The original family tree simply noted that Gereven founded the Gagy family after acquiring the Gagy and Bátor estates. In 1344, Gereven was granted the right of the pallos (sword) for the Jobbágy estate, and it is likely that some of his sons lived there, but the family ultimately settled in Gagy and Bátor. In Gagy, they built both a residential and fortified castle, while in Bátor they constructed a residential one. This could explain why there are no later traces of the Jobbágyi family.
:The 1285 date associated with Gereven is probably an estimate of his birth year. The names Sirokai and Jobbágyi might have been used in the documents when he lived there. Even his father, Péter, is referred to as "Sirokai" in some documents. Believe me, Iván Nagy put together an accurate summary of the family. The ownership of Szalánc castle has always been attributed to the three brothers: Finta, Péter, and Amadeus, according to historical accounts.
:I hope this finally resolves the source of the confusion. If we could meet in person, we could discuss the arguments for and against more thoroughly.
:Have a nice day! [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 06:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Az alábbi szövegben az is olvasható, hogy '''Miklós c. (comes)''' akit Gerevennek neveztek [https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/elso-kotet-2/bathori-csalad-gagyi-764/] szintén jelen volt.
:Az egri kápt. I. Károly király (H) 1323. május 27-i meghagyására (233. sz.) jelenti, hogy embere, Voyk fia István pap, Kalathay-i Pál királyi emberrel június 12-én kiment Januk (1398: Janók) birtokra és a hozzátartozó birtokokra, és az összehívott szomszédok - Peder-i Domonkos, Ine fia István fiai: Pál és Petheu, szintén Peder-iek, továbbá Merhard fia Imre fia Miklós, ugyanazon Merhard fia János fiainak: Simonnak és Lászlónak az officiálisa, Domonkos, Hulych, ugyanazok Mokrouch-i bírója, valamint Kana fia András, Boyg fia Fábián, és az ő fia Péter, végül Gereuen fiai: Lőrinc, Miklós és Mihály, Kordos (dict.) '''Miklós c.''' és officiálisa, István és Otih fia Hernich fia János - jelenlétében Januk birtokot a szomszédoktól ellentmondás nélkül elválasztották. [[User:Kenessey Aurél|Kenessey Aurél]] ([[User talk:Kenessey Aurél|talk]]) 11:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
== You don't seem to have the original text ==
Holec was talking about Hungarian made Trianon hoaxes. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 15:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think you have it. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 15:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::The original text is in Slovak, which you don't speak. That might explain your confusion. The text clearly talks about Hungarian-made Trianon hoaxes. Do you want me to contact Holec himself to tell you that you're wrong?[[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You know me that you write so confidently, I don't understand Slovak? I tend to read Slovak historiography. Please, contact with him, I recognize his work. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 16:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, if you say you can read Slovak, then surely you can mention what Holec meant when he used the term "Trianon Hoaxes". Think hard about your answer, because I have actually emailed Holec some time ago about this. Which means we'll easily see if your definition correlates with what Holec actually meant. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 16:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please inform me when the contact has been made. Unfortunately, I borrowed the book during the summer, I don't have my own copy. But I remember some text saying that this is also one of the "Trianon hoaxes" that burden the relationship between the two peoples. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::...Right. I said in my previous comment that I've contacted Holec about this in the past. So I don't understand why you're acting as if this contact has not already been made. Do you want me to post a screencap of the email conversation, or is copypasting the relevant parts in here enough? [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 16:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the relevant section of the book (page 192) is enough. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 16:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::...do you understand English? I'm asking if you want a screencap of Holec's direct '''email''' comments about the inaccuracies you defend in the article. Please re-read my previous comment. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but if you could also cite the relevant part of the book, I would be grateful. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Are you trying to imply that you understand Holec's book more than Holec himself? And please stop avoiding my question. I'll ask you for the third time: Do you want a screencap of my conversation with Holec or is it OK if I just quote from it? [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 16:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You wrote that "You don't seem to have the original text", so I guess you have. Please, could you provide the text of the relevant section (page 192) and Holec's conversation with you? Obviously I need to know what Holec reacted to. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Holec was reacting to the wikipedia text. I will provide Holec's conversation once you finally answer my question in which format you want it presented to you. I've asked you this three times and you've ignored my question three times. Hopefully you'll answer this time. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 17:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please, post a screencap of the email conversation, and the original text from the book, if available at all. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 17:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Of course, I will post a screencap to prove my claim of talking with Holec about this wikipedia article, and in return, I expect that you will prove your claim to have "borrowed during summer" this book by posting a screencap of this page. Surely, we can both prove our claims and you won't invent any excuses to refuse doing this. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 17:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
No response. Go figure. I promised to post screencaps of my email conversation with Holec, but what's the point as long as @[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] is unwilling to post a screencap of page 192 of the book he "borrowed this summer"? Does Norden1990 really believe that he's exempt from proving his claims? Whatever. I'll now talk about my conversation with Holec.
I asked Holec to compare the Slovak Wikipedia and English Wikipedia section about Osusky meeting Apponyi, and tell me which one is correct and which one isn't, and where.
Holec's response boiled down to these points:
{{tq|Both Slovak and English Wikipedia are correct to say that Osusky's claim about meeting Apponyi is untrue. Holec calls Osusky's story "romantic fiction".}}
{{tq|However, the extra addition in English Wikipedia that mentions Osusky's story being part of "numerous Trianon hoaxes" is inaccurate. Holec hopes that this inaccuracy wasn't intentional on the part of the person who added it.}}
{{tq|According to Holec, when he wrote about "numerous Trianon hoaxes" in his book, he was referring primarily to Hungarian-made fabrications. Holec stressed that there's an entire constellation (''"cela plejada"'') of Hungarian-made Trianon hoaxes, whose purpose was to explain the supposed anti-Hungarian bias of Western politicians. He added that for Slovaks Trianon was not an important topic, so they had no need to fabricate any notable amount of stories.}}
The current English Wikipedia text therefore gives the impression of there being "numerous" Slovak-made Trianon hoaxes. But Holec used that term to talk about Hungarian fabrication. To remove this obvious inaccuracy, we can either remove the mention of "Trianon Hoaxes" (which will make the text in-line with Slovak Wikipedia, with which Holec had no complaints about) or we can keep it while specifying that the vast majority of these "numerous Trianon Hoaxes" were invented by Hungarians.
Now then. I have a screencap of my email correspondence with Holec, which I'm willing to provide as long as Norden promises to provide screencaps of page 192. [[User:Azure94|Azure94]] ([[User talk:Azure94|talk]]) 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Why do you think I said I don't have the book anymore? That's why I said that if you have it, quote the relevant part of page 192 (since you wrote "you don't seem to have the original text", I assumed you have the book). I read the book in the summer, then I inserted the excerpt with the given source. Actually the wording is irrelevant, the point is that this story with Apponyi is not true. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
== Deletion notification ==
Sorry I made this decision, and forget to notify you first here, but the article IMO is chaotic and misleading. You can debate me on deletion talks, if you want. [[User:Hörgő|Hörgő]] ([[User talk:Hörgő|talk]]) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> [[User:Hörgő|Hörgő]] ([[User talk:Hörgő|talk]]) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
== János Zsinka ==
Hi Norden1990. Could you expand on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%A1nos_Zsinka&oldid=prev&diff=1251758242 this edit summary of yours]? I still don't understand the removal of the categories. Kind regards, [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Robby.is.on}}, I fixed the problem. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::What do you mean by "they are parent categories"? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 18:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Categorization|WP:CATEGORY]]. For example, if there is a football player, you do not categorize his article to both [[:Category:Footballers]] and [[:Category:Hungarian footballers]], because the former is the parent category of the latter. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks. {{tq|you do not categorize his article to both [[:Category:Footballers]] and [[:Category:Hungarian footballers]], because the former is the parent category of the latter}} Yes, I know that. How does that relate to the league categories? Please clarify. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 19:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[:Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I]] is not a category for persons. It is the parent category of [[:Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players]]. I fixed it. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990#top|talk]]) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh, wow. Only now I see that the categories were simply missing the "players" bit. Thanks for fixing that. Happy editing, [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
| |||
