Jump to content

Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

title

Judging by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) this article should be moved to a page title with the anglicized form of his name. I've seen "John Hunyadi" used in a couple of English-language sources, but "Hunyadi" is a Hungarian form; is there an alternative in English? I seem to remember having seen "Hunyady", but this could just be an alternative Hungarian spelling. Scott Moore 15:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hunyady is the old Magyar spelling, John Hunyadi is the correct English name (drived from the Transylvanian castle "Hunyad") - actually it should be John of Hunyad, but in Google you will only find 3 results like that. Juro 16:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the derivation and the fact that some other languages use their own form rather than the Hungarian e.g. Romananian de Hunedoara. I think the form "John of Hunyad" may be too archaic to use in English, and other surnames (e.g Bathory) retain the Hungarian form (except for the loss of diacritics, of course). Interesting to note that when Hungarians emigrated to or travelled to English-speaking countries (in the 19th/early 20th century) they sometimes changed their surnames to a German or French form (von xxx, de xxx) or even a compound (Georg von Bekesy) Scott Moore 17:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article must not have been renamed to a Romanian form in the first hand. I am pretty worried to see that some editors do that without discussing it first. Hungarian form would be more correct, as he happened to be pretty much Hungarian, but this is English Wikipedia, so English naming is correct. --grin ✎ 20:23, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
He was actually Romanian, not Hungarian. This is because he was born in a Romanian family and in a historical Romanian province (that was by that time not yet united with the other provinces). -Paul- 09:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I thaught that his mother was Hungarian, but you seem to ignore that. By the way, we can then say that king Carol I and Mihai I were Germans. Zmiklos 11:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the move wasn't proper to begin with, and no double redirects were fixed by Rronline after it. I've used my admin mojo to move it back. --Joy [shallot] 21:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. --grin ✎ 06:51, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Gentlemen! In the article it is emphasized that John Hunyadi was a Romanian. I will start adding to all Romanian historical articles the ethnicity of the personalities. For example: Carol I was German, Carol II was German, Michael I was German, and so on. What about that?! Zmiklos 12:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should say that his father was ethnically Romanian. You can say that Caron and the others were ethnically German. There's no secret in that. --Candide, or Optimism 13:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

family and origins

I cleaned up the paragraph about Hunyadi's family and origins. Reference to his grandfather (Serb or Serbe) could be added to the article on the Hunyadi family. Elizabeth Morzsinay was his mother (although some recent research disputes that she was from the Morzinay family) while his wife was Elizabeth Szilagyi. The paragraph about the name Corvinus was largely duplicated from the Matthias Corvinus article, so I removed it. Scott Moore 12:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

is there a Hunyadi family article ? --Criztu 12:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
actually is was a disambiguition page for some reason. I've now changed it to a stub. It is still rather brief and jumps straight from Matthias Corvinus to a modern speed-skating champion! Scott Moore 14:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
John Hunyadi's Romanian origin is confirmed by contemporary Pope Pius II (Enea Silvius Piccolomini, 1405-1464) in his opera In Europa, Historia Austrialis chapter, BAV, URB, LAT. 405, ff.245, Ex urbe Roma, IIII kal. Aprilis MCCCCLVIII. But also here the pope Pius II wrote that John Hunyadi was not from a noble origin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabricioRB (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
His father was knighted and given the title of Count of Hunedoara after John was born. Interpret as you wish: you can say he was son of a count, or you can say he was sone of an ordinary knight. Later on, John let, or at least did not hinder, the rumor that he might be the ilegal son of Sigismund of Luxemburg, because he needed much more than noble blood to rule, he needed royal blood. Pope might be referring to this when he says John was not noble. He might be simply saying John had no royal blood.:Dc76\talk 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

biased

The language in the article tends to be very biased, probably from EB1911. I'm tempted to add the /POV check/ template... --Joy [shallot] 23:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased in what way? Do you have one or two examples?

Anglicization

I've finally settled on Vojk as the English version of the name of Hunyadi's father. Vajk is used more often in English texts, but I think this is from the Hungarian form of the name (which I'd rather not use). I've also seen Voyk used. Scott Moore 17:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the name is pronounced 'vay-k', so changing it to 'o' does nothing for the English reader (and would actually lead to mispronouniation). What's so strange about Vajk that's rectified by changing it to Vojk?
At first, it bothered me that someone would "not want to use" the Magyar spelling, but after further reflection, I see your point. Given that the family name was Vlach, it would seem very likely that a Voicu-derived spelling would be more accurate. In fact, it is too bad there are no historical English references to Voik, which would be even closer. So, I suppose, in the end, that Vojk is a the best answer. It borrows heavily from his probably Magyar maternal heritage, his Magyar marriage, and his political loyalty to the Magyar kingdom (going so far as to have his son be the exciting King Mattias), yet it gives deference in small measure to his Vlach paternal lineage. All in all, a good choice given that Voik would be unacceptable.

Szörény

This is not the banate of Oltenia, but the banate of Severin which is west of Oltenia. Daizus

well, edit the article then, what are you waiting for ? :) -- Criztu 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:D Did it. I removed the link as otherwise it would have been pointing to Severin city. The banate of Severin held the western part of today's Olternia and some parts of today's Banat. Daizus

Hungarian names

Gentlemen, Iancu de Hunedoara was a Romanian, born in a Romanian family, called Voicu. Voicu is a Romanian name, ask anyone who speaks that language. "John was born into a Vlach (Romanian) noble family in 1387 (or 1400 according to some sources) as the son of Vojk (alternatively spelled as Voyk or Vajk in English, Voicu in Romanian, Vajk in Hungarian)" Therefore that quote is weird, to say the least. Instead of spelling the family name Voicu, it is spelled, incorrectly, with Hungarian influences. Why? Second of all, if he was a Romanian, born in a Romanian family, why is his named spelled in English all over Wikipedia (quote: John Hunyadi), after a Hungarian name-translation (Hunyadi)? Third, "Vlach Knyaz from Banate of Severin (Szörény in Hungarian). " <---- the correct spelling is "cneaz", not "knyaz", and since Severin is, and always was in Romania, can someone explain to me why the word "Szoreny" appears there? I didn't find the Hungarian translation of the following cities: Washington DC, New York and Beijing on Wikipedia, so why should there be a Hungarian translation of Severin? WikiRaptor 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

During Hunyadi's times we gather names and possessions from Hungarian documents, therefore Hungarian spelling is justified as an alternate. Talking about "Milano (Mediolanum)" while talking about Late Roman Empire is not inappropriate, is it? Daizus
Your complaints are justified when it's about other realities of Romania which benefit of Hungarian alternate spelling (for instance the city of Drobeta Turnu-Severin). Daizus 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No, because he wasn't "ban of Drobeta". I think this is perfectly justified, since readers are most likely to find informations on him as ban of whateverthenameisinHungarian. Dahn 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My second addition was about pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drobeta-Turnu_Severin. The Hungarian alternate spelling is futile in city's presentation, it's not a region with a significant Hungarian minority. Daizus 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It is on this page as well. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with it, and for the reason stated: one is very likely to find 5 times more references to it in Hungarian than in Romanian before 1918 or so (although it's also likely that both fade in comparison with Medieval Latin). Dahn 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
For once, I have no problem with Szörény/Severin duality in this page. Some time ago I even edited the correspondence Szörény-Oltenia to Szörény-Severin (the banate of Severin and the banate of Oltenia are two different beasts).
I'd like to point two sides of this issue. One is the one you argumented for: like I've said in my first reply to WikiRaptor, I have no problem with alternate spellings in a historical context. So in a history of the city Drobeta Turnu-Severin I am fine with dual Severin/Szörény denominations if the historic contexts asks for it. But I find anachronic and preposterous a dual denomination of a Romanian actual city with insignificant Hungarian population, related insignicantly to Hungarian culture. I understand to be the case for those settlements were a bilingual approach is demanded by the ethno-cultural realities (like those from Harghita, Covasna or Mureş, plus several other settlements spreaded out through Transylvania and Banat). As I remarked on my talk page, Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár is almost an inexistent pair in this city's description - try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade, the Hungarian name occurs only in specific historical contexts (the battle of Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár, 1456). On contrary, Severin is in many cases taken as Szörény, even if it's not a specific situation demanding the Hungarian alternative.
The other side is something I've been thinking on since my first contribution to this section of the talk page. Sometimes today's Hungarian version helps in finding a closer match for the version contemporary with the historical events in question. Though in many cases, this is not true. Let's talk on examples. Today's Timişoara was known in one 13th century document as castrum Tymes. Would you say the Hungarian Temesvár or the German Temeschwar are of any help to decypher this occurence? Romanian version is as good and enough. Alba Iulia was known in 11th century as civitas Alba Transilvana. Gyulafehérvár may help some to figure out where "Iulia" is coming from but not is giving to a non-Hungarian speaking user an opportunity to identify this 11th century occurence with the actual city. The actual Bihor (in fact Biharea), in Hungarian is Bihar, and the city that started these names was known in 11th century as civitas Bihor/Byhar/Bichor. Again, the Hungarian alternate is offering no additional help. Cenad (Nagycsanád in Hungarian) is known in 11th century as urbs Chanadina and of course as urbs Morisena and civitas Morisena as well. Of course, for some other occurences you can invoke Hungarian alternate as helpful. Cluj (Kolozsvár in Hungarian) was known in 12-13th centuries as Kuluswar. These being said, even in a historical context the Hungarian alternate to a city or territory might be superfluous at the times. Daizus 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I too am annoyed by giving 12 versions on every page, and especially by the assumption that the Hungarian name was "the former name" of cities, when we all know that Latin was the official language in anything involving Hungary until 1830 or so). However, in many cases it may be necessary (depending on what the case is). For many, I think my ranking still stands (Romanian<Hungarian<Latin). In the case of Severin (on its page), I think a mention of the name in Hungarian is prolly called for (as opposed to dual mention on every page, excluding the likes of thisun). As a parallel, consider that the Hungarian-speakers in many cities were arguably insignificant as opposed to German-speakers (and yet the name in Hungarian should stay there). This may be a matter of curtesy to the reader (and, after all, no matter what the pop., Drobeta was Hungarian for a long, long time). Dahn 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the 13th century we have terra Zeurino or castrum Zeurini. In 14th century we find the title comes de Seuerinio. We know of the medieval Severin starting with the documents of the Hungarian king Andrew III and it's probably a city built during these days; the ancient Roman city was deserted as the limes organized by Justinian I collapsed before the attacks of Avars and Slavs. There will be struggles between Hungarians and Wallachians over it for the next centuries. The Hungarian-built city will be destroyed by Ottomans in 1524. The new city is built in the 19th century.
About Cluj I found out that the original is probably the Latin term "clusa", a mention from 1213 gives castrum Clus and another Hungarian version from the same century is Clwusvar. A 14th century German form is Clusenburg. Daizus 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

If Dahn persists in reverting the changes I want to challenge the neutrality of this page. He claims that he makes some changes because his opinions dictate him so. I want to remind him that wikipedia is not a blog, so the claims made should have a degree of objectivity and impartiality. Daizus 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that I HAVEN'T (and you misread my message on your talk page - again, I was not trying to push a POV, I had just wondered if you would've had agreed to keep a sentence which was featured in Britannica if reformulated. It was not essential, nor was it determined by a view I would have on the matter). Chill. Dahn 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You cannot (without jesting) call "POV" my attempt to confirm with NPOV. I may be clumsy, but you cannot prove that I have an agenda. This is why I had asked of you not to assume. Dahn 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I think I got your point. I was a bit too assertive about your possible reasons and you're right about it. However my point was and still is that a claim about John Hunyadi's better opposition to Ottoman Turks than any other Balkanic ruler is a way too dangerous claim to hold because of the inherent bias (and honestly an unconstructive bias which oftens leads only to boosted egoes and hard feelings) but also because the lack of an objective (by objective I don't mean naive absolute truthness but a scientific approach) criterion to construct these judgements of value. Like I said on my talk page "According to historian X/In the opinion of historian X" is an acceptable method to give voice to such comparative quality-emphasizing claims. Especially that most of these judgements of value are in the context of a POV (Hungarian or Romanian favourable versions). Considering the tensions and the precedence of ideology-driven historiographies, I'd say we have to be careful about these issues. Daizus 20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. However, note that the fragment (which I don't need to have back in there), even in its very first version, did not say that he was "the best", just that he was the "most successful" (which I had changed to "arguably most succesful"). Granted, John, unlike Stephen, never had to shake off Turkish [nominal?] vassalage, and he did not live to have his country cede to the Ottomans. (Plus, the reference to "of his time" could bypass Stephen altogether - it depends on what you consider "his time" to be; and you may still want to consider that one fought in Belgrade - out of his territory - and the other in Vaslui, Bucharest at most). But again, this is of little relevance besides shaking of all notion a reader may have that I'm somehow biased. Dahn 21:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think valid comparisions can be made so easily. While John was struggling against Ottomans in southern Transylvania and northern Balkans, Skanderbeg organized Albanian resistence with quite a success though he had not the means to launch a real offensive against the Ottoman Empire. The success of his resistence is measured by the fact that Albania was not subdued during his lifetime (he died in 1468), and Albania unlike Hungary or Transylvania or even Wallachia was a stringent target for Murad II and Mehmet II. However the Ottomans succesfully sieged Krujë only as late as 1478 and Albania was gradually incorporated into the Ottoman Empire many years after (IIRC the process ended in 1506), during this while numerous revolts occured. Moving the focus on Stephen III, we can regard the events from 1474-76 as a success, Mehmet II being unable to punish Moldavia and extend his domination accordingly (moreover in the following years Stephen keeps interfering in the Wallachian politics, replacing Ottoman named voivodes with his own), and only the events from 1484 (when facing Bajezid II) as a failure (and vassalage to the Polish king is not a failure per se, but losing the sea ports to Ottomans, main trade centers and gates). Now John Hunyadi had his successes (like the victories from 1442-43 or lifting the siege of Belgrade in 1456, his failures - Varna 1444, and relative successes - can be seen also as insuccessses - the long Campaign: I find the article unfair about this one - the objective of this campaign was Adrianopole, an unattained objective). Anyway, these are just a sketch to point out that judging a success/insuccess is a more tricky thing to do. A full-fledged comparision is unfruitful as John Hunyadi was subordinated to (and supported by) the King of Hungary, while the other rulers had other and arguably greater reponsibilities.
Like I already pointed out I find the article too mild on John Hunyadi, so this is again one reason because I wouldn't like to rant about relative successes/insuccesses (especially if the wiki text is taken as reference). Let me take a specific example. In the spring of 1442 there were two battles during the Ottoman offensive in the south-central Transylvania. First clash happened near Sântimbru on 18th March and Hunyadi lost this battle having a significantly high number of casualities. The second battle from 22/23th March 1442 is also somewhere in the neighbourhood (in a place called Kapu, some Hungarian authors erroneously consider this place as the Iron Gates) and this last battle ment the sounding victory for Hunyadi. So unlike the main article said the first clash was not merely a retreat. Hunyadi followed and probably destroyed some Ottoman avanguard bodies eventually getting himself surrounded by the Ottoman main army from several sides. Many perished while retreating. This may look like a Mongol battle on a smaller scale - luring into the trap, surrounding, chasing the fleeing remnants and killing as many on the run. However the Ottoman brilliance is overlooked while Hunyadi is (not without reason, of course) seen as a great military mastermind. I don't deny the latter, but he was not the only one and it's at least unfair to emphasize only his victories without shaping the his failures.
And one last point about Belgrade and offensive campaigns. You seem to forget that King Lazslo appointed Hunyadi as captain of Belgrade as he came to the throne. Belgrade was within Hungarian domination of those days. However your point remains valid if we refer to Hunyadi's campaigns in Balkans and his participation to crusade. With a note though, he was not alone. Daizus 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Hunyadi was not always supported by the King László V- he had to raise and support an army himself during the Seige of Belgrade, and a less farsighted leader would have understandably rebelled in his circumstances. Second, the defeat at Varna was not his fault, but that of the King of Poland who ignored his sound advice. I do agree that he was not the only military genious in his time and the Turks were also brilliant and innovative as well. But that sort of goes without saying, since if he had been the only great military mastermind in his time, it would have probably been the Turks who found themselves conquered!Shield2 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) By the way, two things can be said of him as the "best" of the Balkan anti-Ottoman fighters, but important ones. a) His military innovations were the most significant of any Eastern European leader at the time, indeed any European leader in his day. He was a very important figure in bringing European tactics out of the Middle Ages. So was Mehmed the Conquerer, of course, but he was not a European leader in the sense that this word is traditionally understood. Hunyadi met the challenge to European military tactics offered by the Turks. b) Strategically, the Siege of Belgrade was the most decisive defeat of Mehmed's forces by a European army. Hunyadi stayed out of the Siege of Constantinople because he needed to focus his relatively meager resources on a strategically more important garrison. Belgrade was what prevented Mehmed from ruling over the Balkans unchallanged, and thus being able to fully turn his attention and resources to his goal of controlling all trade on the entire Mediterranean Sea, extorting Central and Western Europe as he pleased and conquering Rome. It was not neccesarily the greatest tactical victory over Mehmed by a European army. Vlad Tepes and Stephen III won more impressive tactical victories, but those were of strategic importance only in that they were necessary in maintaining the strategic defense of Europe already won by Hunyadi. Dracula and Stephen may well have been more advanced and effective tacticians, but Hunyadi was a tactical innovator of grand historical importance who showed them the way.Shield2 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Voivode of Transylvania

Hunyadi wasn`t "governor". This is a modern term, and used only in modern histography. He wasn`t George Bush.... Back then he was elected as Voivode (voievod in Romanian, vajda in Hungarian, Wayvodae in Latin). That how the denomination for the duke/prince/governor of Transylvania was, all around this part of Europe. E.g.: see this greier 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC) It says that Voivode is Slavic word Edelward (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins

There is a trend in present day romania to romanize everybody, who born in transylvania, by simply declaring them semi- or fully ethnic romanians. The names, morizsnai, szilagyi, hunyadi all hungarians, and i've never seen any facts about his vlach ancestry, just the translation of these names into romanian, then calling them vlach or other romanian ancestry. This is how things nowadays happen. --195.56.95.160 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that his Vlach ancestry was mentioned in the 1911 Britannica. While I may agree to the irrelevance of that in the larger picture, this takes mahes his relation to Romanian nationalism clear, I believe. In this case, your objection is for the sake of objecting. Dahn 07:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The unquestionable source about John Hunyadi's Romanian origin is from Pope Pius II (Enea Silvius Piccolomini, 1405-1464) In Europa, Historia Austrialis, BAV, URB, LAT. 405, ff.245, Ex urbe Roma, IIII kal. Aprilis MCCCCLVIII. It was writen in 1458 and then published at Memmingen in 1481 and Nurnberg in 1493, both in Latin and German. Do you think the contemporary Hunyadi's Pope was wrong?...

Does anybody knows latin?

The image says that it`s the Hussite Campaign. I`ve uploaded an image depicting the same thing, an I can make out: 

De bello per ... Johannem wayvoda circa castro nando .... 

...............

...iohanes de hwnijad wayvoda trassilvani banat sewerin ... etc.
The first sentence is: "about the battle which was led by Janos voivode at the castle of Nándorfehérvár/Belgrade"
The second: "Janos Hunyadi voivode of Transilvania, ban of Sewerin." Baxter9 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So it`s clear that is about John Hunyadi, the voivode of Transylvania, Banat and Severin (I`m saying this because the same image appears on Battle of Baia, where it says it`s between Mateias Corvin against Moldavia). But I think de bello...Castro Nando means "on the war of fortress Nando" (Belgrade), and hence I think the image depicts the Siege of Belgrade. Of course, the image could as well not be related to the text... Best would be if one could translate what it says... And it would be better to replace the old pic, as it seems somewhat altered... greier 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

John Hunyadi in the Hussite Campaign, as depicted in the Johannes de Thurocz Chronicle

I think it`s indeed the Battle of Baia. The images are recycled, and re-appear in many pages of the chronicle. I`ll remove it from this article. greier 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greier, I think that is what Thurocz did. If you'll note, all images tend to repeat themselves, and I'm willing to bet none include actual witnnessing of the scenes or characters depicted. This is not a reproach to Thurocz: it is stating that everything may turn up under several guises, and that it is not necessary to provide a link to every single version of the same drawing (but rather provide a link to what the very-similar-to-another drawing claims it is). Dahn 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know if the Battle of Baia should be considered as being in fact the Battle of Baia (although it might be not the same as version 2, but a third and "completely different" version of the same drawing). The image with text is clearly in a John Hunyadi context, and you can tell without knowing Latin (I don't speak Latin): he is mentioned throughout the page (iohanes de hwnijad). Dahn 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion that is was the Battle of Baia rather than the Hussite campaign or the Siege of Belgrade, was given by the fact that the flag depicted in the battle looks surprisingly simmilar to the flag of Moldavia. greier 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear all. Is any of you looking at the picture? I believe not. Forget about the Latin, look at the flag of the troops. You will be enlighten. Still if you search the old chronicle you will see that the image for Wallachian towns are the same for Hungarian town in an old German chronicle.I was something artistic and not very accurate.CristianChirita (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

About the images

Let's stop this nonesense. Create a gallery on commons and include all that can't be included here over there. There is no point in flooding this in versions of the same image. Dahn 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) That's a good idea. Will you create this gallery? Adam78 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never downloaded on commons. Can you guide me through it? Dahn 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm sorry for not explaining the steps; you can find a guide at its help. Adam78 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hunyadis as Serbians

Dear Daizus! Why are you propagate an obsolote (19th century) theory (moreover you labelled it as modern)? It is not an accident that there is no "modern" (at least 2nd half of the 20th century) biography which mentions it. It is not me who vandalizing this article, but you.

In the main article there's a referenced theory (the one you keep removing) which makes a certain claim. It is mentioned as such (i.e. as a theory) and as long as the premises of the theory or the argumentation building it are not shown blatantly wrong (by other authorities in field), there's absolutely no reason to be removed. "obsolote" is not an English word (it's the third time you use this form) and I suspect you mean the word "obsolete".
Also as I pointed out most of the article is based on 19th century sources, so your criticism is biased if removes only one of these. And also, 19th century is part of the so called "modern age". You may confuse the term "modern" with the term "contemporary" which indeed suggests the time from the 2nd half of the 20th century onward. Daizus 13:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not the usage of 19th century references, but the mention of theories which are long dead. But if you stick to this theory, it is okay for me if you mention that this is an old theory and remove the word modern.
mod·ern ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdrn) adj.
1.a. Of or relating to recent times or the present: modern history.
b. Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date: a modern lifestyle; a modern way of thinking.
2.a. Of or relating to a recently developed or advanced style, technique, or technology: modern art; modern medicine.
b.Avant-garde; experimental.
often Modern Linguistics. Of, relating to, or being a living language or group of languages: Modern Italian; Modern Romance languages.81.183.150.254 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Read definition 1a. Okay, now head to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history. Modern times start from 18th century (in most historiographies, of course, but then again you should supply sources for "original" interpretations). Q.E.D. Daizus 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So Daizus? I am still do not understand why should an outdated/rejected information appear in the article.81.182.180.66 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejected by whom? Outdated by what other theories? Which of the Dr. Borovszky's premises (I'm not acquainted with them, but I assume you do if you claim this is an outdated theory) were invalidated by more recent research? Please provide a balanced view of hypotheses and theories on Hunyadi's origins (and try not to give only the views favoured by Hungarians). Don't just minimize the incovenient opinions, argue against them from authoritative sources. If you cannot, then you should leave it as it is. Daizus 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I used the following reference:
Radu Lupescu - Hunyadi János alakja a magyar és a román történetírásban [John Hunyadi in the Hungarian and Romanian historiography] in Századok 2/2005.
It summarizes the history and current state of the historical research of John Hunyadi's life and role in history. 84.2.210.177 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you quote your source to put a light in the origins of John Hunyadi? Does your source explicitely claims the falsity of some earlier scholarly claims (particularily the ones invoking a Serbian origin?) Daizus 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You can find the whole article here (in Hungarian)[1] Since the article shows the different opinions in the history of historiography, Lupescu did not express any own theory. He only states that after the essays of Wertner (1900) and Karácsonyi (1901) Hungarian historians did not query the Romanian origin of the Hunyadi family. In fact Dr. Borovszky's contribution in this question was so unimportant that Lupescu doesn't even mention him.
If Lupescu failed to mention Borovszky it may be also he didn't know of him or his writings. Like I said, if you have a better reference bring it, but do not remove a sourced statement just because you don't like the claim. That statement is qualitatively superior to many other statements in the article which do not have references at all. Daizus 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand anything, what are you quarelling about? Can you cut and paste here the 2-3 sentences from your sources that say what you support, please. (Could you, please, translate those 2-3 sentences in English):Dc76 17:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) The fact is that both Romanian and Hungarian historiography (for more than a hundred years)agree that the Hunyadis were of Romanian descent. I do not think that mentioning old outdated theories in an encyclopedia is right. Bye, 195.38.101.234 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting my addition to the last paragraph?

Why does my addition to the last paragraph keep getting deleted? Knock it off.Shield2 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change

From John Hunyadi to his real name in Hungarian, János Hunyadi. Do you agree? discuss. Stefanmg 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Me not. Because sourses in English already present him as John Hunyadi. By the way, why should the name in Hungarian be preferred to the one in German, Romanian or Slovak, or better Latin - the language in which his name was most often written during his lifetime? Of course, wikipedia articles in those languages would use the respective names.:Dc76 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Since he was Hungarian his Hungarian name must be prefered. But since he was a ruler (regent) his name must be use in its English form just like in the case of other rulers. I oppose the change. Bye, 195.38.101.234 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Hunyadi's legacy was far more important than this section states. Besides his victory at the Siege of Belgrade, he also built up a strong Hungarian sphere of influence in the Balkans that outlived him and kept Mehmed the Conquerer out of Central Europe. Matthias Corvinus, Vlad Tepes, and to a lesser extent Stephen III of Moldavia, were very much his hand-picked successors (Vlad Tepes was just as responsible for Stephen's rise to power as Hunyadi was, but by then Tepes had already gone from Hunyadi's enemy to his most promising protege next to his son). Mehmed's goal was to expand as far into Europe as he possibly could, and Hunyadi was more responsible than any other figure in European history for containing him. These are unbiased facts and should be included in this section. "[D]efense of Christendom against the Ottoman threat" is too vague and does not describe how and to what extent.Shield2 03:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you just wrote is based on interpretations - accurate perhaps, but interpretations nonetheless. IMO, you would need to reference that entire paragraph, and indicate who said what about whom. Dahn 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could try to formulate it better, then only 1-2 claims would absolutely necessary need reference. Although, this article beeing already B-class, it would be a pity not to reference everything. Hungarian sphere of influence - I guess you mean Kingdom of Hungary or Order of the Dragon's idea, not any kind of ethnical influence (not in 15th century). About Stephen III of Moldavia: His father, Bogdan II, was a personal vassal of John, brought him personal homage, and was very proud of this. Stephen did not pay any homage neither to John, nor to Vlad Tepes, but was supported in vitrue of previous alliances and alleagences, or simply by common interest. Mattias, as John's youngest son (ie not the original heir), had a somewhat different viewpoint, which in the end led to war. I also know the same info about Mehmed as you write, but it would really be nice to reference everything, to keep the quality of the article. So, I guess Dahn's objections are not about the content, but about the quality of the article. :Dc76 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunyadi as prince?

"In 1448 he received a golden chain and the title of Prince from Pope Nicholas V,(...)" The article states that Hunyadi was a prince and this title was given to him by the pope. Are there any reference to prove this? Popes did not have the authority to elevate peoples to princedom. In fact Hungarian law did not know the noble title 'prince' till the XIX. century. Bye, 195.38.101.234 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Voicu or Vajk?

I would like to comment on the above quote by WikiRaptor regarding the names Voicu and Vajk. In his comment of Hungarian names WikiRaptor states that "Voicu is a Romanian name, ask anyone who speaks that language." He goes on to complain that the name is spelled with "Hungarian influences" and wonders why. My reply is this, Vajk is a Hungarian name, ask anyone who speaks that language! Chances are the Hungarian name Vajk predates the Romanian Voicu. Voicu is probably a Romanianized version of the Hungarian Vajk. I say probably because I am not familiar with Romanian. Before the Hungarian/Magyar tribes that settled in the Carpathian Basin adopted the Christian religion, there was a Hungarian name that happened to be the original name of Hungary's first King István (Stephen) before he converted to Christianity, and that name was Vajk. The use of this name happened hundreds of years before the birth of János Hunyadi. So could it be possible that his father's name was Vajk and not Voicu? Or is it coincidence? I am Hungarian, and I do admit that Hunyadi was of Romanian parentage at least on his father's side. This is noted in many Hungarian books dealing with his life. The Hungarian writer Elek Benedek, in a biography on Hunyadi stated that Hungarians should accept his Romanian origins. Many non-Hungarians living within Hungary eventualy assimilated and became Hungarianized and Hunyadi is one example. Other non-Hungarian and non-Romanian editors of this article have puzzled themselves over the confusion over the use of this name, and have attempted an anglicized compromise by spelling it as Voyk. My intent here is to show that there is an historic precedent for the use of the name Vajk by Hungarians. The Romanian Voicu seems suspect to me unles it can be proved that this Romanian name predates the reign of Saint Stephen of Hungary whose original name was Vajk. Gyula 22:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Voicu and Vajk come from the same Slavic root, meaning warrior, so it is most likely that a form of this name existed in this area before the arrival of Hungarians. I suggest the spelling of the name according to the person’s ethnicity. Morosanul (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the two lines about John's father are pretty well written they way they are. As far as ethnicity is concerned, we mus realize that John himself would have probably been very puzzled about the controversy. The hierarchy of one's identities in the Middle Ages was very different from the modern one. A man such as John Hunyadi was above all a Christian Knight of the Apostolic faith and a Noble Lord, vassal to his King. It is very unlikely that he felt Romanian or Hungarian in the sense that we may feel Romanian or Hungarian today. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

White Knight

Philippe de Commines mentions John Hunyadi's nickname, as follows (Memoirs, b. VI, ch. XII, §9, translation and square-bracketed remarks are mine): In our time reigned also two valiant and wise princes, the king of Hungary, Mathias [the Just], and Mehemet Ottoman [Mohammed II], emperor of the Turks. Said king Mathias was the son of a very gentile knight, called the white knight, from Valachy, a nobleman of great sense and virtue, who long governed that kingdom of Hungary, and had many beautiful victories against the Turks, who are neighbours of said kingdom because of the lordships which they usurped in Greece and in Esclavony [Slovenia ?], and in Bosnia. And soon after his demise, came to age king Launcelot [László], to whom said kingdom belonged, with Bohemia and Poland. The latter was counseled by some (it is said) to capture both sons of said White knight, saying that their father had taken too much mastery and lordship in said kingdom, during his [László's] childhood [...] and immediately had the firstborn put to death, and said Mathias put into prison in Bude, main city of Hungary [Buda = Budapest high town, right of the Danube], who was the second [...] -- Tonymec 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this article to Johannes Hunyadi

The points are the following

  • Johannes: to be NPOV, I propose to use Johannes instead of John - as his name has nothing to do with English (as nation, as language, as any way). The latin version is more neutral name, and this is not discgraceful for him. (Though, I have nothing against anything English)
  • Hunyadi: Everybody needs to agree, that regardless his origin, written documents use the "Hunyadi" version.

One remark: those who really emphasise he was Wallachian, (not Romanian, sorry, this didn't exist at that time) do not understand ethnicity in KoH. The secret is the special connection with Sacra Corona of Hungary: all entities living in Carpathian basin were happy to be a part of metaphysic experience. This is the reason why Kossuth (Slovak), Petofi (Serbian? but Slovak), Grassalkovich (Serb), and Hunyadi knew their origins but they were happy as Hungarians. This ancient view was slowly lost after Maria Theresa. It sounds odd today, and even difficult to digest, but it was a different time then. Abdulka 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is more a nationalistic pov. If we want to stick on Latin, we would use Iohanes de Hwnijad.
Of course Romanians existed, Walachian is the way the foreigners called them. Romanians always named themselves român or rumân.
And it is not a matter of how happy were some people to fill whatever, but of their actual ethnicity. Iohanes de Hwnijad was a Hungarian noble, but with Romanian origins. Morosanul (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was a Hungarian noble of partly Hungarian, partly Wallachian ethnicity (at least according to some sources). Encyclopædia Britannica simply uses János Hunyadi as the article's name. Squash Racket (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Morosanul you are wrong, as all historic sources write Wlach, I have never seen a text on maps such as "Romania", the name was linked only in 17-18th century, according to my sources. Iohanes de Hwnijad is still better than "John", but nobody will find it in Wiki! What I was trying to point out in the second paragraph is that at that time ethnicity did not matter, so should now. I believe he was our common hero, this is what our ancestors thought, too! Abdulka (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

John's origins

Can anyone stop for a moment from editing his origins ? Let's settle it here instead of starting a mini edit war . The neutral encyclopedic and highly academic sources present him as having romanian origins. The hungarian sources are claiming he was hungarian 100 % . The purpuse of wikipedia is presenting the neutral point of view. If the sources which gave him romanian origins were Romanian I would understood but they are NEUTRAL. Waiting for your replies ... Rezistenta (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ok, so:

  • Officially recognized independence of Romania was on July 13, 1878. You cant use the word romanian in this article in this content, just vlach, wallachian.
  • You removed sourced informations from the article! (about his cuman origin, and you are talking about how to write a good encyclopedia) Do you know that this is against wiki rules.
  • You think that Hungarian or other non English sources are not good? Check some articles and you will find out, that many of them have non english sources too!
  • The English reference says Vlach. Romanian is a bit misleading in that context.
  • Wikipedia:SOURCES#Non-English_sources says adding quotes from the non-English texts is advised to make it easier to check.
  • A Catholic encyclopedia is not an "obscure" source.

Squash Racket (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the English language the "word Magyar" doesn't exist, this doesn't mean you people aren't calling yourselves magyars isn't it ? I've told you that Vlach is an exonym
A Catholic encyclopedia may be an obscure source if it's hungarian and used to advance hungarian views, please translate what the hungarian catholic encylopedia states and the source of the Catholic Encyclopedia because this is english wikipedia and we don't understand a word Rezistenta (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The term Magyar does exist and is used in English.
  • the source is the Catholic Church, what else?

Squash Racket (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's a literary translation of how that hungarian players and the hungarian people call that team, it's a "nickname" no one calls the hungarians, "magyars" in english language.
Please make a literary translation of the source, what does it say and what's the source of the encyclopedia, thx Rezistenta (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Should I repeat myself again? The term exists and is used (another link)
  • I already added the publisher of the encyclopedia in my previous comment; "kun eredetű" means of "Cuman origin" in the text

Squash Racket (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Magyar is not equivalent with Hungarian and you know this
So you don't want to explain the hungarian source ok , when using such an obscure source and you don't want to translate it or explain how did they got to this conclusion then it doesn't belong to this article because it's breaking the Wikipedia Verifibiality Rule for Non-English sources, you can read it here WP:NONENG Rezistenta (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Vlach is not equivalent with Romanian and as you pointed out in your edit summary, source uses Vlach, the historical term, not Romanian which is misleading here.
Please don't change the admin's version unless there is clear concensus. Thank you. BTW Vlach from Wallachia is a bit redundant. Squash Racket (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Vlach is the historical name for romanians in the english language, like hungarians is for the present magyars. What clear concensous, you can mention Elisabeth being hungarian by an obscure souce and I cannot cite Antonio Bonfini who studied Corvinus lineage and says he was ethnic vlach? Rezistenta (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't write Vlach, you wrote Romanian. Yes, we need the historical version here, not the modern one.
I repeat: the Hungarian source is not obscure. I showed the publisher and which Hungarian phrase you should search for at the online link (though you missed both). Squash Racket (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Where did you translated the phrase (not some irrelevant 2 words) ? I've asked you to make a literary translation of that phrase and specify the source of how did they got to the conclusion he was cuman ok ?
Vlach is the english name for Romanian in historical times, who says what we need and what we don't, you ? I'm afraid if you insist with this crap we must also mention that in historical times "hungarian" doesn't meant a specific ethnicity but more specisely an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Hungary of any ethnicity. Rezistenta (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The reference says Vlach, not me.
"One of the the greatest generals of Hungarian military history. His ancestors were warrior boyars from Wallachia of most likely Cuman origin; his father, Vajk moved to Hungary around 1395..."
Squash Racket (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"Most likely" . And you call this a source for making him a Cuman ? based on what ? Observe that your source says "ancestors" and not father or ancestor this means his mother presented also as a hungarian was not so much a hungarian. Antonio Bonfini studied the background of the Corvin lineage and his claims are not based on assumptions Rezistenta (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The relation between Hungarian and Magyar is not exactly the same as between Romanian and Vlach. I repeat: in English both Magyar and Hungarian are used today.
As long as the information is referenced it may/should be added. That's the bottomline again. The reference talks about warrior boyars, that kinda suggests his paternal line, don't you think? Squash Racket (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hungarian information ([2]) is translated. You can use it. (sorry for my bad english....)

  • Hungarian: "Hunyadi János kormányzó apja a Vajk méltóságnévre hallgatott, mely ismerősen cseng, hiszen Szent István pogánykori nevével azonos, s török eredetű, vagy pontosabban talán úgy fogalmazhatunk: a törökből magyarázható. Eredeti formája Bajik. Értelme: 'Igaz Ember'.4 A b a hangfejlődés során gyakorta alakult át v hanggá.5 "A szóeleji b- és v-nek a váltakozására sok példa van a régi magyarban."6 Szlavónia egyik legrégebbi családja, a Voikffy a Woik (Vojk) nemzetségből származott.7 "

English: "The name of John Hunyadi's fahter was Vajk, which is the same of St. Stephen's pagan name, which is derived from Turkic/turkish. Original form of the name is Bajik. The meaning of the word is: True man. character B changed to v. (like in the case of the oldest slavonian family Woik (vojk) changed to Voikffy."

  • Hungarian: "Hunyadi Vajk apját Sorbenak hívták. Amint Rásonyi László turkológus professzor kimutatta, ez kun, vagyis szintén török eredetű név, melynek értelme ,szerencsétlen'.8 Sorbe egyik fiának magyar neve van: Magos. Mivel a kutatás tisztázta, amit néprajzi adatok is alátámasztanak, hogy az anyának döntő szerepe volt gyermekei névválasztásánál,9 Sorbe felesége minden valószínűség szerint magyar volt."

English: "The name of Hunyadi Vajk's father was Sorbe. According to professor László Rásonyi's (he is a turkologist) research, Sorbe is a cuman name,(turkic) which meaning is "unlucky". The name of Sorb's son is Magos, which is a Hungarian name. Ethnographic researches have proved, that always the mother had the dominant role at the name choosing. So Sorbe's wife was presumably Hungarian. The name of John's sister was Klára (Klara). This is a Roman Catholic name. Vajk's wife was Hungarian, because the romanians are orthodox." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.249.33 (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the relation between Hungarian and Magyar. As long as this is from a hungarian obscure source inserted just for pushing your POV and it's not even explainig how did they got to this conclusion it will not be accepted. I am proposing you a compromise, I won't modify the ethnicity of his mother Elisabeta Margean whose geneology goes back to a Romanian cneaz in Transylvania. (by the way in romanian Margea means pearl , what does Morzsinay mean in hungarian ?) as long you will not interfere with his father's ethnicity specified by the best historians of that time Rezistenta (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well based on this theory this makes also St Stephen a cuman isn't it ? Rezistenta (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Everything that is referenced will be added.
The encyclopedia is NOT an obscure source. Even the English source (I mean not the one by Cazacu) says he rose to the Hungarian nobility through marriage. Bonfini also mentioned the Romanian name of his mother? Squash Racket (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You are so stupid dude! :D You are the one pushing POV. You think every hungarian sources are obscure? :D Iknow: only romanian, mighty dacian sources are good! :D There is the reference list at the end of the webpage. Read those books! Ask professor Rásonyi! Read his books too! You will find your answer! And tell me, how did your authors get the conclusion? What is the meaning of Oradea? :D ( i can show you sources which wil tell you some about Morizsnay). You are not the one here, who can question referenced sources! YOU SHOLUD NOT READ TOO MANY ROMANIAN NACIONALISTIC BOOKS REZISTENTA! BYE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.249.33 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC) "Well based on this theory this makes also St Stephen a cuman isn't it?" OMG! STUPID! Ever heared about hungarian-turkish origin? Or just about finno ugric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.249.33 (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Who gave "romanian dacian mighty sources" on this text you wannabe funny guy ? They are neutral sources by the most capable historians of that time
From the Catholic Encylcopedia 1913 Á. ALDÁSY.
John Hunyadi - Governor of Hungary, born about 1400; died 11 August, 1456; the heroic defender of the Catholic Faith against the advance of the Osmanli; father of King Matthias I (Corvinus) of Hungary. The origin and parentage of his family was not ascertained until recently, when modern investigation cleared up the numerous legends which surrounded the Hunyadi family. The historian Bonfini derived the family from the Roman gens Corvina, or Valeriana, in order to flatter his king, Matthias Corvinus. Gáspár Heltai in his chronicle makes Hunyady the illegitimate son of King Sigismund and a Wallachian peasant-girl. Others try to establish the purely Hungarian origin of the family; others again put in a plea for its Serb or Wallachian origin. In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace; probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith. Rezistenta (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
84.3.249.33 I know you guys are finno-ugric-turkic-sumerians you don't have to explain me your history Rezistenta (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith, which his father Vajk (Voik, Vuk) probably had already professed. The oldest ascertained member of the family was called Serbe, whose son, Vajk, the father of János Hunyady, was already in possession of the hereditary seat of the family, the castle Hunyad, before 1407. The parentage of the mother of Hunyady underwent an exhaustive scrutiny at the hands of modern critics. While formerly his mother, Elizabeth, was supposed to belong to the family of Morzsinay, it was recently shown by János Karácsonyi, that for various reasons the marriage of Hunyady's father with a member of the family of Morzsinay is inadmissible. However, the name of Hunyady's mother has not been ascertained up to the present time. The year of Hunyady's birth is either one of the last years of the fourteenth, or one of the first years of the fifteenth century. According to Count Joseph Teleki, the historian of the House of Hunyady, he was born in 1387. The birthplace of Hunyady is equally unknown.

Seconds ago you called another Catholic Encyclopedia an "obscure source". Now you are bolding their sentences. Interesting.
A whole line of Catholic Vlachs?? That's even more interesting, knowing they were usually Eastern Orthodox. And they are citing two Hungarian scholars, János Karácsonyi and Count Joseph Teleki in the main text. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HAhahahaha Catholic Encyclopedia written by hungarians says his family is ethnic romanian, you hungarian guys must be driven insane :D Rezistenta (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So now you fully trust Hungarian scholars? Seconds ago that was a bit otherwise... Squash Racket (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well no, because the mojority of them are biased when talking about romanian-hungarian history, and i'm surprised by this source. You wanted Catholic Encyclopedia as source, you got it Rezistenta (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Every daco-romanian is so clever like you? First you said that only neutral sources are good, and removed the Hungarian ones. Than you said that a chatolic encyclopedia is obscure, so you removed that to. Now you added a hungarian chatolic encyclopedia as a source...bravo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.248.3 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So you continue to dismiss Hungarian scholars unless they support your POV, then you rush to add their thoughts and research. Squash Racket (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's going on you're denieing your own source for which you fought so much ? I proposed you we must use neutral sources not romanian or hungarian and you dindn't want Rezistenta (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have anything to do with that IP? Just asking. Squash Racket (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
yeah it's my ip I forgot to login, what's the problem ? Does MagyarTurk has anything to do with this ip 84.3.248.3 from which he made several personal atacks? Rezistenta (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You should ask him, I don't know. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I'm glad we reached a concensous, both here and in the other article Rezistenta (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Concensus is not reached when you say so. There's no information on his mother, no mention of other sources (you don't trust obscure sources as you said and you would never use Hungarian authors as sources as you said). Squash Racket (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Probably you would be also comfortable with adding the Hungarian version of the Catholic Encyclopedia which says "most likely of Cuman origin". Right? Now that you trust Hungarian authors and encyclopedias 100%. Squash Racket (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha so now they're obscure sources, the explination of this passage includes also the other theories and dismiss them as only speculations, don't deny your own sources with some original research made by you as per WP:NOR . Rezistenta (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1)I am not MagyarTürk
  • 2)So you think, that a professors work is just an original research on the internet or what?? I think, that if someone is a PROFESSOR he knows something. Better than you or me.
Is Squash Racket a proffesor ? Rezistenta (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You are sure not! :) (neither am i) Anyway i added cuman into the text. please check. This form is acceptable for me.
Ok then. It is nice when hungarians and romanians get along, cheers ;) Rezistenta (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article, as the recent dispute appears to have vanished: one editor appears to have stopped responding to comments in the discussion, which I interpret as a sign that he or she is no longer taking an interest in it. As such, the recent content dispute is terminated, what with one dissenting party's absence. I unprotect under the condition that, should the other party return, the dispute is immediately taken to discussion and/or dispute resolution. As an aside, if two editors disagree over a content matter, the answer is not to engage in edit warring. Please be mindful of how you conduct yourselves on a Wikipedia article. Anthøny ✉ 14:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC) To all parties, please do remain civil as well. Thanks. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And, the bickering continues. I have issued final warnings to both Rezistenta and Squash Racket. This quarrelling is simply disruptive. Anthøny ✉ 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't mix my comments with the IP comments! The bickering went on between Rezistenta and anonymous IPs (like that one) I have nothing to do with (check the diffs please in the page history). I focused on the article and and I do sign my comments. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored to the pre-edit war version. Khoikhoi 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I have reverted. That was not the intention of my warning; what version of the article to revert to (if any) is a matter for dispute resolution, Khoikhoi. Anthøny ✉ 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO I don't see anything wrong with saying "Other sources state". While the Catholic Encyclopedia indeed says "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin", we need to take into account when this was written. All of the references in the articles are from the 1800s. I would hardly call this "modern". Khoikhoi 09:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Greetings. Here are two sources that John's mother was Hungarian noble lady, for Rezistenta. [3] [4] MagyarTürk (MagyarTürk)

yes,a valachian noble lady Elisabeta Mărgean de Cinciş who hungarians proudly call her "Erzsébet Morzsinai" .. having a magyarized name does not make you hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Many Romanians were and still are magyarized so there is a common mistake by the Hungarian ultra-nationalists that we should`t pay much attention to it, it is important that Iancu de Hunedoara is recognized as of a Romanian origin in Hungarian administration, and if you have a chance to speak with a normal Hungarian person you can see that even they know the "procedure" that was applied back then . iadrian (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Disected "Origin" section

Here is the explanation for my latest edits:

  • First of all, without any implication to imply he is wrong or right, I canceled Rezistenza's revert due to a technical fact: it is possible to perform all the changes Rezistenza made in the current format, with disects the section "Origin" into subsections "Father", "Mather", "Wife", "Brother", "Ethnicity", "Corvinus legend". I do not mean to say that this format is to stay forever, but as long as the disputes are not cleared out, I think it would be easier to reach a compromize when each problem is separated. After a couple months, we can ask a native English speaker to review this section and delete subsections if he or she would find that more appropriate to the way a text should look from a linguistic, phraseologic and stylistic POV. So, Rezistenza, would you, please, add what you have to add in the format with subsections. Citing John McCain, let's all of us be respectful to each other even when we strongly disagree on some content issues. Plain rv war is childish.
  • I erased the phrase "The origin and parentage of his family was not ascertained until recently, when" but left "Modern investigation cleared up the numerous legends which surrounded the Hunyadi family." The fact that Hungarian sources were presented that clearly state that John Hunyadi is a Hungarian, and Romanian sources were presented that clearly state that John Hunyadi is a Romanian, and both are serious scientific works, I believe is a proof itself that the dispute is not completely over. On the other hand, while the conclusions of one historians' works could differ from the conclusions of another, their facts are to an almost 100% the same. And indeed, modern investigation have cleared many previous legends. His ethnicity is not a legend, it is a conclusion that modern people made, and thanks God, John Hunyadi did not live to see how today people quarel about it. The whole idea to which John dedicated his life, that of a united front against the common threats, in that time the Ottomans, is undermined by stupid quarels.
  • Let's agree that this is English WP, not Hungarian or Romanian. If a historic person is know in English by some name, that's the name we should consistently use throughout the text. So, it's John Hunyadi, not János, not Iancu, and not Ioan. So, it is Sigismund of Luxembourg, not Zsigmond.
  • The year 1409 is wikified because that's when Huniad domain and castle were established. I think that is somewhat important. Any disagreements?
  • Where there is a dispute Hungarian/Romanian, I tried to leave both, so we and the reader can see were the differences are. I am very sorry that several users were only editting the article in the sense of changin H to R or R to H. That is not mature. The way this should be resolved is by adding [citation needed], then adding and verifying that.
  • I erased "Serbian" b/c that origin of his father is part of a supposition or a legend, that is not a language John spoke daily, neither in the childhood, nor in the maturity.
  • I erased "was borned in a Catholic family" because it is not verified. He was a Catholic, that's sure. But were his parents Catholic - no clear statement yes/no in sourses. If someone wants to add another sentance stating John's religion, I would have no objection.
  • I also erased "his son Mátyás was a Hungarian King" as a reason for John being Hungarian for the simple fact that the implicating strictly mathematically is not true. His son was a Hungarian king and noone doubts that. Just as noone doubts John was a Hungarian captain and regent. The problem is that "Hunagrian" as taken to mean ethnicity, while in fact it means "subject of the Hungarian crown". And noone cared about ethnicity then, but they did care very much whose subject was he. Obviously I am not against reeditting better to convey this sense.
  • I kept erased "According to modern concepts both John's legal parents were ethnic Romanians" b/c that indeed was not a good way of writing. The info should be conveyed in a better written sentence, e.g. "was a subject of the Hungarian crown".
  • I kept erased "The phenomen of medieval Romanian small nobility in Transylvania adopting Catholicism, Hungarian language and fully integrating in the Hungarian nobility was by far not limited to John Hunyadi." b/c that is going into too much detail, which place is not in this article. Dc76\talk 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite good job, it is not so easy to see clearly for a person of controversial origin like John Hunyadi. I wish all Romanian wiki people would edit like this. Abdulka (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Hunyadi/Archive_1&oldid=1136849893"