The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. v/r - TP 00:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons for a deltion are next. I have found a 2 serious books about Hungarian history which says nothing about principality. 1. (http://books.google.com/books?id=y0g4YEp7ZrsC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false) In the article, you can read, its written that the founder of state is Istvan, before that the Hungarians were not united (he was elected as a king in 25 Dec. 1000/ 1 Jan. 1001) 2. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false) again nothing about Hungarian principality in 9th century, its wirtten that in the 896 when the Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic semi-nomadic people came to the Carpathian basin: "it was a no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a Carpahian basin as a their new home" Authors are Hungarian historians and sources are reliable. There is a nothing about "Principality of Hungary" But its next books, I can a find later, whose says nothing about Hungarian principality. It exist only one book which used this therm for this early period (http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&lpg=PA19&dq=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&hl=sk&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&f=false). This historian has a specialization about modern history espetialy about Stalinism. Information in the book is: "Magyar clans from Asia came in the late 9th century and established a principality of Hungary." This therm was for a first time used in the 1993. There are no concrete years and nothing more about this "principality". On the other hand the seriouse books says nothing about existention of Principality of Hungary. They says that Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic tribes were a semi-nomadic and its no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home. This user makes a lot of such edits without consensus, for exmaple in Royal Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) deleted and redirected article without discussion at talk page. Royal Hungary ([1]) was a province of Habsburg Empire and this user tries to make a Separe Article about continuity of Hungarian Kingdom, which was divided in 16th century between Ottoman empire, Habsburg empire and Transylvania. He made a article Hungarian invasions of Europe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Royal+Hungary%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=161150l166399l0l166520l29l23l0l0l0l6l209l3040l7.13.2l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=144a467f858ec791&biw=1246&bih=645) and this therm does not exist. It were a raids, as it is a written in the next 2 books above (usualy the moss-trooping raids). User is not open for discussion and he is a problematic and calls other users nationalists who hates Hungarians ([2]). Samofi (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Samofi, Could you please stop your personal attack against me?

• About the page. There are reliable sources about the theme. There is no valid reason to cease that article.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources says nothing about "Principality of Hungary". Just the term is mentioned in the book from Hodos without explanation and more proper informations. Other sources says nothing about the existention of this "principality". --Samofi (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the sources again. For instance, Cited: '10th-century Hungarian principality' Bartha, p. 84 Fakirbakir (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. The English sources do mention the term principality: Hodos, p. 19: "Magyar clans... established the principality of Hungary", Bartha p. 84: "the 10th century Hungarian Principality", Steinhübel in Europe's centre around AD 1000 p. 327: "This caused the area of the Arpad settlement to shift to the western regions of the principality of Hungary. And the Hungarian term nagyfejedelemség apparently translates to both "Grand Duchy" and "Grand Principality". But the English terminology is clearly attested. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The term 'principality of Hungary' is used in several sources. Everyone doesn't write identically. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The existence of the Hungarian realm before the "Kingdom of Hungary" was founded is a historical fact. It can be discussed what would be the best name for the article, but the article should exist. Here is a quote from the journal "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names". Other English examples that talk about "principality": [3] [4]. Also see my comment about this on the Talk page of the History of Hungary article. Koertefa (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Hodos does not say that principality was created in the end of 9th century. He told that Hungarians came in the end of 9th century and later was a principality created. We have used only sources from the Hungarian authors, is it neutral? And we will ignore a lot of scholar publications whose says that hungarians started to create the state after 955? "Cited: '10th-century Hungarian principality' Bartha, p. 84" 10th century is from 900 to 999, not 895. But the real principality or grand principality was created at the end of 10th century. Article was nominated for deletion because here were propagandistic statements like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=447848521&oldid=99249097 : "Hungarian is one of the oldest countries in Europe, established in 895, some 60 years after the division of France and Germany at the Treaty of Verdun in 843, before the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." So again, do we ignore a majority of scholar publications whose says nothing about Principality of Hungary before 955? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cleanup the silly WP:Bombardment and integrate better with the existing articles on the topic. Submitter has valid concerns about article quality, and indeed our Hungarian history articles are infested with nationalism, but AfD isn't the place to resolve this. If the article is crap, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • essentially, this is our "10th century in Hungary" / Christianization of Hungary article. It has no other content than Christianization of Hungary if we disregard the duplication of Magyar invasion of Pannonia. Thus, the article is valid, but the title as it stands isn't very descriptive, and "Christianization of Hungary" may be preferable. But this is not a severe problem, let alone one for AfD. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Something (Principality) did exist before the Kingdom of Hungary. But we are probably talking about the Principality from 970s to 1000, not from 895? Before 970 we are talking about Principality of Lower Pannonia. Yes/No??--Kebeta (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Lower Pannonia existed before the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin, but it perished after the arrival of the Hungarian tribes. Many sources claim that this was around the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 10th century. It surely did not last until 970. But we should discuss these questions on the Talk page of the article itself. Koertefa (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE Maybe I reacted too fast with the deletion but the article in that time looked differently than now. Before 972 we can hardly to talk about Principality, its just a few sources which mentioned that. But we can talk about Hungarian tribal union: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hungarian+tribal+union%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk The first Grand prince who connected a majority of the Hungarian tribes to the one supra-tribal union (principality) was a Geza and shortly after that Hungarians founded a Christian kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Wikipedia articles often need to be allowed time for expansion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment2Okay, but why it was created with so many uncited sources and fakes? Its reason to delete it and make a new article. Article about Slovaks in Hungary was deleted and Slovaks are after Roma people and Germans the largest minority in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovaks_in_Hungary). I agree, there was a lot of unsourced matherial in the article, but the term exist, 1 860 hits in google books (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Slovaks+in+Hungary%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk). This article was deleted very easy in the few days. So how is it going with the deletion? --Samofi (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The term Principality of Hungary in this context isn't used by any scholar. However, the subject is notable and parts of it can be moved to Hungarian invasions of Europe or a new article titled Hungarian confederation or a similar term used by scholars can be created.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The Hungarian Academy of Science is not adequate for you? (this is academic source) "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names"Fakirbakir (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment3 99% of the sources says nothing about Hungarian principality between 896-972, it was a Tribal union. This simple source is a not significant minority view and the neutrality is disputed. And we cannot check it. --Samofi (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many scholars, for example, the ones that were cited earlier, explicitly talk about the "Principality of Hungary", the "Hungarian Principality" or the "Age of Principality". They are unambiguous about that. The Hungarian tribes were led by a "(Grand) Prince" that is why we are talking about a "(Grand) Principality". If you think that these are just minority views, then please cite some scientific sources that claim the contrary. Koertefa (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment4The term prince does not mean that the principality was established: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prince It could be a "A nobleman of varying status or rank".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So According to your set of mind the pagan Lithuanian Principality was only a tribal union?Fakirbakir (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover Tribal confederacy means Principality.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"So According to your set of mind the pagan Lithuanian Principality was only a tribal union?" - give me a sources about that. "Moreover Tribal confederacy means Principality" - give me a sources. Iam tired from a plenty of your unsourced nationalistic informations, fakes, personal opinions, fairytales or legends.. Majority of sources talks about Hungarian tribal union so article should be renamed. --Samofi (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source: The assebly was ordered to attack the Hungarian Tribal Alliance/Principality [5], You can find a lot of sources about the pagan Lithuanian Principality. This was my final comment here. Because this discussion is closed.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribal Alliance (about to become the Hungarian Principality). you again lie and cite not properly --Samofi (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the source again. PAGE 20. There is the full sentence. And After that, I expect a pardon from you.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One not neutral Hungarian source.. But Okay, one more reason to rename. We have a lot of sources which says about Tribal alliance, confederation or union - just a 3 talks about principality. --Samofi (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchal organization among the Hungarians doesn't seem to have the traits common to a principality(POlitical Order).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a discussion about the rename of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary#Requested_move --Samofi (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per sources brought by De728631. The principality existed and the title is correct as per English sources. However I fully agree with dab's comments on cleanup.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the terms "Principality of Hungary" and "Hungarian tribal federation" are used in several sources. Árpád and his descendants served as Grand Prince (nagyfejedelem) but we also know after Árpád the princes had no real power.--Norden1990 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There are lots of source about Principality of Hungary (see its page and talkpage).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per sources. This request indicates that nom's interests are nothing but naming and content. Takabeg (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Should be obvious at this point. Volunteer Marek  11:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Loads of WP:RS and notable as a former country. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:SNOW. HairyWombat 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.