Talk:Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum

Untitled

Calling it "imaginative" has the airs of a sarcastic insult. It would be more worthwhile to actually point out what portions are popularly considered incorrect.

Simon Kezai, to my knowledge, believed statements made in his writings to be common knowledge. And let's not forget that Western chroniclers of the time were of the opinion that Huns and Hungarians were the descendants of demons.

--69.158.22.6 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite sources for your statements. Calling a historical chronicle a "fictional legend collection" (sic! sic!! sic!!!) is an awfully dilletant move. Don't neglect stupidity, wipe it out, as I did! - John

Ps:You sould aware of Juro's writings, I've found it several times misleading and dilettant. You should regularly check him. I don't have time for that. xx

Yes, I can confirm that. But above all, I find the edits of a certain Vince B, Zello and Ale(n?)sha very misleading and dilletant. Actually they are all wrong to the extent that all content regarding Hungarian history in the English wikipedia is just plainly wrong. But I have no time for that. yy

Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum

The standard English translation of this work refers to it as "Gesta Hungarorum" (Simonis de Kéza: Gesta Hungarorum - Simon of Kéza: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited and translated by László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer with a study by Jenő Szűcs) (1999). CEU Press. ISBN 963-9116-31-9.). Is there any reliable source mentioning it under the title "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum"? Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Did you even try to look for some? I easily found hundreds. It is usually called by its full title, and always has been, to avoid confusion with another work called Gesta Hungarorum (Anonymi) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add one or two of those hundreds of reliable sources written in English. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. When the title of a book is this ridiculously easy to establish, we don't require citations that it really is the title of the book - and "original research" certainly cannot apply, because that implies that a wikipedian made up this title. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, your above words mean that the present title of the article cannot be attributed to a reliable source written in English. Am I wrong? If the article's title is an invention by a wikipedia editor, the article should be renamed in accordance with WP:NAME. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is incorrect; that is the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying this title can easily be attributed to hundreds of reliable sources, including several written long before wikipedia was conceived, and thus cannot possibly be the invention of any wikipedia editor. Are you having trouble with the syntax for refining the search term, or are you blocked from parts of the internet? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add one of those sources (especially one of those before this article was created). Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it too trivial to comply, especially given the triviality of finding reliable sources that use this title. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore the article should be renamed in order to comply with WP:NAME. The standard English translation of the work refers to it as "Gesta Hungarorum". Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd get too far with renaming it, since this work by Kezai is mainly known to scholars as Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, and another work by Anonymous is known to scholars as Gesta Hungarorum. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the standard English translation, C. A. Macartney in his "The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical & Analytical Guide" (ISBN 978-0-521-05620-5) also refers to this work as "Gesta Hungarorum". We should not invent new titles for well known chronicles. Therefore, the article should be properly renamed. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a typical standard source in English from 1993 referring to it as Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum. How many more refs would you like? I hope it doesn't have to be one of those things where it says "The Article Title[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] is a..." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source. Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them: [1], [2], [3], [4] (German), [5], [6]. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]