Talk:Samuel Aba

message: Is he not also called Obo in English?  If so, this should be included. Srnec 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen him mentioned as Obo; Google doesn't find anything. Alensha 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So why are you getting upset about putting this in the info box?94.11.127.150 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Son of Geza's Daughter

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not Ed and Edemen's son