Talk:Ottoman Hungary

message: User 84.0.57.111 wrote: "Please don't force a map which was correct only for 3 years(1682-1685).Please,redraw the borders of Ottoman eyalets and Thökhöly's Upper Hungary with black border-lines instead of grey.Upper Hungary have never seen ottoman army in history"
:Answer: I already gave you answer about Thökhöly's principality on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#The_map However, I will also copy-paste that answer here: Well, I would not agree that "Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name". Certainly, there are several names used for this principality and all of them are valid. Here you can see that name "felső-magyarországi fejedelemség" ("Principality of Upper Hungary") is clearly used in the sources: . Other name that was used is "Principality of Central Hungary" (or "Orta Macar" in Turkish). See quotation from this source as example: "Imre Thokoly who for a brief period was installed as an Ottoman client ruler in an area which previously had belonged to Habsburg Hungary, and was known to the Ottomans as Orta Macar". So, this source and published source that I have in my personal library are both claiming that Thokoly was Ottoman client ruler - it is similar status as was the status of Transylvania. Here is also translation from published Serbian source that I used ("Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002"): "Intention of Thokoly was to unite all Hungarian territories under Ottoman suzereinity. Ottoman Porta proclaimed him for a king of Hungary, but he took for himself only title of a prince of Upper Hungary. According to Ottoman document (berat), Thokoly ruled over 13 northern Hungarian counties and this area was called Orta Macar (Middle Hungary) in Turkish. It was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality and it was obligated to pay 20,000 ducats per year to Ottoman authorities." So, I based my map on these sources and if you think that this info is not correct, please present quotations from some other sources that claiming opposite things and we can analyze these quotations then. Also, you perhaps do not know exact meaning of term "vassal state" - an "vassal state" is not directly ruled by its foreign suzerains; it usually completely run its own affairs, with only obligation to provide certain amount of money or soldiers to its suzerain. That is exactly how Principality of Imre Thokoly was described in these sources. 
:Also, 84.0.57.111, if you claim that I "force a map which was correct only for 3 years(1682-1685)" why you did not removed that map but another one that show situation in 1572? Do you claim that this map is incorrect too? And map "Hungary 1683.png" that you included is incorrect - it does not list any references and it show wrong borders of eyalets and mix borders from completelly different time periods. Do you have some sources or evidences that borders of eyalets in that map are correct? Notably, do you have evidence that Sanjak of Segedin was part of Budin Eyalet insted part of Egir Eyalet in 1683? Or do you have evidence that Sanjak of Semendire was part of Rumelia Eyalet instead part of Budin Eyalet? Or do you have evidence that Sanjak of Kule was part of Varat Eyalet instead part of Temesvar Eyalet? These are just few mistakes in map named "Hungary 1683" - that map have just too many errors, it is completely unsourced and looks like an original research of its uploader. Regarding my own maps, I listed references for them on appropriate page of each map in Wikimedia Commons. If you present here some sources that showing that some parts of my maps are incorrect, I will change these maps in accordance with these sources. I cannot change maps only in accordance with somebody's comment on talk page, especially in the case when such comment contradicts to sources that I used. PANONIAN 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. Thököly's state was a short lived Turkish vassal 'state'. Nothing is wrong with that map.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:
*  - Quotation: "Thokoly was received with great pomp by the pasha of Buda in the summer of 1682 and at once a joint army of kurucok and Turks embarked on the conquest of Hungary. They spedily captured the north-eastern strongholds of Košice, Prešov, Levoča and, at the cost of 4000 Turkish dead. Fidiakovo. Thereupon the pasha Ibrahim delivered to Thokoly the antham of Mehmed IV which declared Thokoly to be king of all Hungary and Croatia, as tributary vassal of the sultan..."
*  - Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
*  - Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
*  - Quotation: "the insurrection continued until it culminated in the expulsion of the Germans out of the whole of Upper Hungary by Thokoly. He was recognised by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary"
*  - Quotation: "In 1682 a Turkish army invaded Northern Hungary and placed Thokoly on the throne of Northern Hungary as a vassal of Kara Mustafa."
I doubt that all these sources are wrong, and there are more in google books search:  PANONIAN 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. Thököly's state was a short lived Turkish vassal 'state'. Nothing is wrong with that map.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Some problems on this addition:
* There is no source at the following link: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+hu0028)
* The following text: The population growth in Ottoman Hungary during the 17th century was from 900,000 to 1,000,000. However most of these newly migrated inhabitants were non Hungarians. is unsourced (the part about non Hungarians) and not logical (the population growth can be the result of a higher natality / less plagues/ less wars / etc not necessary becausae immigration). 
* Apparently the following information: The proportion of Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages. The Hungarian population began to decrease only at the time of the Ottoman conquest, reaching as low as around 39% by the end of the 18th century. The decline of the Hungarians was due to the constant wars, Ottoman raids, famines, and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule. is not mentioned in the source http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html.
* Should it be The Hungarian population began to decrease or The percentage of Hungarian population began to decrease?79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, I will take a look at it. Tag the questionable parts in the text, if no sources are found in a reasonable amount of time, then they can be removed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't restore the addition from 29 September in the lack of a consensus. I am not against adding info about the ethnic evolution, but the section must be good-written and respect wiki policies. 79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not notice that it was a recent addition. Then, I agree to keep the old version until better sources are found. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks for understanding. 79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic aftermath of Ottoman wars 

message: 80% hungarian population in the Carpathian basin has no credible source of proof.
It cites modern estimation. The statement is speculative and the link to back up the statement does not proove the statement Alex an dru one (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is not speculative, it states "according to" and where it points, there are sourced estimations like that. Nobody said they are carved in a stone.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  80% hungarian population in the Carpathian basin? 

message: Hello, I cannot understand why on earth you would revert this change and request that it be discussed on the talk page of the article. The change was in no way controvercial and was just correcting a cite date error that exists in the page and need to be addressed. It is only for major or controvercial changes that a talk page discussion is needed.  Keith D (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies, I thought the edit summaries on my subsequent edits clarified - but obviously not. Your edit corrected a cite error on the previous edit by another editor (which is now the subject of the thread above). It was that other edit I was intending to revert and request discussion on the talk page. I just inadvertently didn't go far enough back on Twinkle and got only your intermediate edit by mistake. Hope that explains. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Just to make it crystal clear, it was this edit that your edit corrected the cite error on and that I thought i was reverting. Apologies again. DeCausa (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, as you had not made further edits to the article at that point I was not getting the connection. Keith D (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: After reading the previous discussion I can see there was a request by a user for citations in an unrelated discussion, so I am creating a separate topic for that. 
The following claims are missing citations (to the raw data or data as percentages):
* 20% of the territory being retained by the Ottoman state
* 90% of the population being Protestant, mainly Calvinist at the end of the 16th century
77.76.87.224 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: "Reconquested", last sentence 2nd paragraph of lead - not a word in English. Should be "reconquered". DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: DeCausa, I see thanks! OrionNimrod (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 28 January 2024