Talk:Betyár

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Language

I started editing/correcting this article, as it is terribly written but I gave up, there's just too many mistakes and I guess it should be either completely rewritten or simply deleted. In its current shape it makes no sense. Another argument for deletion is the already existing article for Highwayman, it mentions Janosik and the like. --109.196.118.133 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because if we follow the reasoning of this deletion we will have to delete different pages of historical bandit groups( as Klephts, Thuggees, Dacoity, Hajduks etc...).Fakirbakir (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article

40k seraches of word Betyar but they are also about 40k searches of the word Zbojnik. English and the neutral one is the Carpathian Highwaymen. And this is English Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we take a closer look, most of the search results are not in English (it is true for both "zbojnik" and "betyár"). If, for example, we add "highwayman" to the search query (to ensure English results), we get 60 hits for "zbojnik" [1] and 239 for "betyár" [2], therefore, about 80% of the English sources use the word "betyár" (and the suggested "Carpathian highwayman" is practically nonexistent, since it only provides 2 hits). There is no need to move. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak, Czech, Polish and Goral highwaymen were zbojniks. I dont know about source where it would be written that Janosik was Betyar. Or that goral highwaymen were betyars. Carpathian Highwaymen is term covering zbojniks and betyars. I did not rewrite term betyar in the connection with Hungarian folk tradition as you can see, but I think its unacceptable call the all outlaws from the KoH with the term Betyar. My question is, if to write 1 article about zbojinks and betyars. Or 2 separate articles. --Samofi (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zbojniks deserve an own article as well. But I can not understand why this article should be deleted?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I dont support deletion, but it was for a few reasons. Because it was mentioned here and we could make a expansion of the section: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Highwayman#Hungary.2FSlovakia there were no citations here, and the name of article covered mostly "non betyars". --Samofi (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should indeed consider creating a separate article for zbojniks. Regarding this article, please note that even Encyclopaedia Britannica has a "betyár" article [3], so it seems quite natural to have an article about betyárs at the English Wikipedia, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we would make a 2 separate articles it will be 2 small articles. IMAGINE, that it would exist 2 separate articles about highwaymen in KoH and than read this please: WP:MERGE especially about overlap and WP:NOTDICDEF. Than write here again if you really want to make a 2 separate articles with Hungarian and Slavic names about highwaymen in KoH. I know about this article in Britannica. Btw in the Britannica is a lot of mistakes and its a tertiary source. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the "betyár" word is already established in English to denote highwaymen in the 17th-19th century Kingdom of Hungary. Hundreds of English books [4] use it as well as it has an article on Encyclopaedia Britannica [5]. This term has no ethnic implications, we can call Juraj Jánošík a Slovak betyár. If for some reasons you do not like this, you might consider creating an article for "zbojniks" or simply extending the "highwayman" article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I will cite your source: "betyár, plural betyárok, a highwayman in 19th-century Hungary" " They are first mentioned in legal documents about 1800", Janosik died in 1713. "The highwaymen of the Great Alfold traveled on horseback, while those in Transdanubia went on foot or in stolen carriages" Zbojniks are from Carpathians and not from Transdanubia or Alfold. " Hungarian highwaymen were rather individualistic" as I know, Carpathian zbojniks made a larger groups.. --Samofi (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please source to this: ""betyár" word is already established in English to denote highwaymen in the 17th-19th century Kingdom of Hungary"; "Hundreds of English books use it", so please write here 10 English reliable sources which deals with this term in the connection with highwaymen. --Samofi (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]