Talk:Samuel Aba

Untitled
Is he not also called Obo in English? If so, this should be included. Srnec 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never seen him mentioned as Obo; Google doesn't find anything. Alensha 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Aba, King of Hungary → Samuel Aba – there is no need for disambiguation as there is no other notable Samuel Aba in world history. I also took into consideration the titles of articles Harold Godwinson, Petar Svačić, John Zápolya, George of Poděbrady, Hugh Capet, Matthias Corvinus and Stephen Báthory. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I accept Norden1990's argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as well. Including the words "King of Hungary" in the title indeed seems superfluous. K&oelig;rte F a {ταλκ'' }  13:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Superfluous indeed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conversion
@User:Borsoka please mention here why you object to mentioning Samuel Aba's conversion to Catholicism? What do you consider to be in violation of WP:NPOV? For example, is your objection to mentioning any possible Judaic connection to important historic Hungarians? Or is your objection more about protecting the image of Judaism from the idea that anyone would ever want to leave it? 94.11.127.150 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that he may have been Jewish but this is a PoV, not a fact. Borsoka (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * POV is when an editor uses language with a bias. But citing a scholastic theory is not a POV it is a citation. Of course, if the article were written only citing sources from one particular school of thought then that would be another kind of bias That is not the case in this article. I hope this explanation helps.
 * You may want to read WP:NPOV before making comments. Borsoka (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Not Ed and Edemen's son
@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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

No POV pushing and no original research

 * Borsoka, I don't understand the logic of using partof the chronicles unless it is for POV pushing. There is no need to resort to WP:NOR, and it is our responsibility as editors to use common sense. As it is, the article seems to imply that only in the 14th century the descent from Attila is mentioned, completely disregarding the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum.--Giray Altay (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read my remarks above. We are not here to present our views of primary sources but to summarize scholarly views. Kézai's chronicle can be mentioned in relation of Sámuel Aba's descent as soon as a scholar's work is cited to verify it. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just re-edited the article, citing not one but many sources. This took me a lot of time which I could've used to do something more productive in Wikipedia, and was done for nothing, just to be able to mention Kezai. You claim to be promoting neutrality and then try to keep out certain information like this, I don't get it.--Giray Altay (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had cited reliable sources you could have saved much time for both of us. Are you sure that a book published in the early 20th century is still relevant? Please do not request citations if a sentence is verified by a citation to reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did not verify the claim: you cited a popular book about the Teck family, published in 1911; you cited twice the English translation of Simon of Kéza's chronicle; and you cited a German journal that contains no information about Csaba. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think "a book from the 20th century" is not relevant contest the source, DON'T DELETE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH at that. Use templates, as I did. While your removed the templates (without resolving the issues they point out) and the "20th century" book source (by the way, I used more than 5 sources, and the material you support is also backed by a book from the 20th century), you also removed the information you already previously tried to hide. I don't know why you are doing this. I see that you are Hungarian, but I assume good faith. However, I advise you only edit where you have no personal interest.


 * Be aware that this is the second time you remove content from this page. You are not being constructive. This time you also removed content supported by reliable sources. So the next time you do that, I will report you.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote above: you have not verified your claim. Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content justified by "That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit."
User:Surtsicna, like Borsoka, you removed content backed by sources, justifying your action with: ""That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit."" What exactly do you want me to explain, and how that is not an improvement? I have added specific content because the article was missing a fundamental part of the story, and implicitly making false claims. Also Simon of Keza (writing in the 13th century), not just "The Illuminated Chronicle and other 14th-century Hungarian chronicles" (as the article currently says) claimed that Samuel, and the Aba, were of Attilid descent.

What the other user is doing, and you are apparently as well, is hiding information that belongs to this article. That is fundamental to it. If you don't restore the content you deleted, I will report you as well. Giray Altay (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are presenting a claim from a primary source without verifying your edit by a reference to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 5 sources I brought up, five reliable sources I used to back what I added. The one you are referring to is not a primary source, because, though published in a book titled after Simon of Keza's work, those are the statements of the editor of that book, doctor Frank Schaer. Now I am fed up. Here there is something fishy. You are making up excuse after excuse to hide content from this article and I can't understand why. So I am reporting you.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger, I had replied to you in the ANI, but the case was closed as I was writing the reply. I'll also ping User:Bbb23, who's always an editor and maybe can give their opinion.
 * Well, here's the reply: my sources are more modern than those used to support the parts they want to keep.
 * The source used for the other parts is from 1996 (and for the record, is one source, without quotes, nor even links); whereas I am using one source from 2007, one from 1999, one from 2006.--Giray Altay (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

1. First of all, the article mentions that Ed and Edemen were the sons of Csaba, himself a son of Attila, according to chronicles. 2. The sources you are citing are not relevant: a. Glockner (2007) does not verify your reference to Simon of Kéza's work (it verifies that there are chronicles mentioning that Ed and Edemen were Csaba's sons). b. A source published in 1881 could hardly be relevant. Furthermore, Beöthy does not specifically mentions Simon of Kéza's chronicle. c. A romantic history of the Teck family by Felberman from 1911 could hardly be relevant. d. You are referring to an anthology of Hungarian essays published during the last more than hundred years without specifying the author and the essay. e. You are referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. f. Your reference to pages 108-431 of Volume 21 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas indicates that you have not read the allegedly cited source. g. A study published in 1912 could hardly be relevant. h. You are again referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not contain the text you are quoting. Please refrain from further edit warring because it may have had serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * To Borsoka: you are acting out of self-interest, I don't understand why and I can't stand it. Also, I am not sure the edit warring warning you posted on my talk page fits, because I am not undoing your edits, that is, I am not restoring the content you hide, but I am constantly expanding that content with new sources. Your conduct is deplorable and, beside deleting the content, and the sources, you repeatedly removed the templates. Thus you remove the parts of the article you don't like, even if they are legit, and refuse to answer other editors' doubts.


 * To everybody else: look, it is very simple: the article discusses two ancient sources, two ancient books of the Hungarians, but fails to mention a third book, perhaps the most important chronicle (Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum), which makes a claim that is also reported in one of the other two chronicles (and also in the article), namely that Samuel Aba's Aba clan was supposedly of paternal Attilid descent, making his ancestor Edemen of Attilid descent on his father's side. Reporting this third, very important ancient source would reinforce this claim. I don't know why they want to keep this out.


 * One thing nobody mentioned but maybe should be said, is that other editors looking at this should be aware that the fact Samuel Aba was of Jewish descent (which I strongly support) will not be affected by reporting this third source. In fact, it will be reinforced because, as you can read in the Aba family article:

"Csaba was Attila's legitimate son by the daughter of the Greek emperor Honorius. Csaba in turn had two sons, Edemen and Ed. Edemen entered Pannonia with his father's and mother's great entourage (his mother being a Chorasminian) when the Hungarians came back for the second time, whereas Ed remained in Scythia with his father. Csaba is the ancestor of the clan of Aba."

- Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum


 * If anything, reporting Simon of Keza reinforces the assumption that he was of Jewish descent based on yet another mention of the Chorasminian (Khwarezmian/ Cuman) woman.


 * What Borsaka is doing here is the classic game of appealing to rules to perpetrate wrong; that is, they use Wiki rules against Wikipedia itself. But they are playing this game very badly, since though my sources (used to support the obvious) are multiple, reliable, all secondary, and more recent than theirs, they keep claiming that they are primary, or that they are old, or that I am making original research. They are groping on mirrors to push their view in this article. In fact, they are not even groping on mirrors, they are literally pretending not to see and making things up.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I had said to myself I would not even try to address your points again, but I had a cursory look at your reply and now noticed you have started to flat-out lying:

"Your reference to pages 108-431 of Volume 21 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas indicates that you have not read the allegedly cited source."


 * So here you call me a liar and imply you read this book. Uhm. I don't doubt you understand German, but how were you able to order the book and read 323 pages in less than a day?

"You are again referring to Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum - it is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not contain the text you are quoting."


 * Here you call me a liar and yourself lie. That source does contain the text quoted!


 * And for the uptenth time, those are not primary sources. In one source, the words of the compiler, CEU Press's Frank Schraer, are used to support the content, not the words of Simon of Keza. That is a secondary source, just like all other sources.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, and for the last time, the article mentions that Ed and Edemen were the sons of Csaba, himself a son of Attila, according to chronicles. As soon as you find a reliable source mentioning in the article's context that Simon of Kéza's chronicle also contains this information, all this discussion can be closed. However, so far, you have not referred to a single reliable source. Your references to hundreds of pages in random collections of Hungarian essays of the last 100+ years, or to more than 300 pages in a German historical periodical that contains dozens of articles are useless. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Please remember WP:Edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to ask Borsoka, but is this a joke? What is your problem?
 * "Aba Clan - It is one of the oldest Hungarian clans. According to tradition, King Sámuel Aba, the ruler from 1041 to 1044, was heros eponymos. He was descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, the Khabar leader"


 * King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba, King Sámuel Aba
 * descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen, descended from Csaba's son, Edemen
 * "Csaba's role is even more complicated. According to the chronicle, Csaba is the son of Attila, the father of Edemér and Ed of Kún, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba''"


 * Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila, Csaba is the son of Attila
 * and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba, and the great-grandfather of Sámuel Aba
 * "This is how the court historian - according to Riedl's evidence - connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns through Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila"


 * connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns, connects King Sámuel Aba and the Aba clan with the Huns
 * Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila, Csaba, whom he makes the son of King Attila
 * "This is all the more significant because Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with one of the prominent baronial families of his own time (viz. the Aba clan) / Samuel Aba was king of Hungary 1041-44. The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor (see ch. 22 and Szucs above p. LXIX) was related to King"


 * Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan, Csaba is the only figure in Hunnish history whom Master Simon links genealogically with the Aba clan
 * The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor, The Aba Kindred, the only noble clan Simon connects with a Hun ancestor
 * All this, all this loss of time just to thwart your attempts to game the system, to put in the article what you knew exists, and you knew should be put in it from the first moment. You can keep this farce going, and you can keep making threats, calling up other editors to WP:BULLY a little bit more, it doesn't matter. I will not give up. What you are doing is wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that now you have included in the text "According to the anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum, Samuel's family descended from two "Cuman" chieftains, Ed and Edemen, who received "a great land in the forest of Mátra" from Árpád, Grand Prince of the Hungarians around 900. Simon of Kéza's late-13th-century Gesta Hungarorum'',"
 * EDIT How can you claim on your page to promote neutrality and then a) keep on deleting reliable, secondary sources and instead placing a cn template where they ought to be b) remove the templates I legitimately placed (justifying this action with "no need") c) for one book (the Gesta Hungarorum, the one you want to keep in the article) not indicate the century in which it was written, whereas doing so for Simon Keza's work ("late-13th century") d) place a link to Anonymous (and his work) but not for Simon of Keza?
 * I am now going to add sources to the article and place some templates requesting quotes. Please, do not delete the templates again.--Giray Altay (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gentle editors: It is apparent that the two of you disagree.  Could we not put in the alternate theories and their respective sources?  Then the readers can decide which they want to pursue/believe/disbelieve.  Wikipedia is not a zero sum game.  And your incessant interminable discussion is not helping.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this edit was aimed at a compromise: . The sentence contains all relevant information, only the reference to Simon of Kéza should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more complicated than that... There are no alternate theories... The argument is on whether adding to the article an earlier source that would reinforce a certain argument already present in the article.
 * In the article, there is a 14th-century source saying something, and a 13th-century source saying something else, though the sources do not contradict each other in this sense. Adding another 13th century source jibing with the 14th century one would reinforce the latter's argument.
 * The argument is an alleged ancient genealogy. The older the source, the stronger the claim.
 * P.S. I recently added two the article two more sources 1 and 2 Giray Altay (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not more complicated. Encyclopedical articles do not repeat the same information in two consecutive sentences. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Borsoka apparently does not reject such addition; instead, they claim the sources I have provided (these sources    ) are not good. The dispute may be resolved by a third party verifying whether these sources are valid (for the claim: Simon of Kéza's  Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum reports that the Aba clan descended from Prince Csaba, a son of Attila the Hun, thus making Samuel, a member of this clan, a descendant of Attila). Giray Altay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, I remember them saying multiple times to me and other editors that "as soon as someone finds sources we can put it in the article" or something of that kind (I can find evidence for that).
 * It is only a matter of some other editor checking if those sources are fine. Giray Altay (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To use their words:
 * Kézai's chronicle can be mentioned in relation of Sámuel Aba's descent as soon as a scholar's work is cited to verify it
 * As soon as you find a reliable source Giray Altay (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Kristó (1980) is a reliable source. You cannot remember what I was saying to other editors multiple time because you are a new editor. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to this, I have already mentioned here (1) (quote My vague suspect that there might be some personal interest in keeping one chronicle out for them was enhanced by noticing that they had already tried to keep such chronicle out of the article) that I noticed what you did reviewing this page, because, you know, you have kept me blocked here for almost three days now, so I read it.
 * The implication of what you say is that I might be the other "editor", right? I shall notice that the other "user" is an IP address (94.11.127.150) and they are not blocked.
 * You have a fundamental lack of good faith. You have so fare accused me of vandalism, WP:NOTHERE (even going leafleting on other pages 2) and now also implied sockpuppetry, I guess? But the only one conducting disruptive behavior is you.
 * The way you are trying to hide stuff from this article is so evident, it is ridiculous. The only thing I don't understand is why nobody is saying anything. Borsoka is literally saying those source are primary, old and misquoted. Giray Altay (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I modified the text. It now mentions Simon of Kéza's chronicle based on a reference to a reliable source. I will not comment on your above message but I maintain all my remarks about you. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you will not comment, it makes you look like an idiot.
 * I will now re-add the multiple, valid sources provided above.
 * Placing just once source could be making ground for a future dispute of the source and deletion of content. Giray Altay (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)