Talk:Vršac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title

The title is Vrsac, but text is about town Vrbas. This is a clear mistake, both cities exist in Serbia and Montenegro.

[edit] For Ripley's

Yeah :) Panonian that is it. When Evliya Çelebi was near Vršac, he visited Filip Višnjić the great poet who sang him his new grand epic poem "Vršac, Vršac über alles". "My dear son" talked the old Filip to young Evliya "you know nothing about our history. I must to tell you the whole." And talked Filip about unknown history, three days and three nights.

He talked about five young armoured knights in shiny armours who landed near Capitol (sorry!) Vršac Hill with their U-boat. (yes, it was in time of the Pannonian Sea). Vers said the first knight, Verbeč said the second knight, Vegenje cried the third knight, Veršet cried finally the fourth knight. And they quarrelled among themselves because of name, and then killed one another. After the fifth buried them, he got as far as saying: "Wherever are the Serb graves it is Serbia!". He sunk the U-boat and said only three words: "Vršac or Bust", and founded the settlement. This event happened four months after the Deluge..

..Fortress.. the fortress is a very interesting story. The fortress was built with Đurađ Branković's own hands. In one hand he took the plan of monastery Manasija, and in other two hands stones and mortar. Oops he had only two hands.. Đurađ Branković hired some Italian masons, but when he informed of who the Masons are, he fired them. Therefore are so many lodges in Italy but just slightly in Serbia.

Evliya put down every single word, but the whole text unfortunately disappeared, except one thought that Branković built the fortress after 1439. From that time the oral tradition is of greatest value among historians. The document is just runner-up.--Bendeguz 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice story, but you missed one thing: Evliya Çelebi died in 1682, while Filip Višnjić was born 1767, so there is no possibility that they ever met. Now let me tell you another story: you have one Hungarian historian whose father probably was a honved in the army of Horthy Miklos. So, in the moment when this historian was born, his father told him how evil neighbours stole ancient Hungarian lands where Hungarians lived even before Homo erectus, and when this historian grew up he came to idea to writte a book about ancient Hungarians who lived here before Homo erectus, but since he did not found a single trace of those Hungarians, he came to idea to proclaim that traces of Homo erectus are in fact traces of Hungarians, and that was his way to "prove" that story of his father is correct. Now when he saw how can he easy proclaim what ever he want, he started to claim that not only traces of Homo erectus, but traces of all other human races that ever walked on this earth are in fact traces of Hungarians. Finally, when human kind left Earth and started to fly in space with worp engine, this Hungarian historian came to new idea to proclaim that not only traces of humans, but traces of all species from all planets are in fact traces of Hungarians and therefore the whole universe is in fact ancient Hungarian land while all others are only evil aliens from another dimension who came to this universe (who they dare?) to stole what rightfully belong to Hungarians. Do you like the story, mister Bendeguz? PANONIAN (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, if you want serious discussion, the official web site of Vršac municipality also claim that fortress was built in the time of Đurađ Branković: http://www.vrsac.org.yu/ If official site also claim that, then it is official history, no matter that one Hungarian historian think that he is smarter. PANONIAN (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point Panonian. The whole story is an Absurdity, and you are trying to find failing in it. Your lack of humour is very simptomatic. And, your story is just bad counterfeit of mine.

Sources in cited book for Ér(d)somlyó:

Ér(d)somlyó. - 1227 Pp./Reg.: pr. de Erdesumulua (F. IH/2. 100); Vita S. Dom-i [1292, 1221--41 k-re]: illius regni [Ungarie] regio que Sumlu nominatur, ubi in conv-u fr-um almi confessoris recondite habentur reliquie sacrosancte, quas populus cum multa devotione frequentas veneratur coram altari S. Dom-i (Gombos 2336), ad suas reliquias in Sumlu visitandas, ... domina in Sumlu ... veniens priori domus et fr-bus ... retulit (Uo.), pater cum f-os suscitato in Sumlu properans, quanta sibi fecerat Dominus, ad honorem gloriosi confessoris sui Dom-i nunciavit (Uo. 2337); 1255: Both f. Myxch c. de Svmlu (Szlov. Nemz. Múz. lt. M. 1); 1277: Pet. mg. agasonum c. de Sumlow (MTA. lt. 27, H. VI. 227); 1277 > 378: p-es Woya et Kereszeg in C-u de Sumplio (Dl. 42 089, HOkl. 79; Krassó III. 138); 1279: Pet. mg. agasonum c. de Sumlou (Dl. 98 469, Reg. Arp. 2985); [1279] X. 16: IV. Lad.: Dat. in Erdsumlio (Dl. 48 509, H. 1.81); [1279]XI. 11 U./371: Vgrinusmg. tav.: Dat.in Erdsua (D1.81 789,H.VII. 340); [1279]XI. 30/280: IV. Lad.: Dat. in Sumlo! (Dl. 1039!, W. IX. 264, vö. F. V/3. 58); 1284. V. 3/293: IV. Lad.: Dat. in Sumulu (Dl. 40219, Reg. Arp. 3305); [1284]. V. 4/439: -: Dat. in Erdsumlwa ~ Erdsumluwal (Dl. 44 271,55 193!, H. VII. 185, vö. Reg. Arp. 3306); [1284]V. 13: Homodeusiud. cur.: Dat. in Erd Sumlua (Dl. 84 198); [1303]: Simulu (Pfeiffer: Ung. Dom. 150, 39); 1319/320: mg. Symon f. Mych-is c. de Sumlou et de Karasou (Dl. 1964, A. I. 516, ZW. I. 339); 1319/319>413/414: - Somlyo et de Crasso (Dl. 10003); 1323: mg. Nic. de Erdsomlov et de Kraso [c.](Pálffy lt. = 1323/783: Dl. 2201); 1330: per fora prov-lia eiusdem C. [Karassou], vidl. in ... Erthsomlou ... convocassent (Dl. 91 246); 1333: p. Rudarow ... a pt. Ersomlia (Dl. 91 261); 1335: mg-m Thoukam de Ersumlya et Karasofw castellanum (Krassó III. 10); *1333— 5/Pp. Reg.: Mich. (sac.) de Somlov (Vat. I/1. 153); 1339/342 > 378: ad ... fl-m Crassou, ubi ... dist. ... p-em Woya a p-e Ersumplyo (Krassó III. 147).

List of abbreviations:

  • Pp./Reg--Papal registrum
  • F.--Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Studio et opera Georgii Fejér.I-XI. Budae 1829-1844
  • Gombos--Catalogus fontium historiae Hungaricae aevo ducumet regum ex stripe Arpad descendentium ab anno Christi DCCC usque ad annum MCCCI. Collegit: Albinus Franciscus Gombos. I-III. Budapestini 1937-1938.
  • Szlov. Nemz. Múz. lt--Archives of Slovak National Museum, Martin.
  • MTA. lt.--Archives of Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Collection of genuine charters. Budapest.
  • Dl.--Archives of the state. Collection from before Mohács. (1-105,302)
  • Pfeiffer: Ung. Dom.-- Pfeiffer Nicolaus: Die Ungarische Dominikanerordensprovinz von ihrer Gründung 1221 bis zur Tatarenverwüstung 1241-1242. Zürich 1913.
  • Pálffy lt.--Archives of Pálffy family in Červený Kameň. Bratislava.
  • Krassó III--Pesty Frigyes: Krassó vármegye története. I-IV. Budapest 1882-1884. (History of the Krassó county)
  • Vat.--Archivio segreto Vaticano, Roma.
  • Uo.--Abbreviation for Hungarian word ibidem.

I hope, that you finally understood that this is the case of medieval Latin transcription of name Érsomlyó and not vice versa. (There are 22 different transcriptions in Latin for this period of cca. 100 years, I counted it.)

And whom (or what) cited Evliya?--Bendeguz 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Érsomlyó is simply modern Hungarian transcription of name Erdesumulu and using Érsomlyó as original name version would be anachronistic because Hungarian was not even an written language in that time - until the end of the 13th century, there was ONLY ONE written document in Hungarian, so it is simply unknown what was original meaning of word Erdesumulu (or in which language this meant something). The meaning that word Érsomlyó have in modern Hungarian might be completelly different from the original meaning of the word. Regarding your sources about Erdesumulu, perhaps this town from those sources do not refer to Vršac, but to some other place that existed nearby. It is clear what official site claim about this: http://www.vrsac.org.yu/ So, I am sorry, but I more trust to this web site than to you or to authors from literature that YOU like to read (your disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia in the past is the reason because I think what I think). PANONIAN (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And please tell me if Erdesumulu was the first name of this town, then why official web site do not mention this name at all? It is not logical that official site does not mention this as well as the book "Mala istorija Vršca" that I used as a source. In another words we have two "mine" sources vs one "yours", and the only logical conclusion is that something is very wrong with your source. PANONIAN (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish name

I don`t know why is there in turkish name of Vrsac, i am from Vrsac, and i am happy to say that we don`t have any turks there.Ou , just saw, please , spare me of Hungarian expansionist thinking.How can it be Hungarian when all Banat was Romanian ?I forgot, all of the Balkan is Hungarian by their history :). Ps : take a look at turkish histroy , the latest "discovery" was that Alexandar the Great was turish :) Pozdrav svima

Names listed in the article are not only names used by the minorities that live in the city, but also historical names that were used in certain parts of the history. Vršac was part of the Ottoman Empire for almost 2 centuries, therefore Turkish name is listed. Regarding ethnic relations in the "all Banat", I believe that it is not a subject of this article - it is explained in the Banat article. PANONIAN (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice try...

...mister Bendeguz, but as you can see here, the town named Érsomlyó was not located where is now Vršac, but was located further to the east in the ROMANIAN Banat. So, that is reason why:

The conclusion? Yes, the town with name Erdesumulu/Érsomlyó did existed, but only few sources identify it with Vršac, while others place this town further to the east. I will change article accordingly. PANONIAN (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, mister Bendeguz, you really made a big mess here now, and please help me to solve it. This web site mention that Érsomlyó was located at Vršac: http://mazsola.iit.uni-miskolc.hu/~jurecz/forts/ but why other sources claim other things and why this map place this town into Romanian Banat: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Hungary25.jpg or why this site claim that Érsomlyó was in Transylvania: http://lexikon.katolikus.hu/LINKEK/LINKDDDD/14DOMONK.HTML Serbian Banat was never counted as part of Transylvania, only Romanian one. PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I also found this: Dr Dušan J. Popović (Srbi u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1990) claim that Vršac and Erd-Šomljo were two separate settlements. I believe that solution for this problem is that we writte new article about Erdesumulu/Érsomlyó/Erd-Šomljo and then to elaborate problems about definition of its location. So far, the claim Erdesumulu=Vršac do not seems very convincing. PANONIAN (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And one more thing, see this map again: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Hungary25.jpg I did not noticed that yesterday because letters are very small, but I believe there is name "Versec" on this map too located where modern Vršac is, but not at the same location where word Érsomlyó is written. PANONIAN (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive? Your deceitful edits caused my birth, here in Wikipedia of course.

Your official site is a bigger mess than this. Errors as many as you want.

Here is the connection between Érsomlyó and Vršac. The known linguist and turcologist Halasi-Kun Tibor (1914-1991)(Ghn 32,700) found the following sentence in a Turkish defter from 1579 Varoş-i Şemlit' nam-i diğer Virşac. (Publication: Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in honour of Julius Nemeth. ELTE Budapest 1976) The meaning of the word diğer is altered, another, different, farther, forth, other.--Bendeguz 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In another words, you just proved that connection between Vršac and Érsomlyó is nothing else but a theory presented by one linguist and turcologist. Thank you - that was all that I needed. PANONIAN (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In this site Map 8. Vršac is no labelled as possession of Đurađ Branković.--Bendeguz 07:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Many other possesions of Branković are not labeled on that map. So, what is a point? PANONIAN (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bende-GUZ

Please stop your disruptive edits here. Before your next revert, please try to answer to several points:

  • 1. I just proved on this talk page that it is not clear whether Érsomlyó is same place as Vršac. Claim that Érsomlyó is same place as Vršac is ONLY ONE UNPROVED THEORY and your attempt to present it as UNDISPUTED TRUTH is indeed an DISRUPTIVE EDIT. Read again my posts in previous section and please try to answer them before your blind reverts.
  • 2. Regarding names, my claim about anachronistic names was only about usage of Magyarized names invented in the 19th century. It is clear that since those Magyarized names were invented in the 19th century, that it would be ridiculous to use them in the Medieval Ages. On the contrary, name Vršac is not a new name, but very old one, which was always used by local population, thus replacing this name with other names would create a false impression that this name is new and would also confuse ordinary readers of Wikipedia who have no idea about usage of names in different languages in various time periods.
  • 3. Please do not remove SOURCED information from OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF MUNICIPALITY. PANONIAN (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pizdonian

I see you saw this map once. You can see on the top of the first hill fortress of Érsomlyó looked at from the plain. ANNO DOMINI 1527-28. I do not see Vers, Verbeč, Veršet, Vegenje nor Podvršan. Why? Because Vršac fortress did not exist that time.

Do not teach me what is old and what is new! You started the play with official name, these were your rules of the game so please play this game from beginning to end, and do not cry Objection. Are you adult or just suckling?

This official site is abound with errors. What kind of is unofficial site if official is like that?--Bendeguz 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to check yourself. Calling people "cuntonian" (pizdonian) goes against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and is just plain unpleasant and rude.--Еstavisti 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice try Estavisti, to blacken me for something which was just the response to the insult of your friend Panonian. Calling somebody Bende-ASS (Bende-GUZ) is also unpleasant and rude. Why you apprehend just my answer...So much for your credibility and righteousness!--Bendeguz 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see that. Still, there is a difference between guza and pizda - akin to the difference (in British English) between bum (a word acceptable in the family) and cunt (unacceptable in the family). Anyway, BendeGUZ is your username, while what your wrote was not his username.--Hadžija 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Really, but I posted this message toward Balkans, where are both words often (often?.. very often!) used in the families. And please, do not obvert my username.--Bendeguz 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But (unlike you) I did not "invented" unpleasant name for you - you invented your nickname by yourself and I am not guilty because you have word "guz" in it. PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He-he-ha-ha, Panonian did you have Humour lessons?

mister Bendeguz, first to answer about "your" map. I already proved that there are two different theories about this. The fact that "your" map support one theory will not change the fact that there are sources that support opposite theory. I found three sources that support theory that Vršac and Érsomlyó were two separate places:

  • 1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Hungary25.jpg You already saw this map (coming from Hungarian sources by the way, so there is no evil Serbian propaganda in it), which show Érsomlyó and Versec as two separate towns
  • 2. Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 1, Novi Sad, 1990. This book claim that Vršac and Erd-Šomljo were two separate places and that both of them belonged to Serbian despot Đurađ Branković
  • 3. Dr Aleksa Ivić, Istorija Srba u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1929. This book also mention possessions of Đurađ Branković, and among other, there are Vršac and Šomljo as two separate settlements.

To conclude: it is quite obvious that various sources do not agree about the question whether Vršac and Erd-Šomljo were two separate places or two names for one single place. Therefore, the theory that you presented is only a theory and please do not try to present it as undisputed truth. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I presented you two contemporary sources about "my" claims. First is from 1527-28, some 25 years before Turkish conquest. Here is only Érsomlyó on this map, but no mention about Vršac. By the way, every considerable and less considerable fortress is on this map except Vršac. If this statement is assumed to be true then which fortress built Đurađ Branković exactly?Vršac? If the Vršac fortress existed at that time, why is it not labelled on this map? Érsomlyó? In this case why claimed "your" source that he built Vršac fortress?
"My" second contemporary source is from 1579, some 27 years after Turkish conquest. One sentence from the Turkish defters claims that Érsomlyó and Vršac are one and the same.
But what about we talk here? I accepted data from "your" sources as one of the two theories, but seems that you want to completelly ignore data presented in "my" sources. I do not believe that it is a best way of cooperation here. Also, regarding your map from 1527-28, the map is not very accurate (for example, the east is showed in the place where north should be), but anyway if you compare that map with this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Hungary25.jpg you will notice that Érsomlyó is in both maps located at the same location, i.e. east of Vršac in the modern Romanian Banat. Therefore, the fact that Vršac is not shown on map could also mean that author of that map was not well informed (there are other places that are not shown on that map as well). But anyway, even if "your" source support "your" theory, I have to remind you that Wikipedia is not place where you will declare that one source is right and another wrong, but if different sources speak different things about subject, then job of Wikipedia is to present ALL theories from ALL sources, and I done exactly that in the "Vršac Tower" section - I wrote there that two theories exist and wrote them both, so I really do not understand to what you object here? PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This map is a masterpiece of the early 16th century. And I must repeat myself. on the top of the first hill fortress of Érsomlyó looked at from the plain..

I can see what map show and data from this map is already elaborated in the article, so I will ask you again: to what exactly you object in the current "Vršac Tower" section? PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Names: I did not started any "play with official name" because my concerns were not about official names but about anachronistic ones. First about name "Vršac": since this is mainly an geographical article and therefore name "Vršac" as such is used here in Wikipedia, we do not have reason to post various names in various languages in the history section. Such names are usually used if the current name of the town is new one and therefore its usage in the history section would be anachronistic. In this case, not only that name Vršac is old, but it is older than all other names - it is clear that Serbian name Vršac was original name of the town and that all other (German, Turkish, Hungarian) versions are nothing but modified versions of the original name. Therefore, if the current name used in geography is also original name of the town, and if it was used during entire history of the town, I really do not see a point of writting names in different languages in the history section because it will only confuse ordinary readers. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably read about the case Danzig. I do not want the danzigisation of Vršac article, but we know it is possible.
No, I do not know much about Danzig and therefore I cannot see what could be similar here. PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you read about the case Danzig.
I have no time. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, regarding the second name (Érsomlyó), the first problem with it is already explained: the problem is that we do not know whether this name was used for the fortress at all or place with that name existed at completelly different location (and I found 3 sources so far that confirm this). The second problem with this name would be its original form: fine, you showed that name is not from 19th century, but that it was used in the 16th century too, but it do not change situation much since Magyarized (but originally non-Magyar) names existed in the Medieval times as well. If this place was first recorded as Erdesumulu and later as Érsomlyó, what is a base for a claim that Érsomlyó was original name? For all what we know, the original name of this place could be even something like "Perina Šuma" (I invented this name, of course, but the problem is that there is very good chance that name "Érsomlyó" was also invented by somebody - it is logical conclusion if we have in mind Magyarization of non-Magyar names in the Kingdom of Hungary from medieval times to 1918). The third problem regarding this name would be that even if the theory that this place was near Vršac is correct, it still was not SAME place as Vršac, but was in connection to Vršac in the same way as Petrovaradin is in connection to Novi Sad. Thus, even if place named Érsomlyó existed near Vršac, the original name of Vršac itself is still Podvršan. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First you must discard your prejudices facing Hungarian toponyms.
What prejudices? I simply speak what I read in historic books. PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you add the medieval Latin form of the toponym Podvršan from your smart books.

These books do not have Latin form of this toponym. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, what is point to writte that "another source do not mention Branković as owner"? Could that tell us someting about Branković or about source? (i.e. the source obviously lack an information). If one geographical atlas show United Kingdom but not show borders of England, does it mean that England does not exist? If you wanted with this edit to prove a point and to make edit similar to those where I mentioned that other sources do not identify Vršac with Érsomlyó, I have to remind you that sources that I mentioned are not those that "do not mention that Vršac is same place as Érsomlyó", but are those that "DO MENTION that Vršac and Érsomlyó are not same places. Try to notice a difference, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to show you, what kind of argument is that, which come from an elementary school atlas or similar.
Edits whose goal is to "prove a point" are considered disruptive in Wikipedia and I explained already why mine and your edits were not similar. PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"then job of Wikipedia is to present ALL theories from ALL sources"...Is this map a source or not? And your example is wrong.
But theory from "your" source is already presented in "Vršac Tower" section of this article. I do not see what exactly you consider a problem here. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not post wrong data about population into "Historical population". I have a book with all official census population data for all places in Vojvodina from 1869 to 1991, and the numbers that you posted are not same as in that book. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course these are not arbitrary numbers, I have also a book.
The difference is that "my" book is written by professional demographer and "your" is not. PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is "Historical population" for you just between the years 1961 and 2002, because you post mainly these numbers?
I have no time to post numbers from other censuses, but recent demographic development is most important, of course. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is a point to writte that Evliya Çelebi wrote his book 200-300 years after the event? "Your" author wrote his book 600 years after the event, and you want to present this as undisputed truth. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Evliya had not admittance to the charters and diplomas, which were stored in Upper Hungary...he was traveller and semi-linguist and not historian. His descriptions are of great value about his contemporary events (17th century), but not inevitably for events from 15th century (200 years ago) or 14th century (300 years ago), because these informations were mainly from hearsay.
Still, Evliya is not the only source about this. Those archeologist who examined the tower and who concluded that it have similar architectural elements as Smederevo or Manasija also placed date of its construction into 15th century. Do you want to say that they all are stupid or what? PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You bluff Panonian. Serbian historiography is like hosszúlépés, unfortunately. It contains one part of facts (wine), and two parts of myths (water) at the best.
Those are only your words and there is no proof for your statement. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, where is your proof that official web site is full with errors? We have only your word for it, right? PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of errors:
  • PODVRŠAN-this form is wrong according to your standards
  • letter of kind Sigmund (1387-1439)-charter or diploma of king Sigismund (1387-1437)
  • Vršac Town-Fortress- Where was this fortress on the top of the hill or in the town, or the town was on the top of the hill?
  • Turkish slavery-metaphrase, the proper term is Turkish yoke
  • Temisoara- non-existed settlement
  • Vladislav-Vladislaus II or Vladislav II
  • Franja II-Francis II
  • free King’s town-Free Royal City
  • Town Master-Mayor
  • Lintz- non-existed settlement
  • Coffman’s brewery-Zoffmann’s brewery
Some of what you mentioned here as "errors" are not errors at all - for example it was very usual in Serbo-Croatian to write Franja instead of Francis or Franc, while most other errors are small tehnical errors in text, not substantial errors. The reason why one web site is official is that its visitors can know that this web site provide reliable information instead crap which could be found on some other sites. Can we say same for books that you read? Of course, if you want to check whether information about Vršac fortress on official site is correct, I can tell you that book "Mala istorija Vršca" also put date of its foundation in the 15th century, which confirm the validity of information on official site. And by the way, do I have to mention that validity of your source (Györffy György) was arraigned by other Wikipedia users here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Hungary_b._10th_century.png PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a big shame and not official site. Too many errors for professionals, who were paid for this.

And labelled somebody as nationalist is just simply routine to our Juro.

If you personally dislike the information presented on that web site, that does not mean that something is wrong with site. Also, I do not see a point of your attempt to discredit another user if you did not managed to discredit his observation about your source. PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A i što se tiče pitanja da li sam odrastao, odgovoriću ti i to: Ja jesam odrastao, a da li si ti? Pitam jer je logično da bi odrasla osoba u osnovnoj školi naučila gde joj je pra-domovina i teško da bi napisala da je "native of Central Europe", ili si možda hteo sa tim reći da su ti preci bili Sloveni? Ne kapiram te, stvarno, ali to je već tvoj lični problem. PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In absence of the arguments, you use abusive language. Please do it on my talk page if you want, and not here.--Bendeguz 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What you consider abusive in my post and what absence of the arguments you talk about? PANONIAN (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your minor edits speaks about you.--Bendeguz 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand. Can you be more specific, please? PANONIAN (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your problem, Panonian.--Bendeguz 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As you see, Panonian-Comedian, today's Versec is nearly at the same degree southern to Timisoara: [1] and your uploaded map puts Érsomlyó to (nearly) the same position too. + The other word north western to Érsomlyó isn't 'Versec' because it's much longer (8-10 letters) and there's a 'g' in it. --Öcsi 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal insults. And I must ask you this: are you blind? I do not see leter g or 8-10 letters there. Please see this map again: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Hungary25.jpg You will notice that BOTH, Versec and Ersomly, are show on that map on TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS: Versec is shown exactly where modern Vršac is while Ersomly is shown in the Romanian Banat on river Karaš. If you have problem with understanding of geography then see this - you will notice that river Karaš do not flow even near Vršac. Regarding map from talmamedia.com, if you read this whole talk page, you would notice that I already accepted information from that map as one of the two theories, and I also presented other sources that present other theory. You will also notice that both theories are presented in the article. And one more thing, you will also notice that even map from talmamedia.com ( http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/images/megyek1/44temes.gif ) do not show that Ersomly is same place as Vršac, but that it was NEAR Vršac. So, in both cases, it is clear that modern Vršac IS NOT same place as Ersomlyo and the only question here is whether Ersomlyo was located near Vršac (where is now Vršac Tower) or it was located in the Romanian Banat on river Karaš. So next time, try to refrain your self from blind reverts to version full of errors (and not only those regarding location of Ersomly), before reading talk page and chechking sources that I presented. PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish name

Are you sure that Turkish name is correct? With this ortograph I can't find any Google match. --Koppany 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)