Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trimming to historical scope / Request to previous editors

First of all: please don't take this as a personal attack against yourself or any other contributors to this article. I've been studying the HRE of the later Middle Ages for some time, so I would say I'm a good reference as to how a Mediaevalist responds to a historical essay. I was positively shocked when I checked out the WP page on John Hunyadi. It is about a historical figure, so it has to fulfil certain quality and content requirements to belong into an encyclopedia. From a historical point of view, that meant trimming the "Origin" section considerably.
Please believe me when I say the following (and even if I write it in a slightly silly way, it is meant perfectly and utterly seriously): Only two facts are known about the early Hunyadis:

1. Almost nothing is known about them. They were lower nobility and catholic. We have some indications pointing toward a Vlach origin of John's father and paternal grandfather, and to a conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but not much.
2. Matthias Corvinus was not content with his paternal ancestry, most likely because it made him look like a nouveau noble. He claimed emperor Sigismund as a grandfather and had the usual baloneys concocted as to what antique figures he was descended from. That was the common practice of the day (the Habsburgs claimed they had been granted the title of "Archiduke" by Caesar and Nero and said they were the descendants of King Arthur; the house of Luxembourg traced its origins back to figures from the Old Testament), and it is naturally not to be taken seriously. But it gives us a good indication that, had there been any truly notable ancestors of the Hunyadis in the more recent past, proud king Mat would have made sure to have them mentioned.

Anything beyond that has to remain utter speculation. So please stop adding endless divinations about his possible origins. The recorded names of the early Hunyadis are nothing more than that, namely names. Their ultimate linguistic origin and analysis will only leave a non liquet and nothing more, as names tend to wander, over maternal relations and godparenthood, across regions and ethnical boundaries. Please do not re-insert any of the references to onomastic etymologies. We do not need twenty footnotes on names and possible origins, since all we know about the ancestors of John Hunyadi can be summarised in one, or maybe two sentences. As Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, any nationalistic struggle over heroic figures from the past should be kept where it belongs, which is probably somewhere else than here. It is commonly appreciated that both John and Matthias Hunyadi were or rather have become European heroes in their own rights, Hungarian kings of Hungary, fighting the Ottoman Empire and what not, but their conjectural origins beyond "probably from a Vlach family" are a matter of interest only to Hungarian and Romanian nationalists. Please keep them out of this article. Trigaranus (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

12 refs for "Romanian"

Only 12 (twelve!) footnotes to state that John's family were probably Vlachs? That is just disappointing. Twelve, ha! Come on! Give us more! I want twenty. Anything less makes the article look shabby and unreadable. (sorry, couldn't help it) Trigaranus (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have made good contributions in this article, but I am sure that it is only a matter of time and they will be reverted. Sad, but true.... (There are too many nacionalist on both sides). Would you like to clean the Hunyadi article?Baxter9 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian / Romanian Nationalism in a Globalised World

Could we possibly agree to let the matter of his nationality rest once and for all? It is not an issue, as it clearly wasn't important during his lifetime. And, to be honest, outside the minds of some Romanian/Hungarian nationalists, it still isn't an issue. (Or could you possibly ever imagine Swiss, Germans and Austrians bickering on about Rudolf of Habsburg's nationality?) John Hunyadi was the king of Hungary, that's all there is to it. So please get yourself informed about "nationalism" or the lack thereof for most parts of the Middle Ages, and then, please drone on about his ancestry in the privacy of an online forum, not here. This is Wikipedia, not a kindergarten. On WP, stuff like this is just embarrassing to watch. All of you nationalists, grow up. It's an encyclopedia article, and should be treated as such. That includes leaving out, say, 8-9 out of 12 refs on his paternal descent. Trigaranus (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::Cleaned the article.Baxter9 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[1]

“ That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for Romanians/Hungarians. :) ”

Forget it. It looks like the most important thing about him is his ethnicity, and this article can not exist without Romanian-Wallachian-Vlach-Hungarian-Cuman theories. Article restored by user:Carpaticus.Baxter9 (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ps. "cleaning" just kept some of the Hungarian sources...it is not fair" Sorry, i didnt notice. It is clear that this was a pro Hungarian anti Romanian event, and I tried to push revisionist nacionalistic propaganda. Hungarian sources in a Hungary related article? OMG! I am a Nazi! LOL!Baxter9 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

Because there is a new movie in the works about János (John) Hunyadi, I felt an addition of further reading material on his life and times should be included. The new film is a Hungarian-United States colaboration and may possibly be released in the US thus sparking further interest and curiosity on this subject. Info on the film can be found on the Internet Movie Data Base under the erroneous working title of The Black Knight (he was known as the White Knight). The Hungarian working title is Hunyadi, Isten kardja (Hunyadi, Sword of God). Gyula (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobleman from Wallachia

Shouldn't the article say he was from a noble family from Wallachia ? --Venatoreng (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) No, because he received his noble title from the Kingdom of Hungary, therefore he is a Hungarian noble, not a Wallachian noble. Apocz (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Apocz you`re wrong. you should read the question again. also he was a wallachian voivod (noble man) and a regent of hungary . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dardanelles Gun

The Dardanelles Gun or falsely called here "Hungarian Gun" is not the gun of Orban, but was cast in 1464, eleven years after the fall of Constantinople by an Ottoman gunfounder called Munir Ali. We can play around a bit here, User talk:Celebration1981, but in the end you will just have to let go of the pic and caption. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Are you vandal? You deleted the Hungarian Cannon name, from the beginning of the article. Look: Hungarian Cannon "Hungarian Cannons" is the oldest serie name of these type of cannons. These type of cannons were built between 1452-1470's. Only one could survive the centuries wich was made in 1464. Turks had not own turkish Cannon makers (or masters) to build such a cannon in the XV century. Italian and Hungarian masters built their early cannons. Dardanelles Gun are equal to Hungarian Cannon. Because Hungarian master ( his name? Orban/Urban) developed the technology of the fabrication of these cannon series. All of these cannons were buit in same technology. The first built in 1453. --Celebration1981 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that a) this is not Orban's 1453 gun, but an Ottoman 1464 gun, and b) there is no reference which calls Munir Ali's Dardanelles Gun "Hungarian cannon", hence this name is OR so far. So, now tell me, how can you revert mindlessly to a version which says this gun participated in the 1453 campaign, when it was cast as late as 1464? Is chronology a concept too difficult to grasp? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not important that this concrete cannon was built in 1464. Hungarian Cannon is a suite of cannons in Turkey from 1452 to 1470's, wich were built in the same technology and the same extents. Why are you vandal? --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Read about first Hungarian Cannon http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm Sultan Mohammed II of the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Constantinople in April, 1453. He brought with him 68 Hungarian-made cannons, the largest of which was a gigantic 26-ft.-long gun that weighed 20 tons, fired a 1,200-lb. stone cannonball, and required an operating crew of 200 men. For 50 days, the Turkish cannons bombarded Constantinople and ripped holes in its walls, but each time the Turks charged into the gaps, the defenders repulsed them and hastily rebuilt the walls. Finally, on May 29, 1453, a destructive cannonade toppled a wide stretch of the walls, and 12,000 elite Turkish troops successfully rampaged into the city. --Celebration1981 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable, scholarly source, and they just got their facts wrong. In contrast, Schmidtchen in Dardanelles Gun not only described the 1464 gun in detail, but he also added a picture of the cannon, then still in the Tower of London, with the offical plate stating that the gun was cast in 1464 by a certain Munir Ali acccording to an inscription on the gun. This is as clear as it gets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

What can one say? Among the "Romanian" historians who claim that the Hunyadi family is of Vlach origin we should not forget to mention Paul Lendvai and Miklos Molnar. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Plinul's clear-cut point, I would like to add the following: the issue confronting nationalisms on this matter was never one of admitting a fact, but one of its relative importance. For one, I'm sure accounts of Hunyadi's origin vary on either side of "ethnic divides", whether it is in primary sources or in the work of bona fide and professional historians. This is beside a jingoistic culture, with all the absurdity attached, which either transforms two medieval leaders of the Hungarian Kingdom into representatives of a non-existing Romania (in the case of Romanian jingola) or denies any possibility that Hunyadi was of Vlach origin (in the case of Hungarian jingola). The latter approaches may be popular in football culture or pub culture, or anywhere else people are into territorial pissing, but they should never interfere with scholarship-based definitions.

And, btw, I'm rather perplexed by the fabricated response in this case, since the justifying notion beyond mainstream political reflections on historiography coming from in Hungary is not to deny the ethnic plurality of Hungarian traditional elites, but to relativize it by insisting that Hungarian identity is primarily cultural. Now, personally, I would agree with that relativization any day over the tiresome and idiotic notions that Hunyadi was "a Romanian military leader [who happened to be leading a foreign army]" etc. I would also agree that this relativism always makes a more valid point than the nationalist insistence on projecting ethnicist identities on the non-ethnicist past. And I could also cite various Romanian historians who either deal with Hunyadi's supposed origin with the necessary subtlety or make an explicit point of discouraging jingoistic interpretations of any kind. Dahn (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the original text.--B@xter⁹ 12:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Dahn. While some ethnical awareness did exist in the Middle Ages, ethnical identity was not as important as it is today and wasn't even understood in the same terms. Concerning John, Miklos Molnar mentions in his Concise history of Hungary a document from 1434 literally identifying Janos the son of Vajk as Wallachian. While one may speculate on the more distant origins of the family (and given the lack of sources that is all one can do - speculate) there is little room for debate. Let me remind everyone that the article should not give undue weight to minority views and should not contain fringe theories. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrected English grammar; re 'only' as an adverb: The meaning of a phrase depends upon whether 'only' is placed before or after the verb. (1) IF the meaning is: that the verb's object is unique (i.e., not to be substituted), then 'only' is placed after the verb: E.g.> "I work only here." MEANING: I work not 'there'. I work not 'on the 5th floor'. >> I work only 'here'. ('here' is not to be substituted.) ...and e.g.> " ...the family's name and ascent were 'established only' by Sigismund's grant." MEANING: ...the family's name and ascent were established not by 'Prince Harry's' grant; ...the family's name and ascent were established not by Sigismund's 'lottery'; >> ...the family's name and ascent were established only 'by Sigismund's grant'. ('by Sigismund's grant' is not to be substituted.) (2) OTOH, IF the meaning is: that the verb itself is unique (i.e., not to be substituted), then 'only' is placed just before the verb: E.g.> "I only work here." MEANING: I do not 'play' here. I do not 'sing' here. I do not 'answer people's questions' here. >> I only 'work' here. ...and e.g.> " ...the family's name and ascent were 'only established' by Sigismund's grant." MEANING: ...the family's name and ascent were not 'created' by Sigismund's grant; ...the family's name and ascent were not 'initiated' by Sigismund's grant; >> ...the family's name and ascent were only 'established' by Sigismund's grant. Clearly, here the objective phrase —"by Sigismund's grant"— is not to be substituted with some other phrase; therefore 'only' applies to the phase, and is placed after the verb.--Jbeans (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC) here is an americans reference that confirms Iancu was romanian/vlach (and not cuman like the hungarians like to belive) http://countrystudies.us/romania/8.htm "At this time of near desperation, a Magyarized Romanian from Transylvania, János Hunyadi, became regent of Hungary. Hunyadi, a hero of the Ottoman wars, mobilized Hungary against the Turks...". the source is the U.S. Library of Congress so is trustable The statment in which he's described as a cumen should be deleted because it has only hungarian references and it's hungarian nationalistic bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.190.155 (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

John Hunyadi Romanian?

Thath John Hunyadi was Romanian descent, such absurd and unable, as Matthias King was Wallachian King. Romanian fascism and chauvinism like sound againts the Hungarians. Doncsecz^znánje 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Miklós Molnár and Anna Magyar's Concise history of Hungary,pag. 61. You may be interested to find out that for his own contemporaries he was a Wallachian: Another document dated 1434 already refers to "Vajk, beacon of Hunyad" and his son "Janos the Wallachian". You may also wish to consult Paul Lendvai's "The Hungarians" (I believe both the man and the book are beyond suspicion of pro-Romanian bias): Hunyadi came from a Romanian (according to some sources Slav) family which had migrated from Wallachia to Transilvania. The Hungarian name stems from the castle Vajdahunyad (today Hunedoara in Romania), which Janos's father Vajk, a minor Romanian noble, had receives from Sigismund.. On the other hand I agree that the paragraph should be reworded so that no undue weight is given to minority scientific views (i.e. Cuman ethnicity) and further more, as seen in Lendvai's text, that a difference be made between the family's distant origin (Slav, Cuman etc) and its 14th - 15th century history (clearly related to Romanians and possibly to Wallachia). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on the rewrite of the paragraph, per WP:FRINGE and plain common sense. Virtually the entire article needs to be reworked, of course. Dahn (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The name "John the Wallachian" not sign the nationality, but the family of Hunyadi origin by Wallachia. In the Vendvidék (Prekmurje and Raba March), where i live, he a noble-family Ivanóczy's. Original name is Kodila and slovene descent, after the his abode Ivanócz/Ivanovci he the name Ivanóczy. The Counts of Celje in Slovenia neither Slovenes, but Germans, his lordship was in Celje. Doncsecz^znánje 08:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. ALL I have to say so far. Dahn (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Source? Not enough, that i here live, still be source, that the family Ivanóczy is slovene and Counts of Celje German descents? Next i so write, that two part: Hunyadi family – Cuman-Turkic descent, and Hunyadi family – Vlach descent. Doncsecz^znánje 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not enough. Wikipedia does not, cannot and ultimately should not include this type of original research. Incidentally, the argument as you present it is also a common fallacy. And the "two part" thing, if I got it right (it's frankly very hard to understand what you're saying) is a false analogy, as well as yet more proof that you either don't understand or misconstrue the objections others have to your text. And seriously, Doncsecz: consider learning some more English before you contribute to this version of wikipedia; it's hard enough to understand what you're saying, it's worse that you don't understand what others mean. Dahn (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is censure? In turn purpose it is plain, also my, and also yours. Doncsecz^znánje 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1) It's called "censorship", not "censure". I have absolutely no idea what you mean by: "In turn purpose it is plain, also my, and also yours", but if you again imply that my "purpose" is equivalent to the straw man at the top of this section (i. e. the assertion about "Romanian fascism and chauvinism"), I have to warn one final time that this type of inflammatory abuse will not stand with admins. One final time before I personally report you. I strongly urge you to reconsider how you interact with other editors. 2) If you can't abide by wikipedia rules (as quoted) and think they are censorship, you clearly have not taken the time to read what wikipedia is and isn't. Dahn (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncsecz you have serios problems. you sound more like a indoctrinated hungarian zombie than a pole . try to read some history next time . your judgement is "absurd and unable" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Romanian descent of John Hunyadi

"a Magyarized Romanian from Transylvania, János Hunyadi, became regent of Hungary. " A Country Study: Romania. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.. http://countrystudies.us/romania/8.htm "Matthias, whose grandfather was an unknown vlach kinght " (about Wajk/Voicu, John's father) A History of Hungary‎ Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank - History - 1994 (available on google books) "Hunyadi came from a Romanian (according to some sources Slav) family which had migrated from Wallachia to Transylvania" "The Hungarians: a thousand years of victory in defeat", by Paul Lendvai(available on google books) "History of Transylvania" by "INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES". In Volume I, Chapter III.3, under the subsection The Hunyadi family is the following statement: "Hunyadi's father, Vajk, probably issued from a family of boyars that had immigrated from Wallachia, had been a valiant but rather aggressive knight at the court, and his military services were rewarded in 1409 with a fine estate at Hunyad." About his mother: same book, chapter III.3, subsection Romanian Voivods and Cnezes, Nobles and Villeis": "In the second half of the 15th century, the number of newly-ennobled Romanians in Hunyad county compared with that of the lesser nobility in any Hungarian county [...] some of them, such as the Szálláspataki and Demsusi Muzsina families, had estates that encompassed a large number of villages. János Hunyadi's mother came from the Demsusi Muzsina family." "Originaire d'une famille de boyards roumains passée au catholicisme" (french WIKIPEDIA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This do-undo game made by Hungarians and Romanians do nothing good to the memory of 'John' ( an insane naming in itself, it's like the key of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre kept with a Moslim family for rivalry of Christian communities. Most of those who try to make tribute to him by editing this article simply make fun of him and his memory. All the rest of the world can laugh at our stupidity, that of those Hungarians and Romanians who emphasize so much and dedicate such a significant part of the article to an unreadable debate on his ancestry than to what he was like and and did. He would deserve that Romanians and Hungarians collaborate in order to improve this article as once worked together his men. The ancestry chapter should be decreased by 50% and emphasis given to his person and deeds.Rokarudi 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the oath of Hunyadi when he was elected governor of Hungary, can guess on what language it is:

Isten teged segellien, Boldog Azzony neked Irgalmat wgy nyeryen, istennek mindzenti eretted wgy chawagyak, Isten zent teste te wegh napodon ydwessegedre wgy meltolliek, fewld tetemedet wgy fogadya, onnet harmad napon wgi ki ne wesse, magol magod wgy ne zakadjon, Itelet napyan istennek ew Zenth Zyneth wgi latthassd, Ewrek pokolba wgi ne temettessel, hogy az Zerzest ez Registromba, kit ez Ország Zerzesere megh irattanak wolna azt eressen es rekelletesseggel mynd megh tartod, semyt ellene nem tez, sem tetecz.

(It was recoreded that the oath was sworn by Hunyadi in Hungarian)Rokarudi 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty strange that the same Romanians who cite several sources regarding his alleged ethnicity fail to realize that the same sources clearly treat him as a Hungarian hero, not a Romanian one.

Many Hungarians descended from other nations and became part of the Hungarian nation.

The lyrics (of the Romanian national anthem) were composed by Andrei Mureşanu (1816-1863), it was written and published during the 1848 revolution. I guess that was well before any serious scientific study was conducted on Hunyadi's ethnicity. Would someone explain that please? Romanians inserted "Corveni" (referring to Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, not even János Hunyadi!) into their national anthem before any serious data was available? We have a chicken or the egg problem here? Squash Racket (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem here; the fact is that Hunyadi's origins were widely accepted (and still are, in spite of your stubbornness to realize this) as Romanian. That is why it was such an unquestionable fact. Of course this changed in Hungary after 1867 when nationalism and Magyarization prompted them to try to argue that every Hungarian king must have been, of course, Hungarian. Today Hungarians (and only Hungarians, btw) sustain a "Cuman theory" just for the sake of marginalizing the Romanians (read Istvan Vasaray's book "Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans" where you can find that exact line about marginalization.

So please, stop letting your nationalism get in the way of this and stop ruining the article. 131.202.243.158 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"try to argue that every Hungarian king must have been, of course, Hungarian." Just as a side note, János Hunyadi was never King of Hungary. With such huge mistakes however, otherwise reasonable arguments will also be discounted. And of course all that only applies to the father, so called Sorb or Serbe. The problem is that there is zero Scientific evidence as to the exact identification of the parents of János Hunyadi, and there isn't even an exact date of birth. Even a small number of sources presented list at least 3-4 different theories, the Slav (let's not forget about the Slav origin possibility!), the Cuman, and the Walachian. The mother is a different issue altogether. All in all there should be a careful consideration of sources. Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware he was only a regent; that's in fact why the Sigismund myth is just that! If he were of royal descent, related to the Anjou Dynasty by Sigismund, he would have become king... but he wasn't. His father was Vojk/Vajk/Voicu, his GRANDFATHER was Serbe/Serban. The problem with your argument is that ALL primary chronicles (save for the legendary ones) refer to him as a Romanian. Even the one by Gaspar Heltai (responsible for the Sigismund of Luxemburg legend) says both Voicu and Elizabeth were Romanians. The Slav theory is actually in a book by Molnar which gives the primary interpretation as being Romanian origin (he even says "some say Slav" after stating he was Romanian), the Cuman intepretation so far I have only seen from one or two Hungarian authors and is actually openly discredited by many more esteemed Hungarian historians (e.g. Istvan Vasary). Lastly, the Romanian origin theory is upheld by the MAJORITY of academic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.243.158 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I read that book and it uses the formulation "probably Romanian or Slav" descent, the point is it is other theories do exist, and writing as if it were a sure thing is silly exactly because in 13xx years (time of the parents) there were not that many good documentation of people, births, anything really, and what little there was to begin with, even that decayed destroyed etc. The problem with Chronicles is that they make sensationalistic claims as well such as Hungarians were descendants of Huns so it's hard to make out true facts. Even if the family came from Wallachia we know that not everyone was ethnic Vlach there just as not everyone was ethnic Hungarian in Hungary. Hobartimus (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is as follows: we can inform the readers that there are alternative opinions but at the same time we must also inform them that the majority of modern academics hold that he is of Romanian descent, as shown by many sources presented (and others I have but have not presented yet). We cannot elevate a minority opinion (like the Slav descent) or a fringe theory (like the Cuman descent) to the same level as the mainstream opinion. The section as it is so far is pretty good in that regard. 142.166.197.253 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What short of modern academics? Because the academics in foreign countries believes, that the Romanian people is ancient nation here? In the 14th century there is not unified Romanian nation, Wallachia to be full of Vlachs, Slavs, Pechengs, Cumans, Oghuzs, Tatars, Hungarians, etc. Doncsecz^znánje 17:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is ruined by those who obstinately emphasize genealogy and insist on proving something what is not documented at all by contemporary sources. Hunyadi himself never made any statement on his national identity. From the fact that his ancestors came from Wallachia a probable conclusion is that his ancestors belonged to one of the ethnies making up the contemporary Wallachian nobility; in first rank Roumanian, in second rank Cumanic. There is no evidence how his father or himself formulated his national identity, but from the fact that pre-names used in the family are both Hungarian and Romanian, we can see that the family wanted to position itself properly all around. Hunyady spent his life in the frame-work of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. It was recorded that he swore his oath of governor in the Hungarian language (see above) and he spoke on Hungarian on his deathbed. His son Ladislaus was brought up as Hungarian nobleman, so was his younger son Matthias who reigned in Hungary for decades without showing any sign of Romanian ethnic conciousness. It is, off course, likely that Hunyadi spoke to some extent all languages used in the royal courts or in noble families where he spent his youth: Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian, which probably contributed to his military carreer on the Balkans. Inter marriages betweeen noble families ws as common as between royal houses, so its a waste of time to look for national bloodRokarudi 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The genealogy section is substantial in comparison to the rest of the article and should be trimmed. The subsections of his wife, mother, and children could probably be combined into one. The Sigismund legend goes into too much detail and is really not needed anyway. At most we should just mention that due to his heraldric some chroniclers wrote that Hunyadi was the illegitemate son of Sigismund; we don't need a whole retelling of the story. As for Corvinus: he certainly had plenty of interactions with the Romanian nobility from Transylvania. Read for instance

“John Hunyadi's Romanian origins were not forgotten. Quite apart from the “de Hunyad” name, foreign historical narratives often refer to him as “John the Romanian”.”

[23] [Tringli, István. “King Matthias and the Medieval Hungarian State”. The Hungarian Quarterly, 190, 2008. http://www.eurozine.com/journals/hq/issue/2008-07-03.html]142.166.196.243 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty strange that the same Romanians who cite several sources regarding his alleged ethnicity fail to realize that the very same sources clearly treat him as a Hungarian hero, not a Romanian one.

Many Hungarians descended from other nations and became part of the Hungarian nation.

Funny how everyone ignored that part of my comment. Squash Racket (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: being a Roman Catholic also meant being Hungarian, at least by nationality. Religion was a key factor in those times, and Vlachs who wanted to act/feel as Vlachs all remained Orthodox. Don't project 2010 conditions on the 15th century. Squash Racket (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1) That part was ignored because it is irrelevant. The sources say he was a Romanian by descent; what does it matter if he was a Hungarian hero? Nobody is contradicting that; please don't put up strawmen. The fact is you treat this like a zero-sum game, as though "if we admit he is Romanian then we surrender a Hungarian hero! Oh no!"

2)That's not true at all. Saxons were Catholic, several Romanian voievods were Catholic in Wallachia and Moldavia, so your argument fails to stand up to evidence. The only thing we know is that all Romanians who desired to become a part of the official nobility had to become Catholics, as Hunyadi did. 142.166.197.253 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That is false. Vlachs were orthodox, there is no question about that. Even today when religion is not as important as in the past there is a huge number of Romanians who are orthodox and a very small minority who are Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism was the religion of Hungarians not Vlachs. And Hunyadi did not "become Catholic to become part of the nobility" He was born Catholic. You subscribe too much decision to infants. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1, I don't think it's irrelevant in light of recent years' history of this article. I'm happy that we can agree now, but from time to time this caused problems in the past. I don't play any "games", I cite the same sources as many editors do, but not only partially.

2, Yeah, Germans (coming from Western Europe, settled by Hungarian kings) and ennobled Vlachs (loyal to Hungarians and essentially becoming Hungarians, see below) and as you mentioned Moldavia Csangos who are considered Hungarians by most sources. Religious affiliation was a matter of life and death at that time, your tone reveals how easily you deal with that now. What lacks evidence is the "Hunyadi was a Vlach agent/spy"-type of suggestions of some, that's all. (I mean even if we see the Vlach descendancy theory as proven.) Squash Racket (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

About Hungarian feelings of Hunyadi

Answering an inquiry:

Following the pattern of nobles of Slovak origin, all of the ennobled Romanians assimilated a Hungarian outlook and Hungarian values. The Romanian noblemen in Hungary were forthright in declaring themselves members of the Hungarian nation of nobles. While their counterparts in Wallachia and Moldavia, voivodes and boyars, adopted — with few exceptions — a conciliatory attitude towards the Ottoman Turks, Hungary's Romanian noblemen accepted the obligations that went with their privileged status and fought loyally at the side of the Hungarians. Hungarians did not generally regard the Romanian noblemen as foreigners. In the second half of the 15th century, Hungary's kings regularly appointed Romanians to high office, and this without incurring protest from a Hungarian nobility that already had a highly developed sense of national identity.

Source: [2], already used in the article. The only reason why I don't add this is that this citation is about ennobled Vlachs/Romanians, not specifically about Hunyadi. But if — if — he was a Vlach, then his Hungarian feelings/outlook/values/nationality shouldn't be a surprise.
About his joining the Roman Catholic Church: even if you are born into a Roman Catholic family, you still have to join the Church yourself. The author also could have meant that he hadn't left the family's faith to become Orthodox. We can also write "he was a Catholic" if that bothers anyone. Squash Racket (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

About reference in Romanian national anthem

The Romanian national anthem mentions John Hunyadi in the verse "Priviţi, măreţe umbre, Mihai, Ştefan, Corvine" (that can be translated to Watch on, "shadows of highnesses, Mihai, Stefan, Corvinus"). This article about John Hunyadi contained false claims that it is in fact a reference to his son Matthias. That is not true. Matthias (in Romanian, Matei) is not considered a Romanian ruler, and any reference (especially in a Romanian symbol, like the anthem) to his name is absurd. It is his father, John Hunyadi of the family Corvinus (in Romanian, Iancu de Hunedoara or Iancu Corvinesti) that is considered such a great Romanian ruler and hero that is worth mentioning in the national anthem. Any other claims are made only by lack of knowledge. It is a pity or maybe an irony that history force us to share heros, but let's keep the information on this site accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius.bancila (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From above:

It's pretty strange that the same Romanians who cite several sources regarding his alleged ethnicity fail to realize that the very same sources clearly treat him as a Hungarian hero, not a Romanian one.

Many Hungarians descended from other nations and became part of the Hungarian nation.

Also: if Romanians refer to János Hunyadi simply as "Corvine" (instead of Matthias Corvinus of Hungary) then their national anthem is a bit more awkward than I thought. Squash Racket (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Corvine" is the form of the word "Corvin" in vocative case:

   Watch on, shadows of highnesses, Mihai, Stefan, Corvinus,
   The Romanian Nation, your great grandchildren,
   With weapons in their arms, with your fire in their veins,
   "Life in freedom or death!" shout all.

(Iaaasi (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)) It's not absolutely wrong, I only said it's awkward. Whenever "Corvinus" is mentioned (in any form), usually Matthias Corvinus is being referred to, not János Hunyadi. Squash Racket (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC) In Romanian it is used sometimes the form "Iancu Corvin de Hunedoara. His name in French is also "Jean Corvin" (Iaaasi (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

? Still strange. A national anthem shouldn't be ambiguous. Squash Racket (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

white knight of wallachia

Search results for "white knight of wallachia" on google books: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22white+knight+of+wallachia%22&btnG=Search+Books 11 pages of results Search results for "white knight of hungary" on google books: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22white+knight+of+hungary%22&btnG=Search+Books 3 results Search results for "le Chevalier blanc de Valachie" on google books: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&spell=1&q=%22le+Chevalier+blanc++de+Valachie%22&sa=N&start=10 5 pages of results Search results for "le Chevalier blanc de Hongrie" on google books: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&spell=1&q=%22le+Chevalier+blanc++de+Hongrie%22&btnG=Search+Books 1 result (Iaaasi (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

And "White Knight" seems to be the most common. All of them are mentioned with a reference. (French hits? Here?)

The overall number of hits also indicates low relevance. Probably the nickname should simply be removed from the lead.Squash Racket (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with French hits? If the rule is to keep only the English sources, we should eliminate the Hungarian (so non-English) source where it is said he was Cuman (Umumu (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Iancu de Hunedoara "probably" of Romanian origin

It can`t be probably,he is of Romanian descent,The alternative theories are presented further in the text. it is an oxymoron to say "he is probably of Romanian origin" He is or he is not, it can`t be probably. Imagine if we put it like that to every person that has alternative theories about his origin? It doesn`t make any sense.iadrian (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) About the upper section "Hungarian general" - true, because he fought for the kingdom of Hungary but it should stand "of Romanian descent". Because it is natural to presume that an "American general" is also an American and if he is not it should be written what origin he is. If we put "Hungarian" general it should also be "of Romanian descent", if not then without any nationalities mentioned.iadrian (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Should we write that he was Catholic also? Most Romanians were (and also today too) Orthodox and if we write "Romanian descent" the reader might think he was Orthodox not Catholic. ? Hobartimus (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, because he was a Hungarian general and Hungarian almost about everything in his life except his descent. Everybody who reads this article presumes that he is also of Hungarian descent. If we write Romanian descent it doesn`t have that effect. The religion don`t make the nationality, there are also Romanians that are Catholic... Please let me know what do you think. I will leave that issue alone until we discuss it. iadrian (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Only because he was of Romanian, article never would have made about him on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, may you be more specific? About what? I don`t understand you. Please explain what are you trying to say. iadrian (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) It is not so relevant which nation he is of.--Nmate (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) How can it be irrelevant? Then we can say that Stephen I of Hungary was of Russian descent if it is irrelevant.. :) It is relevant. iadrian (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe it is irrelevant here because it is the matter about the Romanian origin :) If we would talk in a similar situation about Hungarian descent a bet you would have a different opinion. iadrian (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity doesn't belong in the lead unless it's significantly relevant in the life of the subject. Here that's definitely NOT the case. János Hunyadi had nothing to do with Romanian culture (if we can talk about such a thing at that time). Besides, his ethnicity is still not 100% proven, there are alternate theories. Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 15 March 201

0 (UTC)

"IF" we can talk about romanian culture at that time? Do not presume such an absurdity based just upon your ignorance and inability to determinate the proper correlation between the "Romanian" and "Vlach" terms, demonstrated several times in this discussion page. Such a degrading remark not only betrays your heavily biased attitude - which you try so hard to hide - but reduces the overall quality of this page. And the importance attached to the origins of this particular individual is ascertained by yourself even though you claim otherwise, a fact made evident by the amount of time dedicated to obfuscate the said origins. Apparently this has become a matter of national pride for you rather than a historical one, as you derive a great deal of uncertainty when examining the origins of such a great historical figure, "just" another Hungarian recruit assimilated from the "lesser people". And know that in history, as you hadn't figured it out already, nothing is 100% proven, even though at times it may seem so. There is always a wide accepted theory, and a multitude of others enjoying less popularity, altough some of these may appear rather... shall we say peculiar. But even if the nature of his origins would be proven <beyond all reasonable doubt> as Romanian, you would have trouble accepting them as it just doesn't fit with your own conception about John Hunyadi, so why shouldn't you try then to minimise by any means necessary the importance of those damn origins? Or arn't you just doing that? Amon Koth (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "probably" is redundant comparing to the rest of the text. Ok, then we should put to every person in the world alternative theories just because they are 99% some nation..because there will always be atlernative theories about important people. Let`s change then the origin of Stephen I of Hungary because i found some crazy reference that he is of Slavic origin. How do you fell about that? Alternative theories are there to satisfy people that can`t accept facts and there will be always people with alternative theories. If you put probably then we should erase all aternative theories. It can`t be most probably, his origin was already disccused up and it was proven that his origin is Romanian, not probably, or most probably, it is just Romanian. He is 100% Romanian origin, there is no doubt about that. I don`t understand you, you came after the discussion is over so you can make your own changes to the article ? The alternative theories are presented and that puts the "probably" effect in motion. Event the Hungarian historians agree that he was Romanian and you should accept it too. Here are some reliable sources about his origin and there is nowhere where it says "probably" or most "probably" because it doesn`t make anu sense, his origin is accepted in whole world as a Romanian origin. reference:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277182/Janos-Hunyadi , http://books.google.ro/books?id=xcp7OXQE0FMC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22white+knight+of+wallachia%22&source=bl&ots=ZMFi3V9rqD&sig=GXAnsPJU_DiGNCTBeV2CczjtrhU#v=snippet&q=%22john%20hunyadi%20was%20a%20rumanian%22&f=false , http://books.google.com/books?id=qtgotOF0MKQC&pg=PR11&dq=Encyclopedia+of+the+Middle+Ages,+Volumul+1++De+Andr%C3%A9+Vauchez,Richard+Barrie+Dobson,Michael+Lapidge&lr=&hl=ro&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false iadrian (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I can see that even his real Romanian name bothers you, so for you to feel better you put the hungarian first :) Sorry, you are not neutral in this article as NMate..... Your contributions should not take in consideration since you can`t maintain a neutral side. Please leave the tittle alone (i created it and i can write as i want)and don`t put the word "probably" again because it has no logic, it is idiotic.. This is not a personal encyclopedia or your blog so you can put things as you like. If you still have something that you don`t understand please consult the discussion page, it is explained and i don`t want to explain it again. iadrian (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I have notices that you are trying to add also a hungarian name by the English one. You don`t have the right to put the Hungarian name as "or xxxxxx" , why don`t you put the Romanian name then? This is just another proof that you can`t maintain your neutrality. Afer all he was a Romanian and the origin is pretty much the most important thing about a person. It is OK as it is, first is his name in English version and then in the other language variants. I guess this is another attempt from you to add or change what you like/dislike. iadrian (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSBIO: The opening paragraph should have:...Nationality & ethnicity – In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable... Ethnicity should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. I think the best would be to remove all informations regarding his nationality and ethnicity from the lead or add info about his nationality in this way: Hungarian general etc. etc. with a disputed ethnicity blablabla...--B@xter⁹ 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity doesn't belong in the lead unless it's significantly relevant in the life of the subject. Here that's definitely NOT the case. Besides, his ethnicity is still not 100% proven, there are alternate theories. Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have such claim why are you forcing his Hungarian name? Why not his Slovak name? Or Romanian? Present with a valid reason why should it be like that if there are already presented the other language names right after his name. iadrian (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BOTH "John Hunyadi" and "János Hunyadi" are WIDELY used in ENGLISH works. His Slovak and Romanian names not really. Simple as that. Squash Racket (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) John Hunyadi → János Hunyadi — Per WP:COMMONNAME. János Hunyadi has more google books hits (English) than John Hunyadi. B@xter⁹ 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence needed. Flamarande (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just tried the search on google, i get many hits in his Romanian, Slovak,English or Hungarian name. I oppose. iadrian (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Present your evidence, see my note below. Squash Racket (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If we count only works published after 1990, then it's close to a tie: János Hunyadi and John Hunyadi. But based only on Google Books hits it would be hard to make a fair decision. Squash Racket (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No reliable evidence presented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

some sources say Slavic, others Cumanic, some refer to the obscurity of his ethnic

That is why we have alternative theories presented. Present a reliable source where it says "most probably" until then you are violating WP:OR rule. Let the readers make up their mind, don`t serve them what should they think by you. iadrian (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC) About his "Cuman" origin, it is an unreliable source and it will be removed if you don`t present another reliable source, in English , we need English sources about problematic text.iadrian (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When there are reliable sources referring to his Cumanic, Slavic (even Hungarian) origins, and many sources are clearly reluctant to point out a specific origin and only mention the obscurity, we can summarize this in "most probably" of Wallachian origin.

Non-English sources are accepted. Should we remove all Romanian sources from Wikipedia? Squash Racket (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is that reliable source that states the Cuman origin? Can you present it please? In English, in any language? Problematic text needs sources in English because this is English wikipedia.iadrian (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You can`t summarize anything because it is a violation of WP:OR rule. Wikipedia is there to inform people not to get various summarizations from various biaest people. If we continue to disagree i think we need to call for an administrator to resolve this problem.iadrian (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Call an admin if you wish, I think the case is pretty simple. If you don't accept "most probably", we may add "according to most sources" or something similar. But we won't add it as a fact until it's not 100% sure.

If you refer to WP:OR, we should write this:

Hunyadi is a Hungarian noble family.

• most sources say the family is of Wallachian origin.
• others say of Cumanic origin.
• others say Slavic.
• someone thinks Hungarian.
• many sources are reluctant to point out a specific origin and only mention the obscurity surrounding the issue.

And add the references. You like that more? Squash Racket (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, i refer to your summarization. That is the violation of the [WP:OR]] rule. State the facts only not your personal opinions. The theory that is widely accepted is the one that states that Iancu de Hunedoara was of Romanian origin, if you like i can give you even Hungarian historians that state that ? The other theories are less likely to have a historical base and is it presented in the article as alternative theories.iadrian (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself for the n-th time. But WP:3RR is still a rule. Squash Racket (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

With you i repeat myself all the time and you still can`t manage to make your peace with the facts.I guess we should call the administrator for the WP:OR rule.iadrian (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About another matter,his "Cuman" origin, it is an unreliable source and it will be removed if you don`t present another reliable source, where is that reliable source that states the Cuman origin? Can you present it please? In English, in any language? Problematic text needs sources in English because this is English wikipedia. Can you please present it? I can`t find it on the artcle.iadrian (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please once in a lifetime keep talk page formula, so that I don't have to constantly organize the mess? Everybody else is capable of that.

The Hungarian encyclopedia is a perfect source. Ask any admin. Squash Racket (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war (Prevention, i hope)

As requested, i have been trying to make head or tails out of this. However, seeing the massive amount of text and my absolute lack of knowledge about the subject i might be wrong. Am i correct if i summarize it as following:

• The problem article is John Hunyadi, also known as János Hunyadi in Hungarian.
• Initially the focus of this discussion was whether he was English, Hungarian or Romanian, but that isn't the current issue.
• Currently the question is whether he was of Cuman or Romanian orgin.

• Both options are reliably sourced, and therefor conflict with each other.

• iadrian believes that one should be mentioned and the other removed as the sources lean towards Romanian.
• Squash Racket believes both should be preserved - at least for now - till there is clarity of his origins.

Am i correct here? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See thread above, "János Hunyadi" is a widely used English name (Hungarian uses Eastern name order anyway, otherwise I'd just bold "János Hunyadi" and add "in Hungarian" in brackets.) Iadrian doesn't accept "János Hunyadi" as a widely used ENGLISH form despite evidence only because it's based on the Hungarian form.

Iadrian says we should mention he was Wallachian as a 100% fact which to me seems to conflict with the other theories following that sentence and especially with sources reluctant to point out a specific origin and referring to the obscurity. So I'd just say "according to most sources" or "most probably Wallachian". Squash Racket (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not Janos, Janos is Hungarian, it is John , an English accepted name. Not Wallachian because Wallachian doesn`t exist anymore, they are Romanians now, and second, the neutral and majority of sources states that he was of Romanian (Wallachian) origin, only Hungarian encyclopedia, that is by it`s name biaest says otherwise. Hungarian historians aggree that he was of Romanian origin. PS, since i was blocked for unknown reason i have restarted my modem so i can write in the discussion page since we are all online. I hope that is not a problem, i will talk only and this will be my only comment as a logged out user. iadrian 80.74.161.51 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, more or less clear. Keep in mind that i know nothing of the topic itself, and that i am not a mediator. Therefor, it might be better to open a Dispute Resolution procedure to discuss this. However, based upon my own opinion i would say this:

• If "Wallachian" was the proper term back then, that should be used. For example, Charles the Bold is being referred to as the Duke of burgundy, even though that duchy had ceased existence since 1477. Using current-day origins would make no sense.
• Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources and should therefor not be used as sources as a source. If you can track the source the encyclopedia used, it is another story of course.

If there is no other source whatsoever that claims he is of cuman descent, i would not include it in the article. However, feel free to take this up at WP:RSN as the people working there are much more proficient at checking sources then i am. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the reasoning behind his Wallachian ancestry mostly comes from other encyclopedias. So every encyclopedia source should be removed? (I also see some Hungarian sources there, this time I guess there's no problem with them.)

Furthermore, the Hungarian encyclopedia does cite its secondary sources at the bottom of the article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. My argument was that if the encyclopedia is the only source containing this particular claim, it would be rater weak. An encyclopedia is, after all, always based upon other data sources which might be more or less reliable. If no data source could be found EXCEPT for that encyclopedia i would argue that the encyclopedia's data sources are skimpy at best.

Now, if there are multiple reliable sources argue for both sides, with none being clearly superior, i would keep a note in that there is also another theory, and let the user evaluate the sources and decide for him or herself. History is pretty good at hiding "The truth", and man should always keep in mind that something can be wrong.

Even so, i feel that this will quickly surpass my area of experience if we go down to historical arguments and sources. If the both of course cannot agree on a compromise, i would advise either a WP:Third opinion, a WP:RFC or perhaps a notice on the reliable sources noteboard. Since this is - in my eyes - not a radical change it might be advisable to agree in advance that the outcome of these mediations is binding. Going trough a full-fledged Mediation Cabal procedure might not be worth it after all. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to do one of the actions you proposed if we can`t agree.iadrian (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that i could not participate the discussion,my account was blocked by a mistake and i did`t wanted to write as anonimus. The main problem was about his name and the sentence "most probably of Romanian origin". It can be Wallachian also, i have no problem with that. The mainstream opinion says and agree that he was of Romanian origin, there is no "most probably" even as a summarization because of WP:OR. Wikipedia presents facts and every reader should form his own opinion. The Cuman origin is also without any valid refrence. Hope to discuss it more when we are all online. iadrian (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket, i would like to know your opinion what should be changed in the article? Do you agree now with some of the changes i proposed? iadrian (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Excirial, but the role of the unhired mediator you are trying to play , including this one, is really disappointing.

--Nmate (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<Indent> See this edit for my response. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nmate, i am very surprised with how fast you learned English, before you could not make one normal sentence and now? Look at you. I am reluctant to say that you are really Nmate and that somebody else is writing from your user name.iadrian (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you peruse my English writings when you were on "Wikibreak"?--Nmate (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a chance to talk to you before this article, and on this article, in both instances i saw that you could not make one normal sentence in English and now you miraculously speak very well. I am just saying that you are a quick learner, in several days a whole new language. What can i say :) Bravo :) iadrian (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Nmate i just saw your talk page, it is clear that this comments are not made by you. iadrian (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

About his name, to continue, this is now on the article "John Hunyadi or János Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Iancu de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko;". For 2 reasons i want to remove the "or János Hunyadi" part. 1 reason is that it is redundant information, as we can all see that his Hungarian name is already present as a first other language name, 2. (I see that this is discussed but i`l use DC76 arguments) 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? I see this arguments as a solid ones and i will change this in the article.iadrian (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the Hungarian one is relevant is he was the governor of the Kingdom of Hungary--Nmate (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only. Both name variants -János Hunyadi (See Encyclopedia Britannica) and John Hunyadi- are frequently used in English literature so it is not a redundant information. (i.e. The most common English name is the Hungarian one). I think the version János (John) Hunyadi would be the best to use.--B@xter⁹ 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with Baxter9. We should use that form then. I`l change it now.iadrian (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since his Hungarian name is presented in this form at the beginning of the artice "János (John) Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Iancu de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady," - maybe we should remove the Hungarian name from the parenthesis ? It would look like this (the parenthesis part) "(Romanian: Iancu de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady,..""  ? iadrian (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

About his Cuman origin, i still can`t find the reference that states this. There is a reference on the article but it isn`t valid. People who sustain this point of view should present some reliable reference about this or i will remove it since it has no valid source. I would prefer references in English since it is English wikipedia, the references about his Romanian origin are all in English. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some sources for the Slavic descendance theory as it wasn't supported well. I think "most probably" or "according to most sources" is OK. Regarding his Cumanic theory: Excirial said: "If you can track the source the encyclopedia used", you can keep the Cumanic theory. I repeat: the Hungarian encyclopedia article on János Hunyadi does cite its sources at the bottom.
We won't/can't remove the Hungarian version of the name because of the Eastern name order issue. This is an encyclopedia. Otherwise I would have added: John Hunyadi or János Hunyadi (in Hungarian; Romanian: ... etc.) How many times should I repeat this before you finally understand it? Squash Racket (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don`t agree with you on the "most probably" or "according to most sources" since the mainstream and neutral historians and the widely accepted theory is that he is of Romanian origin, you can`t put your own words as a summarization because his origin is 99% proven. After all it is the violation of the WP:OR rule, you add your own summary what you THINK about his origin. If you find a reliable reference that says "most probably" or "according to most sources" you can put it, if not, it applies the WP:OR rule, how many times should i say that you can understand it ? Ok about his name, i was asking because it is repeating itself, but OK, i guess you personally need it...just wanted to improve the overal quality of this article. About the Cuman origin, where is that reference? I want to see it. I am asking you, please, present me the link to the source that state that particular theory.iadrian (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First I wanted to say remove it, but after reading Squash Racket's reply I would say keep it. Please see these articles as examples: Junichiro Koizumi, Ichiro Suzuki (personals from countries where the eastern name order is used i.e.: Junichiro Koizumi (Koizumi Jun'ichirō) and Ichiro Suzuki (Suzuki Ichirō?)).--B@xter⁹ 17:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I understand.iadrian (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

About the Cuman origin , i am sorry, i was not clear , i am talking about this sentence "Another opinion holds that the family was of Cuman[8] origin." - The number 8 reference cannot be checked, and plus the same thing repeats itself down with the Slavic origin theory, i will remove this first sentence now since it repeats itself.iadrian (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page formula. Please. So that everyone can see who said what.
His Vlach father was also mentioned twice, I removed one such sentence keeping the two English (tertiary) references.
I've found THREE references for the possible Slavic descendance and some sources only refer to the obscurity. Saying that it's 100% sure that he was Wallachian is simply NOT true anymore. You can't cite WP:OR as the references are there. Squash Racket (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)