User talk:Avaring

Kingdom of Hungary
Got any source for yr statement(s)? Because its the official and internationally accepted definition. see www.hungary.hu.
 * Yes, the Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica, written by the Hungarian Academy of Science, and online on the Hungarian National Library page (mek.oszk.hu), and the C.I.A. countrystudies. As for www.hungary.hu, well I know the foggyness with which history is attempted to be presented. The age of Muslim Hungary is always disregarded and ignored, even if for almost 200 years, Hungary was a Muslim territory, and instead all historiography insist only on "Royal Hungary", despite the fact that most of Royal Hungary was not in todays Hungary. This hate againts muslims remains to this day. The same for the supposed "freedom-fighters" on the streets of Budapest today, who are mostly skin-heads racists, anti-islamic hooligans Avaring 09:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Hungary
Please stop with inclusion of link to Ottoman Hungary article everywhere. The term itself is very POV and came from Hungarian nationalistic POV that this territory was "a Hungary occupied by the Ottoman Empire" and that is very wrong: that territory was not Hungary at all but an integral part of the Ottoman empire and was divided into eyalets like any other part of the Empire and these eyalets did not had name "Hungary" in them. So, claiming that it was Hungary is very POV. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hungary
Welcome!

I'm happy to see others intrested in Hungarian history. Since you've been called a POVer and a hungarian nationalist (welcome to the club) you should be a valuable editor :)

For Hungary: CIA World factbook, and Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica. (under the the "Történelem" headline). Since I'm using the same encyclopedia, what you mentioned above (and linked here by me) I'm really suprised abt yr edits on Hungary. Or we're not reading the same book? Let me know the pages, please! BTW I'm more than happy, that we're using the same encyclopedia :-)

What I read above: I've never heard of any anti-islamic action here, or anti islamic protests. You should read the article 2006 protests in Hungary, to get informed, who really were on the streets. Not anti islamic or whatever ppl, but anti-government ppl. and soccer hooligans. These hooligans rioted, and they went only to riot, not to protest against anybody, especially not against muslims. Sorry, but yr statement above "[...]who are mostly skin-heads racists, anti-islamic hooligans" is officially proved to be false. Not other, but soccer hooligans rioted, for the "joy" of rioting, and "protesting" maximum against the government or the police itself. I do not know, how did you got to that point, that any of them were anti islamic. (???) They never were. It was never in mind.

"The age of Muslim Hungary is always disregarded and ignored, even if for almost 200 years, Hungary was a Muslim territory, and instead all historiography insist only on "Royal Hungary" absolutely NOT true. Maybe you've already noticed that it is mentined everywhere, where it should be. Maybe only in a compact form, but this is due to wikipedia's official policy about the length of the parts of (and the whole) article. Definietly not disregarded or ignored, turkish bath, minarets, mosques and such buildings made by the turkish (ottoman) ppl are usually major tourist attractions, in cultural and other aspects also (if they were present at the given place) are also tourist attractions. Buildings' name kept in their turkish names, just see Pécs or Eger, or Budapest (the capital), or any other place wich once belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Maybe you shoud visit Hungary sometime, to see with your own eyes, how gross error is what you're claiming above. It is definietly not true.--Vince hey, yo! :-) 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom
Regarding the AfD - the initial "article" was a redirect, and therefore should be handled under RfD and not AfD. If you want to get rid of the redirect, go to: Redirects for discussion and add it there. (I have no opinion on this, just a procedural notification. SkierRMH 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mailat
Do you know where was he born? Because according to these maps, Ţînţari (today called Dumbrăviţa) is not Comana, though the two are close. Biruitorul 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This site says that he was from the "Comana de Jos" community, the "Comana de Sus" village, but the author seems to be confused too. I don`t remember from where I got Tintari. I think from an old book (19th century). I doubt this issue will ever be clarified. Avaring 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not without some further research. At least we do know the general area, though. Biruitorul 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

--Horatziou 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Ştefan Mailat was born in the village of Comǎna de Jos, in now Braşov district. To be not confounded with Comǎna de Sus, which is very closed, at 3 km, in the Perşani Mountains. This tho villages take part now of Comǎna Commune, Braşov district.