# Talk:Samuel Aba

Is he not also called Obo in English?  If so, this should be included. Srnec 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen him mentioned as Obo; Google doesn't find anything. Alensha 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
He was called this in the Cambridge Medieval History in the chapters on Emperor Henry III.  Do you know why then? Srnec 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel Aba, King of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I will also take care of this one this week. Madalibi (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Lead
The lead is a bit short. As WP:LEAD puts its, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." In our case the lead can't be made too long, otherwise it would absorb the entire article, but three important points are left aside: the origin of his family, his adherence to Catholicism, and the nature of his rule (including his "populism" [don't use that word!] and his controversial policies).

Thanks. Info added. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, the lede looks much better. I removed a few details, but feel free to reinstate them if you think they touch on the main themes of the article. Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Excelent work (Samuel's larger army was my only concern, but I checqued it - it is a correct info). :)  Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Prose
The article is written in a clear and accessible style. I made a few copyedits, mostly adding links where I could. Note that wikilinks in the lead should be repeated in the body of the text. Feel free to disagree with my modifications and revert them if you think I did something wrong! Otherwise I only have a few comments:

Do you have any link that could explain what the "Hungarian chronicles" are?
Sorry, I have not found one. I added one example (the Illuminated Chronicle) instead. Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but could Chronica Hungarorum work? Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Added. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Any link for the Mátra region?
Thanks. The sentence is modified. A link to the text "forest of the Mátra" added. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Any link for the Hungarian lords, maybe to something like "Hungarian nobility"?
Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you rephrase sentences that take "this" as their subject? I'm thinking of "This is further evidenced..." and "This resulted..." Such sentences tend to be imprecise.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Where was the court of Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, located?
Thanks. Modified (there is no information on the exact place of Henry's court at that time in my sources).
And while we're at it, where was Samuel's court located? Did he live in the capital of the Kingdom or in his estates?
I do not know. Actually, I think Samuel had no permanent court, because medieval monarchs had no fixed capitals and they were wandering througout their kingdoms up until the 12th-13th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be a relevant link for "Church estates": could you find it, making sure you specify what Church we are talking about?
Sorry, I do not understand you above remark. Actually, the "Church" can hardly be specified. If we added a link to the Roman Catholic Church, we would make a mistake, because the term is anachronistic for the period before 1053. If we added a link to Christianity, we would not specify any Church, because no "Christian Church" exist or existed. I think in the context of the article it is clear, that we are talking about a Christian denomination. For the sake of better understanding, I added the adjective "Christian" before the world "prelates".
This policy caused discontent even among the members of Samuel's own council, resulting in the murder of a number of them during Lent. From the grammatical structure, you would expect that "resulting" would be followed by some action taken by the council members, not by an action of which they are the victims. The structure also makes it unclear who murdered them. Could you reword to clarify that?
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
In order to punish the king, Bishop Gerard of Csanád refused to perform his coronation at Easter. Samuel had been king since 1041, and we are here talking about events that happened in 1043, so it's unclear why Samuel would need to be crowned at Easter. Had there been no coronation ceremony before? Or are you referring to another annual ritual that took place at Easter and was not actually a coronation?
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The long quote that follows the first paragraph of the "King of Hungary" section should be introduced in some way. Also, the chronicle breaks the chronological narrative of the preceding paragraph, because it goes back to events that seem to precede the new levies on church properties. Could you clarify that?
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I still think these long passages should be introduced in some way. Are there a lot of passages on Samuel in these chronicles? Why choose these particular excerpts? Are they here to illustrate larger points that our reliable sources are making, or for some other purpose? Here it seems like they're floating around waiting to be anchored to the narrative. Maybe introductory sentences like "A fourteenth-century chronicle describes Samuel's ruling style as follows"? Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article follows the patterns set up by earlier GAs of Hungarian monarchs (e.g. Stephen I of Hungary, Árpád, Álmos): the passages are never introduced. I think we should be consequent from article to article. Otherwise, I think the passages illustrate the reliability of the main text and demonstrate the view of contemporary or nearly contemporary writers of the monarch. Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. The article does look good that way too. Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Where is Menfo located?
Sorry, I do not understand your question. The text specifies that Ménfő was located near Győr, which is a town in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"German sources": since there was no Germany at the time, could you specify what these "German sources" were? Are they "German-language sources" or something else?
Sorry, I think the present solution is the best. (1) The Kingdom of Germany actually existed within the Holy Roman Empire, so the present text is not misleading (2) The cited reliable source (Kristó, Makk) does not specify those German sources it refers to, so any additional information would be the result of OR (3) The last quote from Hermann of Reichenau's Chronicle proves that such "contemporanous German sources" existed. Borsoka (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Content
There is no original research. The article is stable and focused. And as with other articles on monarchs we know little about, this article is short but it seems complete.

Perhaps one thing missing for readers who don't know about Hungarian history is a brief explanation of the historical context (mostly the date and nature of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, and the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary). Some of it appears indirectly in the text, but the reader should be able to follow the text without having to follow a large number of links. Could you add something short that would help to understand the context of Samuel Aba's life?
Samuel played no role either in the Hungarian conquest or in the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary. Consequently, I think that any information on these events would be disturbing. The article concentrates on his life: he was born to a prominent family; he (possibly) married the sister of the first king of Hungary and converted to Christianity; he ruled, fight against the Germans and was dethroned. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean for you to add this kind of information to the lede or make it a central part of the article. Only one sentence would need to be mofified: "who joined the Hungarians before their arrival in the Carpathian Basin in the ?th century [or around the year XXX]". Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the above clarification. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Readers who don't know about Hungarian history will be grateful for the new additions! Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers who don't know about that place or period, you should specify when Ed and Edemen received land from Árpád.
Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which (and this is more about content than prose): what is Samuel's relation to the Arpad dynasty? Is he considered a usurper because he was not a blood relative of King Stephen, or is he considered as a full member of that dynasty? The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, which is presumably a reliable source, calls him a "usurper",[1] but your text simply says he was elected. There seems to be a scholarly disagreement here, and failure to present it would be a violation of neutrality.
I think we should avoid the use of the term of "usurper" - it is only a non-neutral POV. I think all the relevant facts of his reign are mentioned in the article: his predecessor (who may or was not a usurper) was dethroned, he was elected and later dethroned. Do we need to state that he was or he was not an usurper? What would be the added value? In Hungarian historiography he is always listed among the Hungarian monarchs. Are King Juan Carlos of Spain or Queen Elisabeth II usurpers? According to the Carlists and Jacobites, respectively, they are - but it is not a relevant information. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this, because I'm not arguing you should be taking sides. What is important is not whether Samuel was a "usurper" or not. What counts is the way reliable sources portray him. As WP:NPOV puts it, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." The article as a whole will be neutral only if we present all existing points of view proportionally to their importance in reliable sources. I honestly have no idea how many reliable sources call Samuel a usurper, but if such sources exist, in the name of NPOV we have to present them. This book seems to consider Samuel legit, and I accept your word that Hungarian historiography portrays him as a legitimate ruler, but a Google Books search for "Samuel Aba" and "usurper" still yields a few results. (And yes, I'm sure we would get the same result for Peter the Venetian!) Could you take a look at the search results and assess whether these sources are reliable enough to justify presenting the minority POV that Samuel was a usuper? No need to explain all this at length. One sentence after "In 1041, discontented Hungarian noblemen expelled King Peter in a coup d'état and elected Samuel king" should be enough, something like "because of... [the way Samuel took power? / his lack of blood ties with the Arpad line?], some [a few?] historians have called him a usurper." Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I will not add the word "usurper", because it is a useless adjective when narrating the 11th-century Hungarian kingdom. Actually, I am sure that we could find the adjective in connection with all 11th-century Hungarian monarchs, because most of them ascended the throne after deposing their predecessors. Therefore, neutrality requires that such subjective adjectives be avoided. Instead, I added a contemporaneous report which describes him as the "tyrant of Hungary". Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
All right, this is not a deal-breaker for GA, because it seems the few sources that call him that are tertiary and they may not be important enough to be mentioned. But I hope you accept the principle that if a majority of reliable sources called him a usurper, you would have to use that term in the article in order to remain neutral! Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology (see link above) also presents relevant information on Henry's campaigns against Samuel that should be included into the text for the sake of completeness.
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The article refers to Samuel's raid in Bavaria (more specifically in Austria) in 1042 and to Henry III's campaign of 1043 in the territories to the north of the Danube of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I guess this information is already in the text, sorry about that! Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I found one more issue that needs fixing: Henry III was only crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" in 1046. During the years he became relevant to Samuel Aba's life, Henry was king of Germany, Burgundy, and parts of Italy, as well as duke of Bavaria, Swabia, and Carinthia. His main title was probably something like "king of the Germans", but I'm not sure. Could you find out what his proper title was at the time and modify the text accordingly? Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And a question: could Samuel Aba's preference for commoners over noblemen have anything to do with religion? As in any recently converted region or country, most Hungarian people not related to the royal court were probably still "pagan". And the Aba family had only converted to Christianity in 1009, perhaps mostly in order to marry into the Hungarian royal family, so they may not have been very zealous in their religious observances. Do your sources say anything about this? Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I cannot answer your question. I have no information. I think (=my own OR) he hated commoners and did not have any personal contact with them, but later chronicles wanted to write something negative of him, and in the 12th-14th centuries, when those chronicles were compiled, a monarch was required to prefer noblemen. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
References
The article is well referenced and the notes and bibliography elegantly presented. There is only one "Harverror", as the book on Slovak history by Bartl et al. connects to no footnote. You can either add a citation to it or place that book under a new subsection on "Further reading". If you want to detect Harverrors yourself, just install this very useful script!

Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bartl note still displayed as a "Harv error", so I corrected it. I really encourage you to install the script that you will find at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors! It only takes a minute or two to install, and it will save you hours of work in the future. Once it's installed, you don't have to do anything: it detects Harverrors for you automatically. For example, I can see in a few seconds that the "Bartl et al." reference is not linking properly in notes 6 and 45 of Solomon, King of Hungary, and that there are eight Harverrors in Andrew I of Hungary. Just a very useful script! Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Images

File:Menfo.jpg: Authorship, date, and nature of the work are missing from the description: they need to be added for the image to be usable. The license is also wrong. A "Creative Commons" license cannot be used for the reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art that is in the public domain. {{PD-Art-100}} would presumably apply, but we need a clear source in order to confirm that. And according to WP:CAPTIONS, a good caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article", "provides context for the picture", and "draws the reader into the article". Could you write a caption that does that?
File:Aba_samuel.jpg: there is no date, but one could easily be added because we know the image came from the fourteenth-century Chronicum Pictum. According to the wiki on that book, the illuminations were done before 1360. And the source is not Hungarian Wikipedia, but the chronicle itself. And the license tag should be {{PD-Art-100}}, the broadest one.
[I note that the template "PD-Art-100" doesn't link properly, but it works in WikiCommons.]
Thanks. The caption is modified. However, WikiCommons is the territory where I am totally lost, so I cannot fix any problem. I try to seek other editors' assistance. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, the problems were fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I took care of File:Aba_samuel.jpg and someone did the same for the other file. Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
General assessment: this is a high-quality article that will pass GA without problem once the above issues are addressed. Putting on hold in the meantime. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Madalibi, thanks for your througout review, I highly appreciate it. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome! I added a few comments, a new issue, and a new question, but they shouldn't take too long to address. We're almost done! Madalibi (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Madalibi, even if I am a pig-headed editor who insists on his own ideas in some cases, I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice day. :) Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
PROMOTED Dear Borsoka, it was a pleasure collaborating with you on this review. Your persistence in some of your opinions only shows that you have thought through them, which is a good thing. Just don't persist in NOT installing that "Harverror" script I recommended you! Otherwise all my concerns have been addressed, so I am promoting this to GA right away. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. (You know I am a really stupid computer user. I can use Office and nothing else. Even the use of a little bit sophisticated mobile phones is difficult for me. And I am serious when stating this.)
Borsoka: I'm not a script guy either. I have no idea how to use "AWB" and all the other bots. But "HarvError" is a script for dummies. It's much easier than using Word, actually. To install it, all you have to do is this: (1) Click here. (2) Click "Edit". (3) Add "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" (without the quotation marks) to the content field. (4) Click "Save page". That's it! Actually it took me more time to write these instructions than it will take you to install the script! And once it's installed, you have absolutely nothing to do. Trust me, it will save you hours of work in the future. You can start by fixing the eight HarvErrors on Andrew I of Hungary. I will check on that, so don't be lazy, put aside this "I can't do it" excuse, and Just Do It! :-) Madalibi (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Borsoka please mention here why you object to mentioning Samuel Aba's conversion to Catholicism? What do you consider to be in violation of WP:NPOV? For example, is your objection to mentioning any possible Judaic connection to important historic Hungarians? Or is your objection more about protecting the image of Judaism from the idea that anyone would ever want to leave it? 94.11.127.150 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The article mentions that he may have been Jewish but this is a PoV, not a fact. Borsoka (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
POV is when an editor uses language with a bias. But citing a scholastic theory is not a POV it is a citation. Of course, if the article were written only citing sources from one particular school of thought then that would be another kind of bias That is not the case in this article. I hope this explanation helps.
You may want to read WP:NPOV before making comments. Borsoka (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Borsoka, for the same reason explained in the conversion section, the scholastic research on his descent from Geza's daughter is not a POV. If you know of another opinion, then both opinions should be cited in order to maintain balance. Do you know of any alternative source? If not then the information should not be removed as "POV". 94.11.127.150 (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an alternative theory which says Aba was the husband of Géza's daughter. Everything is verfied in the article. Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
So why are you getting upset about putting this in the info box?94.11.127.150 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I am not upset. You are making unverified edits and I am reverting them. This is fully in line with WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Borsoka why are you insisting on mis-representing the facts which are stated clearly in the chronicles? It does not say anywhere that Ed and Edemen were the ancestors of Aba. That is a complete fabrication. Both the Illuminated Chronicle and Simon Keza's Gesta say that the Aba clan descends from Csaba not from Ed and Edemen. And the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum says explicitly that Pata was the ancestor of Aba and that Pata was their nephew! You should at least familiarize yourself with the sources before you start a revert war. We (wikipedians) are here to report the facts first then objectively (without POV bias) report the peer-reviewed theories whether good or bad. It is not our job to hide/burry the facts by only reporting what is said by scholars who support your own personal and/or political biases. 94.11.127.150 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to read the cited reliable source (Kristó & Makk) before editing the text based on your own interpretation of primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You should familiarize yourself on what Primary sources are in the field of history. I am not such a world famous academic that I am privileged enough to have access to any primary sources for original Research which is anyway not allowed on WP. And besides, you need to know that there are no primary sources on Samuel Aba, all we have are tertiary sources. And btw did you know that wikipedia is also a tertiary source? Everyone who contributes to wikipedia is involved in writing tertiary sources. The problem here is WP:WEIGHT whereby you are putting too much weight on one (irrelevant) tertiary source at the expense of all other sources. Our duty is to report on all of the relevant material with WP:NPOV, not omit the facts in because they do not fit with your own personal/political POV. You are being WP:DISRUPTIVE and you have also broken the WP:3RR. I also note here for the record that you are also WP:STALKING and lying. You should be reported. 94.11.127.150 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You have not referred to a single reliable source. You were modifying a well-referenced text based on your own interpretation of medieval chronicles. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Correction, there is NO source for the existence of Samuel Aba nor Ed or Edemen without the Illuminated Chronicle and Simon Keza's Gesta and the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. And Central European University Press is a very reliable source. (Not that you read). You need to have at least a basic level of education in Hungarian history rather than just posting stuff you learned from computer games and the internet. 94.11.127.150 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
First of all, CEU Press is a publishing house, not a source. Books published by CEU Press are indeed reliable sources. Secondly, you cannot refer to a chronicle published by CEU to verify your own interpretation of the same chronicle if your interpretation is not in line with two renowned historians' interpretation. Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka, I don't understand the logic of using partof the chronicles unless it is for POV pushing. There is no need to resort to WP:NOR, and it is our responsibility as editors to use common sense. As it is, the article seems to imply that only in the 14th century the descent from Attila is mentioned, completely disregarding the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum.--Giray Altay (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please read my remarks above. We are not here to present our views of primary sources but to summarize scholarly views. Kézai's chronicle can be mentioned in relation of Sámuel Aba's descent as soon as a scholar's work is cited to verify it. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I just re-edited the article, citing not one but many sources. This took me a lot of time which I could've used to do something more productive in Wikipedia, and was done for nothing, just to be able to mention Kezai. You claim to be promoting neutrality and then try to keep out certain information like this, I don't get it.--Giray Altay (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
If you had cited reliable sources you could have saved much time for both of us. Are you sure that a book published in the early 20th century is still relevant?  Please do not request citations if a sentence is verified by a citation to reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, you did not verify the claim: you cited a popular book about the Teck family, published in 1911; you cited twice the English translation of Simon of Kéza's chronicle; and you cited a German journal that contains no information about Csaba. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
If you think "a book from the 20th century" is not relevant contest the source, DON'T DELETE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH at that. Use templates, as I did. While your removed the templates (without resolving the issues they point out) and the "20th century" book source (by the way, I used more than 5 sources, and the material you support is also backed by a book from the 20th century), you also removed the information you already previously tried to hide. I don't know why you are doing this. I see that you are Hungarian, but I assume good faith. However, I advise you only edit where you have no personal interest.
Be aware that this is the second time you remove content from this page. You are not being constructive. This time you also removed content supported by reliable sources. So the next time you do that, I will report you.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above: you have not verified your claim. Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna, like Borsoka, you removed content backed by sources, justifying your action with: "That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit." What exactly do you want me to explain, and how that is not an improvement? I have added specific content because the article was missing a fundamental part of the story, and implicitly making false claims. Also Simon of Keza (writing in the 13th century), not just "The Illuminated Chronicle and other 14th-century Hungarian chronicles" (as the article currently says) claimed that Samuel, and the Aba, were of Attilid descent.
What the other user is doing, and you are apparently as well, is hiding information that belongs to this article. That is fundamental to it. If you don't restore the content you deleted, I will report you as well. Giray Altay (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you are presenting a claim from a primary source without verifying your edit by a reference to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
There are 5 sources I brought up, five reliable sources I used to back what I added. The one you are referring to is not a primary source, because, though published in a book titled after Simon of Keza's work, those are the statements of the editor of that book, doctor Frank Schaer. Now I am fed up. Here there is something fishy. You are making up excuse after excuse to hide content from this article and I can't understand why. So I am reporting you.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, I had replied to you in the ANI, but the case was closed as I was writing the reply. I'll also ping User:Bbb23, who's always an editor and maybe can give their opinion.
Well, here's the reply: my sources are more modern than those used to support the parts they want to keep.
The source used for the other parts is from 1996 (and for the record, is one source, without quotes, nor even links); whereas I am using one source from 2007, one from 1999,  one from 2006.--Giray Altay (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

1. First of all, the article mentions that Ed and Edemen were the sons of Csaba, himself a son of Attila, according to chronicles. 2. The sources you are citing are not relevant: a. Glockner (2007) does not verify your reference to Simon of Kéza's work (it verifies that there are chronicles mentioning that Ed and Edemen were Csaba's sons). b. A source published in 1881 could hardly be relevant. Furthermore, Beöthy does not specifically mentions Simon of Kéza's chronicle. c. A romantic history of the Teck family by Felberman from 1911 could hardly be relevant. d. You are referring to an anthology of Hungarian essays published during the last more than hundred years without specifying the author and the essay. e. You are referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. f. Your reference to pages 108-431 of Volume 21 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas indicates that you have not read the allegedly cited source. [2] g. A study published in 1912 could hardly be relevant. h. You are again referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not contain the text you are quoting. Please refrain from further edit warring because it may have had serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To Borsoka: you are acting out of self-interest, I don't understand why and I can't stand it. Also, I am not sure the edit warring warning you posted on my talk page fits, because I am not undoing your edits, that is, I am not restoring the content you hide, but I am constantly expanding that content with new sources. Your conduct is deplorable and, beside deleting the content, and the sources, you repeatedly removed the templates. Thus you remove the parts of the article you don't like, even if they are legit, and refuse to answer other editors' doubts.
To everybody else: look, it is very simple: the article discusses two ancient sources, two ancient books of the Hungarians, but fails to mention a third book, perhaps the most important chronicle (Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum), which makes a claim that is also reported in one of the other two chronicles (and also in the article), namely that Samuel Aba's Aba clan was supposedly of paternal Attilid descent, making his ancestor Edemen  of Attilid descent on his father's side. Reporting this third, very important ancient source would reinforce this claim. I don't know why they want to keep this out.
One thing nobody mentioned but maybe should be said, is that other editors looking at this should be aware that the fact Samuel Aba was of Jewish descent (which I strongly support) will not be affected by reporting this third source. In fact, it will be reinforced because, as you can read in the Aba family article:
Csaba was Attila's legitimate son by the daughter of the Greek emperor Honorius. Csaba in turn had two sons, Edemen and Ed. Edemen entered Pannonia with his father's and mother's great entourage (his mother being a Chorasminian) when the Hungarians came back for the second time, whereas Ed remained in Scythia with his father. Csaba is the ancestor of the clan of Aba.
If anything, reporting Simon of Keza reinforces the assumption that he was of Jewish descent based on yet another mention of the Chorasminian (Khwarezmian/ Cuman) woman.
What Borsaka is doing here is the classic game of appealing to rules to perpetrate wrong; that is, they use Wiki rules against Wikipedia itself. But they are playing this game very badly, since though my sources (used to support the obvious) are multiple, reliable, all secondary, and more recent than theirs, they keep claiming that they are primary, or that they are old, or that I am making original research. They are groping on mirrors to push their view in this article. In fact, they are not even groping on mirrors, they are literally pretending not to see and making things up.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: I had said to myself I would not even try to address your points again, but  I had a cursory look at your reply and now noticed you have started to flat-out lying:
Your reference to pages 108-431 of Volume 21 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas indicates that you have not read the allegedly cited source.
So here you call me a liar and imply you read this book. Uhm. I don't doubt you understand German, but how were you able to order the book and read 323 pages in less than a day?
You are again referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not contain the text you are quoting.
Here you call me a liar and yourself lie. That source does contain the text quoted!
And for the uptenth time, those are not primary sources. In one source, the words of the compiler, CEU Press's Frank Schraer, are used to support the content, not the words of Simon of Keza. That is a secondary source, just like all other sources.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, and for the last time, the article mentions that Ed and Edemen were the sons of Csaba, himself a son of Attila, according to chronicles. As soon as you find a reliable source mentioning in the article's context that Simon of Kéza's chronicle also contains this information, all this discussion can be closed. However, so far, you have not referred to a single reliable source. Your references to hundreds of pages in random collections of Hungarian essays of the last 100+ years, or to more than 300 pages in a German historical periodical that contains dozens of articles are useless. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Please remember WP:Edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to ask Borsoka, but is this a joke? What is your problem?
Aba Clan - It is one of the oldest Hungarian clans. According to tradition, King Sámuel Aba, the ruler from 1041 to 1044, was heros eponymos. He was descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, the Khabar leader
King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba
descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen
Csaba's role is even more complicated. According to the chronicle, Csaba is the son of Attila, the father of Edemér and Ed of Kún, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba
Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila
and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba
This is how the court historian - according to Riedl's evidence - connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns through Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila
connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns
Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila
This is all the more significant because Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with one of the prominent baronial families of his own time (viz. the Aba clan) / Samuel Aba was king of Hungary 1041-44. The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor (see ch. 22 and Szucs above p. LXIX) was related to King
Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan
The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor
All this, all this loss of time just to thwart your attempts to game the system, to put in the article what you knew exists, and you knew should be put in it from the first moment. You can keep this farce going, and you can keep making threats, calling up other editors to WP:BULLY a little bit more, it doesn't matter. I will not give up. What you are doing is wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I see that now you have included in the text "According to the anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum, Samuel's family descended from two "Cuman" chieftains, Ed and Edemen, who received "a great land in the forest of Mátra" from Árpád, Grand Prince of the Hungarians around 900. Simon of Kéza's late-13th-century Gesta Hungarorum,"
EDIT How can you claim on your page to promote neutrality and then a) keep on deleting reliable, secondary sources and instead placing a cn template where they ought to be b) remove the templates I legitimately placed (justifying this action with "no need") c) for one book (the Gesta Hungarorum, the one you want to keep in the article) not indicate the century in which it was written, whereas doing so for Simon Keza's work ("late-13th century") d) place a link to Anonymous (and his work) but not for Simon of Keza?
I am now going to add sources to the article and place some templates requesting quotes. Please, do not delete the templates again.--Giray Altay (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Gentle editors:  It is apparent that the two of you disagree.  Could we not put in the alternate theories and their respective sources?  Then the readers can decide which they want to pursue/believe/disbelieve.  Wikipedia is not a zero sum game.  And your incessant interminable discussion is not helping.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this edit was aimed at a compromise: [3]. The sentence contains all relevant information, only the reference to Simon of Kéza should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that... There are no alternate theories... The argument is on whether adding to the article an earlier source that would reinforce a certain argument already present in the article.
In the article, there is a 14th-century source saying something, and a 13th-century source saying something else, though the sources do not contradict each other in this sense. Adding another 13th century source jibing with the 14th century one would reinforce the latter's argument.
The argument is an alleged ancient genealogy. The older the source, the stronger the claim.
P.S. I recently added two the article two more sources 1 and 2 Giray Altay (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not more complicated. Encyclopedical articles do not repeat the same information in two consecutive sentences. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Borsoka apparently does not reject such addition; instead, they claim the sources I have provided (these sources ) are not good. The dispute may be resolved by a third party verifying whether these sources are valid (for the claim: Simon of Kéza's  Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum reports that the Aba clan descended from Prince Csaba, a son of Attila the Hun, thus making Samuel, a member of this clan, a descendant of Attila). Giray Altay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In fact, I remember them saying multiple times to me and other editors that "as soon as someone finds sources we can put it in the article" or something of that kind (I can find evidence for that).
It is only a matter of some other editor checking if those sources are fine. Giray Altay (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
To use their words:
Kézai's chronicle can be mentioned in relation of Sámuel Aba's descent as soon as a scholar's work is cited to verify it
As soon as you find a reliable source Giray Altay (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Kristó (1980) is a reliable source. You cannot remember what I was saying to other editors multiple time because you are a new editor. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are referring to this, I have already mentioned here (1) (quote My vague suspect that there might be some personal interest in keeping one chronicle out for them was enhanced by noticing that they had already tried to keep such chronicle out of the article) that I noticed what you did reviewing this page, because, you know, you have kept me blocked here for almost three days now, so I read it.
The implication of what you say is that I might be the other "editor", right? I shall notice that the other "user" is an IP address (94.11.127.150) and they are not blocked.
You have a fundamental lack of good faith. You have so fare accused me of vandalism, WP:NOTHERE (even going leafleting on other pages 2) and now also implied sockpuppetry, I guess? But the only one conducting disruptive behavior is you.
The way you are trying to hide stuff from this article is so evident, it is ridiculous. The only thing I don't understand is why nobody is saying anything. Borsoka is literally saying those source are primary, old and misquoted. Giray Altay (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I modified the text. It now mentions Simon of Kéza's chronicle based on a reference to a reliable source. I will not comment on your above message but I maintain all my remarks about you. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course you will not comment, it makes you look like an idiot.
I will now re-add the multiple, valid sources provided above.
Placing just once source could be making ground for a future dispute of the source and deletion of content. Giray Altay (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)