Talk:Glad

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see /Delete.

Glad was a fictious legendary person. Like most persons of the Gesta Hungarorum, he was a pure invention. - pls provide reference to a demonstration that Glad was a pure invention -- Criztu 21:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof that Glad was only invention and legendary person. In fact, some indirect proofs can confirm his existence, like names of the places probably named after him: Gladna, Galad, Kladovo (Gladovo), Glad monastery, etc. User:PANONIAN

Or vice versa...:) Juro 00:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, name Gladovo in Slavic languages means "the place, which belong to Glad". So, it cannot be vice versa in this case. Here are other similar names founded in Republika Srpska: Gladovic, Gladovici, Gladov do, Gladova vrtaca, Gladov vrh, Gladov krs. All these places are obviously named after person, whose name was Glad. My point is that Glad is confirmed personal name, and that could be indirect proof that name of duke Glad doesn’t come from the name of place, but vice versa. User:PANONIAN

(1) The truth is "vice versa". There is no proof that he really existed as the person decribed in the document, and given that other persons have been proovably invented as well, it is only logical to assume that Glad is an invention as well (and not to say "there is no proof that he is an invention" - that would be a quite strange type of reasoning, because as a rule in history one has to proof that something exists and not that something does not exist). (2) Gladovo does not necesarily mean "that belongs to Glad", it only means "place of Glad". (3) The quite obvious point is that Glad could have been anyone at any time: from a god, an animal, a figure from fairy tales to anybody. What Mag. P or his predecessors did (or could have done) is, like in many cases, that he saw that there was some important "Glad" in that region, so he named one of my main "players" after this "Glad".Juro 13:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the place names may indicate that there was a figure (or figures) of importance named Glad in these regions in the past. Alexander 007 05:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

saying "according to GH Gelou Glad and Menomorout were local rulers conquered by the magyars" doesn't mean "Gelou Glad and Menumorout realy existed and the proof is GH", it simply means "Gelou Glad and Menumorout were some characters in a chronicle" (one could affirm in the GH article that "the events and characters described in GH are not confirmed by other chronicles from the same timeframe, or by an archaeological research" -- Criztu 18:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juro, Criztu, first see these links (if you didn’t saw them before):

Now, here is quote: The "Gesta Hungarorum" contains correct facts, inaccurate facts, and information on Transylvania that cannot be confirmed from other sources. Some of the work is directly from earlier sources, and covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The following are some commonly referenced parts with commentary regarding Transylvania. You may choose to believe them or not! So, only parts of Gesta Hungarorum, which contradict other sources, can be for sure considered to be invention. However, there are also parts of it, which are confirmed by other sources, and there are parts, which are neither confirmed neither disproved by other sources. Story about duke Glad is one of those. Other sources do not confirm his existence, but also do not deny his existence as well. You say that it is logical to assume that Glad is an invention. How so? On what facts you base this statement? Here is another logic: Other sources confirming that region in question was part of Bulgaria in that time, so, why it is not logical that some local Bulgarian duke such is Glad ruled the area? You say that somebody has to prove that something in history exist and not to prove that something doesn’t exist. However, Glad is mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum, so, somebody also have to prove that this part of chronicle, which speaks about duke Glad is inaccurate. Until somebody prove this, only thing which we can say about Glad for sure is that he maybe existed and maybe not, As quote above says: you may chose to believe in his existence or not. As for name Gladovo, I do not know what of two English translations of this name is better, but according to grammatical laws of Serbian language, this place was named after person whose name was Glad, as well as other mentioned places in Republika Srpska. Of course, you are right that this person could be anyone in any time. Yet, places in question could be also named after duke Glad, since he is only known person with this name. And to repeat again, somebody who claims that Glad didn’t existed should to prove that part of Gesta Hungarorum, which speaks about him, is invention. So far, I didn’t saw such a proof here. User:PANONIAN

More quotes about this subject:

http://www.geocities.com/amadgearu/notary.html

"Being a medieval gesta, the purpose of the source was not the recording of the past, but the legitimation of the present by means of history. GH has a propagandistic character. Its prototype was another Gesta Ungarorum, written in the late 11th century. The Anonymous Notary (also known as Anonymus) used several traditions and oral genealogies, but he tried to write a truthful story. His critical spirit is remarkable. It is also true that his work contains several anachronisms and confusions. Despite such confusions, GH remains a valuable source. The Byzantine and Frankish sources confirm the remembrance of the Bulgarian domination in the lower basin of the Tisa."

"The rest of our book discusses the chapters 9 and 24-27. The third passage concerns the campaign through Banat towards Bulgaria (934). The existence of the local ruler Glad is proved by the survival of his name in the toponymy. In this passage the Blaci are mentioned among the allies of Glad. There is no reason to deny this information. The Cumans involved too in this alliance might be the Kavars."

"The chronology of the events described in ch. 24-27 is unclear. We are not sure about the date during Arpad’s age and we suggest a later chronology, after 927, when the Bulgarian hegemony fell. The Hungarian warriors began their inroads in East after 933 when they were defeated at Merseburg. The attack against the duke Glad in Banat is dated too in 934."

User:PANONIAN

OK, I will explain my point using an example: He proovably completely invented a person called Zobor and a whole story around him. He took the name after the historically "famous" Zobor hill in Nitra, whose name is older (and about which, in additon, a Czech chronicle tells a completely different story for a different time). The whole story is a lie. Why should I a-priori assume that anything he writes is correct unless the opposite is proven, if I know that he is able to invent (or use from other wrong sources) a whole story and a person? The only logical thing is to assume that he is a-priori wrong and find proofs for the opposite. In other words, of course it is possible that the Glad story is correct, but I see not even a 10% chance of it beeing true. Juro 22:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delaying in answering, but I was busy. Fact is that this discussion whether Glad existed or not do not have end, since the evidences for both claims are only indirect. You mention the story about Zobor, and you also mention that another story in the Czech chronicle contradict with the first story. However, there is no other historical source, which contradict with the story about Glad. We know that author of Gesta Hungarorum was able to invent stories, but we also know that he wrote some correct facts. So, I do not think that we should to a-priori assume anything about existence of Glad. In the article about Glad there is note that he is mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum, so, when the reader of Wikipedia open this link, he will se what Gesta Hungarorum is, and he will conclude for himself whether Glad existed or not. That would be the point. User:PANONIAN

GLAAD?

Why in the world does glaad redirect here? Wikipedia isn't know for its spelling error redirects, and most people who search for glaad are going to be looking for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Secondly, GLAAD is wikilinked twice within this page, with only one of them being an actual link (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.) The other is just an acronym for a LA defense council. Since I've been hounded for editing disambiguation pages before, I'd just like to check if it would be acceptable to redirect glaad to GLAAD. Dkkicks 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I'd also like to point out that the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness is not GLAAD, but simply GLAD, there is nothing on their website that has double-As. Dkkicks 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]