Talk:Matthew III Csák

message: Hey guys, it's really funny you're making tons of edits to this page these days and then Svetovid comes and reverts the last 5-10 edits indiscriminately. I don't really like this method that prioritizes HU-SK edit warring to improving the quality of the article. Say, I corrected "hold" to "held" yesterday (to me it seems that "He hold the offices of Marshal..." is rather Bahamian Creole than adequate English), but this, and a number of other meaningful changes fell victim to Svetoid's revenge on MagyarTürk.
So what I'd like to ask is:
- MagyarTürk, if you can't contribute to the article meaningfully, take a walk
- Svetovid, if you're too lazy to single out meaningful and bad changes, and all you can do is mass reverting, then leave editing to sy else, e.g. Borsoka
As for the essence of these changes I'd like to ask Svetovid to back up his changes (reverts) with arguments. As for the names of historical counties of Hungary, these are referred to with their native names on the English Wikipedia:
So, "Pressburg" is not welcome here; refrain from pressing this point, Svetovid. 
* Is there any particular reason, why local names (e.g. Trencin) are not given in English here? Writting the name Trencin in Hungarian transcription in an English language article about medieval events makes no more sense than referring to Tulaytulah or Helsingforgs when writting about Toledo or Helsinki. Please remember, that the official language of Kingdom of Hungary was Latin, not Hungarian, and Trencin or Senica were never ever ethnicaly Hungarian (neither during Csak rule nor anytime later). Why is some artificial naming from 19. century taken here as a standard? mkwinco/81.217.168.82 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: User:Borsoka has tagged the names he is called in some old sources, that include the term "Count".  This is NOT to be interpreted as an assertion that he was a count; it's merely an indication of what he was known as, in the only English sources we can find about him.  If you have other sources that refer to him differently, or more generally, maybe we count substitute those, but there's no doubt, based on these, that he was referred to by them as Count whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: B, wikipedia content needs to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS.  It's not clear why you're challenging this sourced content about what he's called, and citing no source in return.  These sources of course don't prove that he was a count, nor do we assert in the article that was a count; we merely report that he is sometimes referred to as a count; that's what's verifiable in reliable sources.  Replace it with something better if you find it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if my understanding is correct, we can cite Ptolemaios in order to prove that the Earth is the center of the Universe, although Copernicus has already proved that his claim is not verifiable. None of the sources written in the 1990s or after claim that he was "Count" Matthew Csák. We should forget this two references, because they do not add any further information and they are extremely old. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear that your understanding is not correct.  I have suggested finding better sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue comes from that the Hungarian language clearly differentiate between a count (the holder of a hereditary title which did not exist in Hungary before the 15th century), and the head of a county (the head of an administrative unit whose existence already in the 11th century can be documented). In Hungarian, the former is called gróf, and the latter is referred to as ispán. Unfortunatelly, when the latter is translated into English, sometime the count word is used, which is totally misleading. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is simply that you're arguing without citing sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If one reads the article, he/she can find several sources (there is a separate section). If one reads the article, he/she can also find in-line citations (thank you for your former tag inserted). If one reads my above remarks, he/she can find cited sources (even pages are mentioned in the above argumentiation). I think the argument that sources written in 1908 and 1911 are old should not be verified based on sources, but I may be wrong. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Allow me to help you.  Here are some you could cite for "Matthew Cak" and some for "Matthew of Trencin", mostly without "Count".  Also some with "Matthew Csak" and some for "Matthias Cak" and some for "Matus Cak".  It would probably be good to survey these and list what he's commonly called and then revisit the move question.  It appears that changing to Cak might be more important than the other part of the name.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I take it then that you believe there is a proper English usage; can you provide sources to substantiate it?  And these authors are writing in English, yes?  Are you saying that their ethnic backgrounds make their writings less reliable?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not claim and I did not mention that ethnic background makes any book less reliable. I only try to refer to the fact that the ethnic background of writes have an affect on the ortography they use in English literature. Hungarian authors use "Csák", Slovakian authors use "Cak" even if they write in English. I try to suggest that the proper English ortography should be followed. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So how will we know what the "proper English orthography" is, if not from what these writers use?  Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If a native English speaker says that "Máté Csák" (used by the Hungarian scholars) or "Matthew Cak" (used by Slovakian scholars). I have to accept. I think in this case "Máté Csák" should be followed, because he was Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious and verify tags 

message: Before the 15th century, no hereditary titles existed in Hungary, therefore using the name "Count" Matthew Csák is totally misleading. He was the head of the counties Pozsony, Trencsén ... etc from time to time, but it was an administrative office. I think two sources from the 1910s are not the best ones to prove that he was "Count". Otherwise, if a title is to be mentioned in connection with a certain person, it should be his highest title: e.g., Emperor Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor instead of King Sigismund (although, he was also King of Hungary, Bohemia), or Markgraf Sigismund  (although, he was Markgraf of Brandenburg as well); Máté's highest title was Palatine (but it was also an administrative office). He actually styled himself Palatine (as it is described in the article) even after he had been dismissed by the king. Therefore, I think the two sentences based on extremly old sources should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: B, wikipedia content needs to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS.  It's not clear why you're challenging this sourced content about what he's called, and citing no source in return.  These sources of course don't prove that he was a count, nor do we assert in the article that was a count; we merely report that he is sometimes referred to as a count; that's what's verifiable in reliable sources.  Replace it with something better if you find it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if my understanding is correct, we can cite Ptolemaios in order to prove that the Earth is the center of the Universe, although Copernicus has already proved that his claim is not verifiable. None of the sources written in the 1990s or after claim that he was "Count" Matthew Csák. We should forget this two references, because they do not add any further information and they are extremely old. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear that your understanding is not correct.  I have suggested finding better sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue comes from that the Hungarian language clearly differentiate between a count (the holder of a hereditary title which did not exist in Hungary before the 15th century), and the head of a county (the head of an administrative unit whose existence already in the 11th century can be documented). In Hungarian, the former is called gróf, and the latter is referred to as ispán. Unfortunatelly, when the latter is translated into English, sometime the count word is used, which is totally misleading. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is simply that you're arguing without citing sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If one reads the article, he/she can find several sources (there is a separate section). If one reads the article, he/she can also find in-line citations (thank you for your former tag inserted). If one reads my above remarks, he/she can find cited sources (even pages are mentioned in the above argumentiation). I think the argument that sources written in 1908 and 1911 are old should not be verified based on sources, but I may be wrong. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Allow me to help you.  Here are some you could cite for "Matthew Cak" and some for "Matthew of Trencin", mostly without "Count".  Also some with "Matthew Csak" and some for "Matthias Cak" and some for "Matus Cak".  It would probably be good to survey these and list what he's commonly called and then revisit the move question.  It appears that changing to Cak might be more important than the other part of the name.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I take it then that you believe there is a proper English usage; can you provide sources to substantiate it?  And these authors are writing in English, yes?  Are you saying that their ethnic backgrounds make their writings less reliable?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not claim and I did not mention that ethnic background makes any book less reliable. I only try to refer to the fact that the ethnic background of writes have an affect on the ortography they use in English literature. Hungarian authors use "Csák", Slovakian authors use "Cak" even if they write in English. I try to suggest that the proper English ortography should be followed. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So how will we know what the "proper English orthography" is, if not from what these writers use?  Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If a native English speaker says that "Máté Csák" (used by the Hungarian scholars) or "Matthew Cak" (used by Slovakian scholars). I have to accept. I think in this case "Máté Csák" should be followed, because he was Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count? 

message: User Borsoka said: "Does any source suggest that Máté Csák, Amadé Aba reigned in a "realm"?
:Well, does any source suggest that territories ruled by them were not realms? An realm is defined as a "dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler". I listed my sources on map's page and one of these sources (Peter Rokai - Zoltan Đere - Tibor Pal - Aleksandar Kasaš, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002, page 95) say that these oligarchs "took regal rights for themselves" and that they had "their own armies, administration and juristic systems". "Regal rights" are clearly rights of sovereign rulers. Of course, since my Serbian language history books are not available to you, please see this English language source which say that Máté Csák ruled an "short-lived independent kingdom, which even had its own currency" and that Csák crowned himself as the "King of the Vah and the Tatras". Authors of this book are Rob Humphreys and Tim Nollen. So, Borsoka, do you have some source that say that Máté Csák was not an sovereign ruler and that, therefore, term "realm" is not appropriate? If you do not have such source, please remove "original research" tag from my map since info in that map is clearly supported by the sources that I presented. PANONIAN 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way here is an source that mention exactly term "realm" as a description for a territory ruled by Máté Csák. PANONIAN 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear PANONIAN, the "Rough guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics" does not qualify a reliable source for WP purposes (and actually Matthew Csák was never crowned king of the "Vah and the Tatras" - it is a popular legend similar to the one connected to the vampire Dracula). Similarly, a random expression in a footnote would not properly substantiate the claim that he ever ruled over a "realm". For instance, in the Historical Dictionary of Slovakia (written by Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, ) he is described as a "Magyar warlord who ruled an area that corresponds more or less to present day Slovakia". Please provide reliable sources that substantiate that he (and Amade Aba, Henry Kőszegi, and the other oligarchs) ruled "realms". The "province" expression seems to be more neutral and it is the exact translation of the Hungarian "tartomány" which the sources of the map use. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided this source which using term "realm" and which is credible enough. Or you have some evidence that it is not? If you want to claim that my work is an original research then you have to provide evidence that term "realm" is not used by the sources. In this case, you certainly cannot provide such evidence since I provided this source. You have right to say your opinion about accuracy of this term, but you have no right to say that I was the one who invented this term after I provided source that using this term. Therefore, you have right to post any tag about disputed accuracy (because it is clear that you disputing accuracy and not origin of the term), but you have no right to post "original research" tag because it is clear that term does not originating from me. As for term "province", that term would be completely inaccurate because provinces are official administrative divisions that are part of administrative system of one country. Realms of these oligarchs were complete violation of administrative system of medieval Kingdom of Hungary and therefore they could not be "provinces" by any mean. PANONIAN 18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, only one of the source maps is using word "tartomány". Others are using something like "olygarhok hatalmi korenek kiterjedeset" (oligarch power range extension) or "uralmi teruletei" ("areas of domination"). And word "tartomány" itself is translated as "range" by google translation:  PANONIAN 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the word "tartomány" has several (though related) meanings. "Range" is the English translation of another meaning used mostly in physics and mathematics. Also the Hungarian version of Google Translate translates it to "province" which is the meaning we are after here: http://translate.google.hu/?hl=hu&tab=wT#hu|en|tartom%C3%A1ny 94.21.73.139 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Stephen Sisa the best designation is DOMAIN instead of realm. source The map is also awful. We should re-edit that.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is that term "realm" is also supported by the sources and that it is not incorrect. Yes, different authors used different terms, but there is no evidence that any of those is substantially incorrect - realm, domain, range, all of those is correct description. Anyway, map is here simply to illustrate which area was ruled by Máté Csák and terminology used in that map is pretty much irrelevant for this article. The important thing is that term used in map is not incorrect and whether it is best possible solution or not is a matter of subjective personal judgment of different authors and different users in Wikipedia. Also, Fakirbakir, what exactly you mean by "map is also awful"? Do you have some concrete objections or not? PANONIAN 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Realms everywhere, It is a sort of Lord of the Rings map. We can not call short-lived, temporary entities Realms. Those were not recognized as Kingdom or anything else. They were powerful Hungarian nobles (Máté Csák, Kopasz Borsa, Amádé Aba etc.), however their territories, domains 'officially' belonged to Kingdom of Hungary. Nobody questioned this fact. They were Hungarian !vassal! nobles (even if they did not keep their fealties sometimes). The map suggests something different.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why we cannot call short-lived entities with term "realms"? Realm is realm no matter how long it existed. The only thing what makes something to be an realm is the fact that its ruler was not subordinated to any other ruler in certain period of time. How long this period of time lasted have no impact on definition of an realm. As for "recognition" issue, do you imply that some sort of modern international law existed in the 14th century? Well, there was certainly not something like that in the 14th century - you seeing an 14th century situation with 21st century eyes and that is source of the problem. In medieval times, which ever ruler managed to make himself completely independent from other rulers he was an sovereign. He did not had need to be "officially recognized" by non-existing international institutions. So, there is simply no single evidence for your claim that realms of these rulers "officially belonged to Kingdom of Hungary" (From which international institution of the time that "officialism" could come anyway?). And no, they were not vassals because vassals are paying tribute to their sovereign, which is something that these rulers did not do. Finally, I can agree that "they were only nobles" in some other time periods, but in this specific time period that is presented in this map they were sovereigns, not subordinated to anybody but to themselves. PANONIAN 04:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the main issue is that no reliable source substantiates that the expression "realm" can be used when describing Máté Csák's domains. The only source cited in order to substantiate the claim is a footnote in a historical books that describes certain aspects of the history of the "post-communist world", therefore its reference to a "realm" existing in the Middle Ages is not relevant. Moreover, the cited footnote itself admits that the Slovakian historian (J. M. Kirschbaum) who used this expression in the 1960s in connection with the claim that Máté Csák was Slovakian changed his mind. Reliable sources concentrating on the medieval history of the region use the expression "province" (e.g., Pál Engel: The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526, ISBN 978-85043-977-6, p. 124.). Similarly, no sources was provided to substantiate the claim that the other oligarchs presented in the map (Amadé Aba, etc.) ruled "realms".  Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source that using term "realm" as a description for Máté Csák's domain is here: . I fail to see any evidence that this source is unreliable or that info presented in it is "irrelevant". If main subject of that book is post-communist World that does not mean that its part that dealing with medieval history is incorrect. Also, the source states that mentioned Slovak author changed his opinion about ethnicity of Máté Csák, but not about character of his realm. Also, if we deal with history of Slovakia we should certainly trust more to Slovak historians than to Hungarian ones - the later are often biased and some of them are trying to glorify Greater Hungarism and to diminish history of Slovak statehood as much as they can. PANONIAN 05:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please name modern Hungarian historians who "try to glorify Greater Hungarism" and diminish "Slovak statehood as much as they can", and would you please refer to their books upon which your views are based?  Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several sizable published studies about this issue written by several Serbian historians such are Dimitrije Kirilović, Jovan Pejin, Lazar Stipić and Dr Fedor Nikić. Unfortunately, these studies are not yet available in electronic form and I do not have enough free time to translate quotations from these studies for you. I said that I will change map description (as soon as tomorrow) and let us finish this discussion by that (I would rather do something more useful, if you do not mind). PANONIAN 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if my understanding is correct you cannot name a single modern Hungarian scholar who tries "to glorify Greater Hungarism" and to diminish "Slovak statehood as much as they can", and you cannot refer to a single book written by a modern Hungarian scholar which contains similar statements. I think we all should refrain from qualifying historians (either Hungarians, Serbs, Slovakians or of other nations) whose work we have not read.  Borsoka (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke about general issues related to political and historical conflicts in eastern Europe and the fact that some historians in these countries who are adherents of ideas of national greatness might be biased if they writing about histories of neighboring countries towards which they have political pretensions. It is well known issue in Eastern Europe, so naming one historian by name would be pointless. That is certainly not related only to Hungarian historians - for example, I also do not trust much to Serbian historians either if they writing about history of Kosovo and if their claims are not confirmed by Kosovar Albanian or some independent and neutral sources. In this specific case, my only point was that if claims of one Hungarian historian who writing about history of Slovakia are conflicting with claims of Slovak historians then there is very good chance that Hungarian historian is biased and that his claims should not be used as "undisputed truth". We will never had accurate and NPOV articles in Wikipedia if we do not pay attention to these issues. PANONIAN 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I will change description in map to "domain" if that will satisfy you and if that will prevent you from removing it from the article? I have no problem with term "domain" either, so what ever. PANONIAN 05:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing regarding map description, I changed description in map, as could be seen here in full image size: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Oligarch_realms_1301_1310.png (and I also sent a request to filemover to rename file to "Oligarch domains 1301 1310.png"). However, there is an commons bug with image preview that caused that image preview is still appearing in old version in some thumbnail or image preview sizes. Usually, this is fixed by itself in few days, so I am asking you for some patience - I done all I can and fixing of this commons error is not in my power. PANONIAN 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Realm

message: Now, I just want to say that while usage of any of these terms - "realm", "domain", "area", etc for territory ruled by Máté Csák would be accurate, usage of term "province" is completely wrong and inaccurate because provinces are official administrative units of countries, not domains of de facto independent rulers. Therefore, I would suggest that term "province" is replaced either with term "realm" or "domain" in the text of this article. PANONIAN 05:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Province"

message: Four versions of the article in other languages are already disambiguated, there's no loss if we do it here, too, and it may help articles on the other eponymous people get written. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My move to this effect had been reverted, but now that Matthew II Csák was written, there's little reason not to start disambiguating this properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this move, however, first of all, a request could have been a better solution (perhaps "Máté Csák" is more common in English, or something else). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before the move, I did a quick check on Google Books and found no real reason to think so. I skimmed the previous discussion on the topic and found it rather inconclusive. In the meantime, a significant amount of articles about people from this period were written in which English names were used. It didn't look like there was an actual consensus for the old title, so I went ahead with the move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matthew III Csák. 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/20070711200227/http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/4het/terkep.jpg to http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/4het/terkep.jpg
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) 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified