Talk:Black Army of Hungary

message: In 1467 at Baia Mathias Corvinus was defeated by Stephen the Great king of Moldavia.So it is not the only undefeated army in Europe since Alexander.Besides there are many other examples of undefeated standard armies in that period.Please delete this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.113 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefeated? 

message: The ground of comparison could be based only on real numbers. Arguing whether they were standing armies or not is totally irrelevant since they could face each other at the same age not to mention that some of them were also paid standing armies (think of the bosnian cavalry of Milan and Venice also prefered hiring soldiers hence of its population, and the table references them as constant garrison). Taking out the armies of England and France just because they were not standing armies is also a lame step (considering that each army of Hundred Years' War shall qualify for standing army criteria). Also I decided to change the name for the table to largest armies per its source. Lajbi Holla @ me 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite that.Lajbi Holla @ me 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 1 content 

message: Please stop removing the free images that were about to illustrate the actions and persons in general. It is obvious that every picture before the invention of photography is fictional and are based on the fantasy of the painter. But just because of this reasoning we can not cut them out and call them uncreditable (as we surely can not do so in every article concerned).Lajbi Holla @ me 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the pictures in the article 

message: I won't get into the details of the self-evident differences of the two. Comparing possible (!) numbers of army manpower is way too manipulative so it is inappropriate to include them in a table which incorporates real (recorded in written reports) military numbers, that happened to be gathered in the past. Their references are placed at the bottom of the table, the reliability of those are certainly beyond doubt. In the text the speculative numbers describing the army size are to represent a possible maximum and nothing else (I would also note that according to historians they are out of the boundaries generally regarded as Black Army). To prove that I'd like to insert a short preview exempt of the reference in the article here as a "quote" (no direct usage is allowed on the main page!)Lajbi Holla @ me 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The references has been already checked in a recent peer review.Lajbi Holla @ me 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About possible and real numbers 

message: I reviewed the article and made the (what I see as) proper copy-edits. They are far from perfect, however, so I urge a second review. Overall, the article is well-structured and probably ready for GA-review.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will update the links again when I'll have some time next year to be ready for review. I guess I need heavy language courses to improve my English but until then should I place a copyedit-tag on the main page or is it enough to add it to the to-do-list here? Appreciate that you spent your holiday time on this project and Happy New Year! Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I found the article very interesting. I think it would be best to submit it to the copy-editor's guild. Thank you for the good wishes and I wish you a Happy New Year as well! And good luck with the article!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing 

message: I have to address some criticism at this point. Besides that most of the edits should be moved to Matthias Corvinus they are also questionable and have serious problems:
*Words like to flourish, unrivaled, bellwether must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK. 
*Also the transition from medieval to renaissance and the start of a so-called Golden Age and Matthias' role in those processes require references. So do the rest of the edits.
*I really doubt that all Europe mourned him with sadness. The Holy Roman Emperor, the Polish King, the Ottoman ruler and the actual Pope surely not. Also a quote is fine at Wikiquote but adds nothing to the article (or in other words it adds biasing and one-sided information)
*Words like to unbeatable, incomparable, celebrated, meticulously must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK. 43/52 is a child approach to make up a statistic data, it's not a football team to have a "winning ratio". I built up a table of battles, but to count them this way suggests a lack of knowledge on the topic. These vary from month lasting sieges to small hundred-men clashes, and I must be self-critical to say that it could happen that I had missed some battles or historians haven't even covered them all yet (see Upper Pannonia battle where even its place is unsure till this very day)
*Words like greatest, most beloved, mighty must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK.
*The inclusion of expressions on political views on the era should be restricted to only if they are properly referenced (in this case they are not). I guess WP:Ottoman will also have some words for that.
And as for the pictures : as I followed the events the museum photo gets repeatedly deleted for obvious copyright violation (Wikicommons lists it as being stolen from http://kultura.hu/main.php?folderID=1&articleID=267484&ctag=articlelist&iid=1). DO NOT use copyvio images and do not reload them from time to time.
All said and done I presume you haven't understood the guidelines of Wikipedia whereas the neutrality is the main goal. It's not about designing colorful, novel-like storytelling articles nor it is a self-advertisment (where self refers to one's nationality this time). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I understand why some of my edits were reverted due to peacock term usage which I will try to avoid, the rest of the material I provided were absolutely factual that anybody with a 3rd grade Hungarian education knows as concrete history from textbooks.  I've extensively read Hungarian history and in fact have books on the Hunyadi age, one is a 2500page 5 volume antique set from the 19th century that that I have.  I have another 2000 page 3 set volume dealing strictly with Matthias Corvinus from the 1950s.
For one the quote that I wrote:
    ... is absolute correct.  
The Black Army was very cosmopolitan (multi-national diverse), and Cornivus did in fact usher in a Golden Age in Hungarian history unknown before -- this everybody knows from basic Hungarian 2nd grade.  His kept the baronial influence in check and centralizing his power and him endeavoring to create the first major humanist-inspired Renaissance state north of the Alphs, is fact.  The Black Army was one of the vehicles for this.  The Black Army was absolutely the bellwether (originating leader) of the first major bona fide standing army after the Roman Empire in Christian Europe, this is also fact.  Bellwether is the appropriate term.  It is also fact that Cornivus was a very enlightened quasi-absolute monarch (with emphasis on centralization) in a post-medieval period in Hungary with the ebullience of Renaissance thinking and habits in high circles.  This means he was the forerunner of enlightened absolutism which is also a fact.   
As was as the battles lost and won, the reader has to have some basic understandg of the performance of the Black Army.  That is why you included the list of "recorded battles", unremarked upon battles were too small in scale and count as innummerable skirmishes.
The version that you reverted back after my contributions have no mention of the notable campaigns of the Army, that I tried to encapsulate in the opening header.  I inserted the conquests, offensive and defensive schemes of Corvinus' policy towards the Czechs, Habsurgs and Turks, you removed them wholly out.  I also included the three notable encounters of the Army and plan to put them into a Campaigns section.
I plan to revise the the opening stanza of the Black Army by putting in emphasis on the centralizing Renaissance realpolitic mindset of Corvinus to explain the rise and need of the Black Army in the first place.  Corvinus' policies and personality must be taken into account  in the opening paragraphs to give the reader insight initial creation of the Armyy.  Again you removed the summary and analysis of Corvinus' proactive defensive and offensive mindset from the opening chapters.  
In short, you reverting back the article has taken gist out of what I wanted to convey as the original creator of this article.  Complete removal of my additions that is drawn from extensive study of the Hunyadi age renders this article incomplete.  In keeping with the standards of Wikipedia, peacock terms were the only issue in my additions.  I am an expert in the Hunyadi age and desire nothing but the full expression of historical truth, facts and analysis that went into the creation of the Army as imaged by the volition of Corvinus himself.  We HAVE to built out a contextual historical sketch around the time of Black Army for the reader to understand the military conditions that existed.  Again, you removed that.
BTW, please link this article to the Hungary Wikipedia Project as a Class-A article, thank you for your hard work and attention.  OliverTwist88 talk
:No. The main issue is that all of the edits lack references. It's not a reasoning that 2nd and 3rd graders know. Try to understand that an international point of view is needed. Try to imagine how the events are taught in other countries for example. Not Hungarian "truth" is the only truth. That's why it is a must for the article to be written in total neutrality. This article has been reviewed by non-Hungarian wikipedians several times. So it's current status is reference-ready and copyedited. Do not edit it if it pushes back its quality. References are vital and English-born editors' revision is necessary. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The better will be if you find English-language references for the Golden Age and for the other international cultural influence of Matthias (which are still out of scope of the Black Army!) otherwise you have to deprive the Hungarian sources of their "peacockness" (as they out of question are). Sentences like "international noted reputation for their enduring propensity to successfully compete" is still peacock, every word of it. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: This article seems interesting.  For military historians its important to include the notable campaigns of these forces into the article.  The article over-emphasizes the evolution and technical makeup of the army, its battles and campaigns are not listed.  Please include a chapter on its prominent role in military history (battles, sieges, expeditions, etc.)  That should full round out the article's comprehensive nature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that battles deserve their own subpages, should be included in the Matthias Corvinus article or expanded into a separate Military history of Hungary (1458-1490). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would tend disagree on this.  I don't think a separate article is needed but a sub-section within the article that explores the campaigns of these forces.  To leave this out of the article doesn't round out and is not doing the work justice.  Since these forces have a long history of service 1458 to 1490, if I may add only notable battles, sieges and campaigns are needed to put culmination on the work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe to create List of battles of Black Army of Hungary or List of battles of royal army of Matthias Corvinus wouldn't be a bad idea, leaving here only the most important ones.--Kebeta (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  please include the military campaigns 

message: A lot of the article reads as if it has been translated into English, that is, it is clunky and non-idiomatic. The peacock terms – which are really a relic of an older tradition of historiography – are a part of this, but they are not the only problem. The syntax is frequently garbled and difficult to follow. Small example, from the illustration text – is it supposed to be black on red, or white on red? Either interpretation could be defended on the basis of what is written, but, logically, they can't both be true. Theonemacduff (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't translated as a whole but compiled of a dozen sources (not counting the battles) and as you can see it's a mixture of English and Hungarian sources so occasionally translations occur but it wasn't fully translated from a single source. The article has been copy-edited by a third party English user so in its current form it doesn't reflect to what I've written (in other words it's revised thus is better I hope). I also tried to deprive the peacockness if any was found (as the above discussions on peacock terms show) . Can you please share your thoughts in detail? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some suspicious peacock terms. I hope it helped. Tell me your feedback if you ever read it again. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still suffers from a lot of garbled passages, and weasel words ("there is a theory that...", "some people think...").  Possibly the worst of the former is the section describing weapons.  There is a diagram next to the section describing the parts of a sword, yet the paragraph regarding their swords makes up its own terminology that is utterly meaningless ("pinpoint" and "pin" are not known terms for the parts of a sword, and I'd like to see a definition of what the editor means by "whizzing").  He/she appears to be attempting to describe a kriegsmesser, but the invented jargon makes it impossible to be sure.  His/her attempt to describe their shields is similarly useless, throwing around terms like pavise (an extended kite-shaped shield used by crossbowmen) and scutum (an ancient Roman curved rectangular shield) yet describing the shields as "short", which neither a pavise nor a scutum are.  I've already deleted several inline attempts to unclearly describe weapons where the weapon is already linked to a clearly-written article that adequately describes the weapon.  But I can't make any sense of what's left. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  English usage 

message: * The tablet has provocative purpose: Compraison tablets are not represented in any other medieval warfare/army/war-lord articles of English wikipedia.
* Moreover, the tablet is not represented even in the articles about the battles & armies which are represented in the tablet(!)
* The tablet is very misleading, because it doesn't distinguish between ad-hoc type feudal levy armies, between temporary mercenary armies and standing mercenary armies.
Forexample Black army was only a personal private army of king Matthias, the tablet not represented the number of levy / feudal units in Hungary which were far larger than the standing mecenary army, therefore it not represents the military strength and number of total soldiers of the Hungarian kingdom as a whole. --84.2.197.184 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you wait for a discussion to take place, and if consensus is reached, the table can be deleted. DVdm (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove non/less related & misleading Tablet

message: the equipment section could be applied to any article on medieval weaponry. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  equipment section not helpful 

message: I think user 84.0.193.202's comment does make sense. We can not resemble correctly a professional mercenary army with temporary recruited troops by size. The chart is well sourced but misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If other source surfaces, which compares only contemporary professional armies, I'm not against replacing it. Until then just because "we feel like" it misleads others (there's no proof for that), we shouldn't remove a well-sourced table (Wikipedia is built on sources and only sources not on the editors' own knowledge). Also sorting out armies into categories and insisting to only compare them in their own "weight class" is WP:OR. Based on that one could set up several other criterias just to get his view bakced up and his opinion favored in a dispute, and could get false outcomes by manipulating the numbers. E.g. one can also say let's differentiate mixed-nationality armies from single-nationality ones, because paid soldiers are not that devoted (or vice-versa, doesn't really matter). It would make the same sense and would result in removing this table, but we can not allow such reasonings to decide here. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there was another discussion about this topic here, but I must note that it comes from the same user who has been reverted 20+ times already, which means many of the editors disagree with him and the removal. Each and every one of these debates ceased when I asked him to cite his claims. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with the anonymous user and Fakirbakir, and also think that the table is very misleading, as it compares "apples" with "oranges". What's the point of including that table anyway? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

text: PS: Is there a source that contains the table or is it built up from data using several sources? In the latter case, it looks like OR. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source compares them telling the same datas but in prose. Did you check the reference? It's all the same except that is this way it is more easy for the eye. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

text: It is based on one source Andrew Ayton; Leslie Price (1998). "The Military Revolution from a Medieval Perspective" . The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Society (refs 14-17 could be removed anytime, it is not needed for the table, they are also mentioned in that one book, they only complement the taxonomy). End of accusations. Those who added more Hungarian Armies to the wikitable violated WP:OR. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart / Comparison of medieval armies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721112150/http://www.napkut.hu/naput_2004/2004_02/051.htm to http://www.napkut.hu/naput_2004/2004_02/051.htm#lj284
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126232820/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm
*Added  tag to http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Flcweb2.loc.gov%2Ffrd%2Fcs%2Fhutoc.html
*Added  tag to http://www.matyaseve.hu/Cikk.aspx?NewsID=153a850c-a82f-4f3a-8beb-9ff89596dc7f&Id=cc20b576-b7dd-4cdf-a441-29773fdc1070
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726051303/http://www.jasov.sk/%21old/village/fortress-hu.html to http://www.jasov.sk/%21old/village/fortress-hu.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126232820/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126232820/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120708070759/http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/hutoc.html to http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Flcweb2.loc.gov%2Ffrd%2Fcs%2Fhutoc.html
*Added  tag to http://static.polc.hu/previews/pdf/00/10/51/105111.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.matyaseve.hu/Cikk.aspx?NewsID=153a850c-a82f-4f3a-8beb-9ff89596dc7f&Id=cc20b576-b7dd-4cdf-a441-29773fdc1070
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721113818/http://www.vasnepe.hu/hetvege/20080830_holloszarnyak_a_raba_folott_uj_sorozat_la to http://www.vasnepe.hu/hetvege/20080830_holloszarnyak_a_raba_folott_uj_sorozat_la
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605155216/http://www.bkiado.hu/doku/html/bonfini.html to http://www.bkiado.hu/doku/html/bonfini.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726051303/http://www.jasov.sk/%21old/village/fortress-hu.html to http://www.jasov.sk/!old/village/fortress-hu.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326104931/http://tortenelmunk.multiply.com/journal?&page_start=120 to http://tortenelmunk.multiply.com/journal?&page_start=120
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126232820/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified