Talk:List of Papal Tithes from 1332–1337 in the Kingdom of Hungary

Neutrality
Using exclusively Hungarian sources to talk about the medieval population of Transylvania. What a great idea. Ideally users deciding to involve themselves in the terrible headache that is historiography of Transylvania would try to address both sides' postures. Instead, there is a grand total of zero Romanian authors here. , there are Romanian authors disputing what the Hungarian authors you've cited claim. This source claims that while 95 Transylvanian villages were counted 65 others were excluded. Only in this search there is a wide range of Romanian sources commenting on these documents. I would appreciate it if from now on you would either reconsider working on this topic area or give appropriate weight to the two theories. Super  Ψ   Dro  22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the feedback! I do not know the Romanian sources, if you know them please add the Romanian point of view to the article which relating to this papal list to present both viewpoints. OrionNimrod (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That should have been your responsibility as editor in a contentious topic area. Other users shouldn't be behind your edits to correct what you did. For that reason but also for my lack of interest in this area I will not bother in researching. Hopefully this will not be a recurring issue into the future. Otherwise it will be necessary to bring this to the administrators. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I cannot know everything. That document was created in the Kingdom of Hungary, so there are many Hungarian sources about this and about the population estimation by this source. I used that, I also provided links to all of them. I also use historian works only what I can access online, I suppose there are many which is not avaliable online. I cannot know what is the interpretation of all other historians in other countries regarding this. I also do not speak Romanian, so I cannot access Romanian views regarding this, I also think this topic is not popular to find everywhere.
 * I suppose you have issue with the Transylvanian section, not the other parts right? I provided Hungarian sources regarding this, it would be not a "correction", but "addition" to provide the Romanian view regarding this. I do not think the lack of knowledge or the limited access for other sources would be administration thing. I am unable to visit Romanian library in Bucharest, and I am unable to read studies in Romanian language. Please ask a topic-expert Romanian contributor to update that section. Or do you think it would be not possible to create any Hungarian related pages without the presence of any Romanian sources regarding the Hungarian history? Or because the topic mentions Transylvania? Or should we remove that section until Romanian sources avaliable?
 * Btw for example I saw many Hungarian related topics have no Hungarian contents, probably because many English wiki pages was written by others. For example some years ago the Transylvanian topic almost ignored all 1000 years of Hungarian events, and it was filled up only with Romanian events, only ancient Dacia and maps from 20th century, etc, I did not see anybody who would opposed about this. I think that was the task of Hungarian contributors to write their knowledge their. Btw I happy to solve your issue according to my best knowledge. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)