Talk:Böszörmény

Untitled
Very good article, much much better and deeper than the hungarian article (shame on us hungarians). But anyway thank you for it! 37.76.53.41 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Kniezsa's map
The argument "The verifiable name layers from the early period of the conquest were subjected to study in Hungary from the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in early historical place-name typologies (Moór 1936: 110–117, Kniezsa 1938, 1943, 1944, 1960, Kertész 1939: 33–39, 67–77, Kristó 1976), the results of which are still to this day largely accepted by the research community without reservation" was already refuted. It was documented and properly sourced that Kristó belongs to Kniezsa's critics. If their conclusions are not compliant, both of them cannot be valid. It means that we cannot use this statement to prove a validity of Knieza's theories, but it can be used also to refute them (= Kristó). Exactly the same argument was already rejected here, more about Kristó here and of course, "the acceptance without reservation" is seriously questioned here.

The map was published in 1938, uploaded 2 years ago and since 22:08, 19 January 2013, the uploader is not able to properly document its reliability. The topic was largely disputed right on the talk page of the map. Since 05:50, 19 March 2015‎ (see ) there are not any new arguments.

I strongly suggest to use it exclusively as a historical work and to not push it as a some reliable knowledge for the modern encyclopedia.--Ditinili (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been criticized by some recently but hasn't been refuted. It's a fact that Kniezsa is still frequently cited in the scientific literature. . Actually, it wouldn't really matter if the map was outdated. The article clearly states that it is NOT a new study ("according to Kniezsa (1938)"). There is no better map for the 11th century Turkic groups at the moment. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is refuted. We have already discussed it. The fact that Kniezsa is still cited does not prove accuracy and validity of the concrete work. Your link is only a link to the source of the quote above. It simply contains references to various scholars, including those whose works contradict each other (= as I wrote above). Surprisingly, when your arguments are refuted in one article, you unfortunately use to forget it and then (after some time) try to push the same opinion. Your arguments were already refuted in 3 different discussions.
 * If you are able to properly mention the problems with the map (published in 1938, non-compliance with later archeological research, non-compliance with newer onomastics works, methodological mistakes, limited dataset used as a basis), I have no problem with its usage. Otherwise, I will simply remove the reference. (By the way, the value of the 1938 map based on the limited data set of toponyms for the Saracens is pretty low). Ditinili (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will take a look at the earlier discussions you linked. In your opinion, what would be a better / modern / alternative theory? K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shortly, if we do not have a really reliable map for the article, we cannot use outdated scholarly material from 1938 only to have some map.--Ditinili (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not outdated but debated. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of his findings related to this map were "debated" in 40's. Nowadays, it is outdated. It does not mean that he did not contribute to science. Ditinili (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It boggles the mind that there's a push to use maps from 1938s' Hungary, a time when irredentism was at its height which had negative effect on the impartiality of historical research. The data from this map is going against modern research done in Hungary and elsewhere. Azure94 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kniezsa had nothing to do with "irredentism". He remained a respected scholar even after WW2. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that this article is about our current knowledge of the Böszörmény, and not what some people imagined about them in 1938. It's obvious that we should use accurate and up to date info and not something from 1938 that is tainted with nationalism of a society heading to WWII. Azure94 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of its level of reliability, I wonder how much is the map relevant here, since it is an ethnic map, while the article is about a religious group. 79.117.199.186 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, you may have your point. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Böszörmény. 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/20080201055304/http://www.magyariszlam.hu/eng/history.html to http://www.magyariszlam.hu/eng/history.html
 * Added tag to http://www.hajduporta.hu/english/index.php?id=page1300

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) 05:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ismailis?
Part of a series on Ismailism yet no mention of Ismailism in the article. If these people were Maghrebians or Volga Tatars then neither of these are Ismaili groups. Perhaps there is a confusion here between Ishmaelites and Ismailis?


 * You are correct. In fact, per this source, even some scholars have tried to argue that Ishmaelite (in Latin sources) = Ismaili, presumably believing that Westerners were merely 'translating' an Arabic term when they chose to use 'Ishmaelite'. Srnec (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)