Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Bulgarian origin

It is necessary to provide original text and English translation for the source, per WP:NONENG (Conttest (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Lol, now Bulgarian origin too? :) Slavs remembered after a couple a hundred years that Iancu was maybe of a Slav origin, now this is "remembered" too? :) Before the concept of nationalism there was no doubt that he was of Romanian origin, now, everybody is taking a part of the claim.. Ridiculous.iadrian (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Birth Date

The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Janos_Hunyadi) states he was born in 1387, while the Current edition states 1407 (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277182/Janos-Hunyadi). Seeing it is a newer edition of the same document, would the 1407 be more accurate? Any thoughts? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well i personally think that (new)Britannica is the more reliable source here. In Romanian sources the date is 1407. [2] [3] [4], and many others.. iadrian (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Noon bell

I've removed this several times, as nobody has ever offered evidence for it and I think it is unlikely to be true. Pony up some sources or I'm going to take it out again. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a long time ago that was a tradition but now not anymore. It is a true statement but it is not practiced anymore.iadrian (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems inclined to defend this claim so out it goes. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Noon bell means signification of lunchtime for Mangoe, but in the reality it is an old traditional international remembrance of a determinant historic battle between Muslims and Christians :)))))))))))

The only citation for this seems to be the Lazar work which seems to border on self-publication. Everything I can find out about this work leaves me with no confidence in it. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mangoe: I think, these references and web-pages are more authorative, than a private opinion of a wikipedist. REFERENCES: Thomas Henry Dyer. "The history of modern Europe: From the fall of Constantinople". p. 85.István Lázár: Hungary: A Brief History [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] fr:Jean Hunyadi

Pending Changes Protection

This article has been excluded from the pending changes trial because there is lack of disruptive activity here that would justify applying any type of page protection here. If you think there is a need for this page to be protected, please make a request at WP:RFPP, as pages that are not candidates for page protection under current WP:PP is not to be protected under WP:PCP as well. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The war over the tags

Please discuss why the tags should or should not be there, rather than edit warring. My personal impression is that the text has achieved some measure of stability and that the tags could be removed. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has many, many problems but since the last "Roll-back" why is this tag inserted again? What seems to be the problem? Adrian (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

timelines.com is not a reliable source, it uses our articles and we don't use our articles as sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

Hi

I detect an upcoming edit war - reversions and reinsertions etc on the large unsourced, pov text about his origins.

Can editors please discuss rather than reverting?

I have hidden the text until the dispute is resolved.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the Middle Age

There is common mistake to judge someone's ethnicity through nowadays set of values/principles. For instance, apart from location, Hungarian medieval kingdom has nothing to share with modern Hungary (post-1867 state) and Hungarian people, where its ethnicity is defined per "nation" set of values. During medieval times the ethnicity of "Hungarian"/"Romanian" (or whatever) has only been a potential. Hungarian Kingdom was universal, catholic, multiethnic, where Latin was an official language. The ethnicity was dictated by political and cultural (confession) medieval situations. We might only assume that John spoke either Romanian or Hungarian (despite there is not evidences), but it is hard to believe he was either a Hungarian/Romanian per nation concept of modern times, where the ethnicity is defined per language spoken and/or modern state foundation.FabricioRB (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

János Hunyadi's origin

I am not an expert on this field, but as far as I can remember there is no real debate on the fact that Hunyadi and Hunyadi's father were mentioned to be Romanians in contemporary sources. Most of the books written by Hungarian historians emphasize this fact (these books are cited in the article). I know that there are other theories, for example, they might have been of Cuman origin, because it is possible that some Romanian nobles were of Cuman origin, and therefore it is not impossible that the originally Romanian Hunyadi family was of Cuman origin, but these theories are not based on contemporary documents. At the end of the day, I suggest that all the theories could be mentioned in the article, based on reliable sources written in the last decades, but his Romanian origin should be emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

About Hunyadi's father, there is a strong possibility of Vlach origin, however there are a lot more theories than just Cuman, such as Slav, and IIRC even Serb? The Slav one is definitely contemporary however it is mentioned as one of the possibilities and not a definite statement of fact (Molnar, 2001). Hobartimus (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree that there are several theories on his origins. However, there is only one that is based on early documents - he was Vlach. The other theories are purely speculations: because it is not excluded that there were Wallachian nobles of Cuman origin, it neither can be excluded that that he (or his grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather or the great-great-grandfather of his great-greandfather) was also of Cuman origin - please note that the Mongols destroyed the Cumans some 150 years before his birth; because the Vlachs migrated from the territory of modern Serbia to present-day Romania, he may well have been of Serb origin (or better to say he may well have been born in a family which had migrated from Serbia). Therefore, I would just like to suggest that the documented theory should be emphasized, but the other theories could, of course, be also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently the text says:

The Hunyadi family are a Hungarian noble family — according to most sources — of Romanian origin. There are also alternative researches suggesting Cuman or Slavic descendance. According to H. Munro Chadwick John Hunyadi was presumably ethnic Hungarian, Lonnie Johnson thinks he was a member of the lesser Hungarian nobility of Transylvania. Other researchers affirm that the overwhelming evidence supports the view that he indeed was not Magyar. According to Hugh Seton-Watson "the ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians." Others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins.

How would you change it to reflect reality better? I'm asking that because we want to move the other parts of the ethnicity section (on the father, the mother etc.) to another article.
I'm also reminding you that WP prefers secondary works to primary sources. Squash Racket (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that articles in WP should be based primarily on secondary sources and not on primary sources. However, if secondary sources explicitly say that the earliest primary sources refer to his Romanian origin, we should emphasize this fact. Yes, I know, although I would not like to repeat myself, that secondary sources also theorize that because some Romanian nobles might have been of Cuman origin (because there is at least one Romanian noble/ruler, Basarab whose name and whose father's name is most probably Cuman), it cannot be excluded that Hunyadi's ancestors were also of Cuman origin. So I still suggest that the fact that the earliest documents clearly refer to his Romanian origin should be emphasized, based on secondary sources. Otherwise, I do not think that the sources listed in the Reference part of the article qualify reliable. Are we sure that sources written 100-150 years ago reflect the present stage of knowledge? Other sources, cited in the above part of the article are not convincing; for example, Molnár says that "His family came from Wallachia, probably of Romanian or Slav descent" - therefore, the fact is that his family came from Wallachia, otherwise the Slav descent - which cannot be substantiated based on any primary sources - is only a theory. Munro Chardwick's claim, that he was p r e s u m a b l y ethnic Hungarian is simply ridiculous, because it lacks any substance - presumably he could either have been ethnic Russian, Tatar, Bulgarian, Albanian or even Anglosaxon, since some Russians, Tatars, Bulgarians, Albanians, Anglosaxons settled somewhere the Balkan Peninsula between the 3rd and 14th centuries. I think any reference to Setton-Watson should be forgot here, he was a journalist who had no knowledge of our region even if he, unfortunatelly for all of us, pretended to know anything of us. Borsoka (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep thinking that authors of secondary works base their analysis on what possibly unreliable primary texts say? Would you cite those primary texts and something on their reliability? Of course we may add them, but rather in the article Hunyadi family where we want to move the parts on his father, mother etc. Although I'm already repeating myself.

We don't even know his father's name, the possible name (Vajk or Voyk?) to me sounds like an ancient Hungarian name. We absolutely don't know anything about his mother, we only have a bunch of theories.

We have at least three secondary references for the possible Slavic descendance and at least three (these are just examples) referring to the obscurity surrounding the question of Hunyadi's ethnicity.

H. Munro Chadwick's claim is well referenced and most secondary references that support the Vlach origin do it similarly in a half sentence without giving any reasoning. Your other examples do lack any substance as they are not referenced.

No other encyclopedia talks even closely as much about his alleged Vlach origin as this one. Basically all relevant sources treat him as a Hungarian national hero, in this article it is explained what Romanians think about him. (See section Legacy.)

Hugh Seton-Watson is a historian and political scientist, not a journalist. He has his own WP article, not that this would be a precondition to use that Cambridge University Press academic reference.Squash Racket (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed something. Based on what can any secondary source claim on his origin, if not based on primary sources? But, of course, I try to find some primary sources (based on academic works). Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above statement is purely original research which reminds me the chauvinist Romanian claim that the pagan name of St Stephen Voyk is obviously of Romanian origin: Vaicu. It would be a real surprise if one of the sons of a Catholized Romanian family from Wallachia would have been named after the pagan name of the first Hungarian king (taking into account that St Stephen's pagan name was solely recorded in a German chronicle - the Voyk name otherwise has not been documented among Hungarians).Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible - typical weasel word and they refer to no primary sources, or even they do not refer to the basis of this "possibility". We should forget this theory. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, in some weeks I will provide some references. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought he was his father. But his wording ("chauvinist Hungarian and Romanian") suggest that he does not differ from his father. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, modern works treat him as a Hungarian national hero. But his contemporaries always referred to his Romanian origin. Maybe he was proud of it. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is a bit incomprehensible, partly original research. The section is well-referenced, all the theories are presented with citations.

We won't remove relevant, reliable secondary references including English academic sources simply because you don't like them. Again: how about moving most of the material on the family members' ethnicity into Hunyadi family per multiple suggestions in earlier threads? Squash Racket (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Squash Racket, many of the "reliable secondary references" were written many decades ago (Magyar Katolikus Lexikon; another online source whose Hungarian language suggests that was written sometime in the 1910s or before; a Magyar Nemzet Története from the 1890s). Even these sources which are pretended to be cited to suggest the existence of "alternative theories" writes that (1) he was from a Wallachian family and some of them states that (2) he might nevertheless be of Cuman or Slavic origin. Therefore I think the article should be rewritten based on modern academic works and they should not be misused. Please compare the text of the article with the sources cited (Magyar Katolikus Lexikon, Molnár), there are significant differences between the two. Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact requirement on WP regarding the age of the references?

Of course it doesn't seem to bother you that most of the reasoning for the Wallachian origin comes from the century-old Catholic Encyclopedia, which uses 19th century(!) references. Some "modern academic works" that support the alleged Wallachian origin cite it with a half sentence and then constantly refer to Hunyadi as a Hungarian leader. They just don't read like this article...

We have at least three secondary references for the possible Slavic descendance and at least three (these are just examples) referring to the obscurity surrounding the question of Hunyadi's ethnicity. Two English academic references cite a possible Hungarian origin.

For the fourth time: how about moving most of the material on the family members' ethnicity into Hunyadi family per multiple suggestions in earlier threads? Squash Racket (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) I had no problem with century old or even older sources, but it is surprising and funny that we cannot find reliable academic sources written in the last couple of decades of Hunyadi. We should prefer the latter. (2) What is clear in all the sources that he descended from a family from Wallachia (Pál Engel: The Realm of St Stephen p. 283; Miklós Molnár: A Concise History of Hungary p. 61; Béla Köpeczi: The History of Transylvania p. 227) (3) There are theories that he might have been of Slavic or Hungarian origin, this presumptions can be over-emphasized, but they are still a presumptions (4) I think his origin should be mentioned here, in his article, because his contemporaries, including popes, thought that it had to be emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's no recent research on Hunyadi why would we drop decades' old references simply because you don't like their content while keeping century-old ones? Cherry picking?

No, most sources simply say the family was from Transylvania or don't mention anything just say he was a Hungarian hero/military leader. Only some sources mention Wallachia.

I added enough sources for the possible Slavic and the possible Hungarian origin, just as we have enough sources for the alleged Wallachian origin.

I'm talking about the details regarding his father's, his mother's etc. origin, not his. Do we need to detail every theory on every family members' origin here? No other encyclopedia does that in such a way. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

About the phrase Lonnie Johnson thinks he was a member of the lesser Hungarian nobility of Transylvania[13] while David W. Haines refers to him as a Hungarian nobleman.[14]: The fact that Hunyadi Janos was a Hungarian noble is not in contradiction with the fact that he was of Wallachian origin: He was a Hungarian noble (a noble of the Kingdom of Hungary) of Wallachian origin. Moreover, in the book from [14], it is written that Janos Hunyadi, a Hungarian noble, lead the Christian forces at Belgrade, where Hungarian does not refer to his ethnicity, but to his citizenship (he was the commander of the Hungarian army) (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

Rogvaiv1, you've just removed some text marking your edit as 'minor' (which means, " only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.") and with no edit summary. I've reverted your edit for those reasons. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The text was about the Romanian origin of J Hunyadi's mother and the source is already cited (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Squash Racket, why do you think that there is no recent research on Hunyadi? I added some references from recent (less than 20 year-old) works. Yes, before 1918 many members of the Hungarian nobility were not of ethnic Hungarian origin, for example Manó Gozsdu, the princes Odeschalchi, Czartoryski, Saxen-Coburg-Gotha were members of the Hungarian nobility, members of the Upper House of the Hungarian Diet, but they were of Arumanian, Italian, Polish/Lithuanian or German origin respectively. So I still suggest that the fact should be emphasized, the theories should only be referred to ("Hunyadi was, according to contemporary sources, of Wallachian origin, although modern scholars suggest that he might have descended of a family of Cuman, Slavic, Hungarian origin" - or something like that). Borsoka (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering this formulation: "Hunyadi was, according to contemporary sources, of Wallachian origin, although modern scholars suggest that he might have descended of a family of Cuman, Slavic, Hungarian origin", which would be the premises which lead to the conclusion "Cuman, Slavic, Hungarian origin", if the primary sources support the theory of the Wallachian origin? What new data could have appeared in modern times, in order to overwrite the contemporary sources, when the facts occurred more than 5 centuries ago?(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

I think repetition of primary sources, in itself, could not be qualified as history. Historians usually interpret primary sources and they take into account other sources as well. For example, without ignoring about 99% of the written primary sources one could not follow the Daco-Romanian continuity theory :). Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bonaparte/User:Iaaasi/User:Umumu/User:WhicheverNextRomanianSockpuppet may not take part in this discussion and I ask everybody to not react to his rants. I don't remove his comments only because then he'd run to an administrator and start his usual whining.
Borsoka, Wikipedia doesn't take primary sources very seriously — as you very well know — and the view of reliable secondary sources is well, mixed, to put it lightly. Your suggestion does not reflect the overall view of secondary sources, I'd call it original research.
Citations from primary sources are already added in the article, and I think they should rather be moved to Hunyadi family together with the analysis on the family members' descendance. Squash Racket (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Squash Racket, would you please, clarify what part of the suggested sentence qualifies OR based on the three sources cited above? I still suggest that his origin should also be mentioned here, because his contemporaries thought that his Romanian origin must be emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The possible Cuman origin is weak referenced: the only source is a tertiary source (Magar Katolikus Lexikon) that refers A M. Nemz. Tört. IV. Bp., 1896. On the other side the Vlach/Romanian origin is supported by tens of sources(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

His possible Cuman origin is based purely on the logic that (1) the names of the Asens (the founders of the Second Bulgarian Empire), Basarab and Basarab's father were probably of Cuman origin (2) the Asens, Basarab and Basarab's father were clearly mentioned as Vlachs (Romanians) in contemporary documents (3) therefore, there must have been Romanian nobles of Cuman origin (4) Hunyadi and Hunyadi's father were mentioned as Vlachs in contemporary sources (5) Hunyadi and Hunyadi's fathers as nobles of Romanian origin may have been of Cuman descent. This logic is described in a book written by Dezső Dümmerth of the Hunyadis some decades ago. Unfortunatelly, for the time being, I cannot cite it exactly, because it is hidden somewhere in my library. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a pure speculation that Basarab and his father Thocomerius had Cuman roots. Dan I of Wallachia has a Hebrew masculine given name, but he is a wallachian. Anyway, it is hallucinating to me that from the fact that the possible Cuman founder of Wallachia is named a Vlach it is deduced that a noble family that lives more than a century later is also Cuman(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

I fully agree with you that it is a pure speculation that Basarab and the latter's father were of Cuman origin - nothing proves it. This theoriy is based on the facts that (1) their names are most probably of Cuman origin; and (2) many Cumans lived on the territory of modern Serbia and Bulgaria at the time when Basarab migrated from there to Wallachia according to the Cantacuzeno Chronicle. I also agree with you that it is 'hallucinating' that the possible Cuman origin of some of the Romanian nobles gave rise to the theory that a Hungarian noble family of Romanian origin is "possibly" of Cuman origin. Nevertheless, these theories are mentioned in peer reviewed books, therefore they can be mentioned in a WP article, similarly to other, even less established theories which have been being published in peer reviewed books written by Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian, English, French, German, Russian, Japonese ... authors. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understood the formulation of this theory (even if disagree with its veracity), but which are the arguments for the Slavic or for the Hungarian ethnicity? (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

I think there is no basis of the theories that he was of Hungarian or Slavic origin. Nevertheless, it is my personal view, that is original research which contradicts to the views expressed in reliable sources, and WP can only be edited based on reliable sources. Therefore, if there is a view expressed in a reliable source that he was possibly of Hungarian or Slavic origin, it can and should be mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the theory that he was of Hungarian origin is based on Serbian songs which clearly refers to him as Ianco the Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a popular song, where a hero may kill by himself 1000 enemies ,a reliable source? Anyway, he lead the Hungarian army so it is not weird that he is referred like that(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

The reliable source is not the popular song, it cannot be a reliable source. The reliable sources are the ones cited in the article whose theory is based, most probably, on popular songs. As I have some times mentioned WP is based on reliable sources, even if these sources propagate weak theories. And János Hunyadi's Hungarian origin is not the weakest theory propagated in reliable sources and thus presented in WP. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably talk about the theory of the daco-roman continuity :) (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, no. There are, in fact, many (let's say) overstretched theories in reliable sources. Daco-Romanian continuity theory is only one of them. I could also list some theories elaborated for example by the (otherwise excellent) Hungarian historian György Győrffy, who described the 10th-century history of the Hungarians based solely on toponyms, and his views are still repeated by Hungarian and English historians, who obviously do not know that that history is a pure fiction. Or one can read books written of the history of the Principality of Nitra whose existence cannot be proved based on any primary sources. So I am afraid that the list could be further completed. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Borsoka, can you tell me please if you agree this edit? (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

I think the whole section (and the whole article) should be rewritten. It is really sad that the life of this excellent military leader and politician (who otherwise was not a saint, and managed to collect the largest latifundium in the Kingdom of Hungary in 16 years) is hidden in a shameful article which concentrates mainly to his origin, his father's origin and which contains a really wrong-written summary of the legend that he was a bastard son of King Sigismund. So at the end of the day I suggest the whole article should be rewritten, based on modern reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will be glad part if you would take part at the reorganization of this article(Rogvaiv1 (talk))

Leaving aside the disputes around his ethnicity, do you think it is correct to write: Hungarian noble family of Wallachian origin, with Wallachian meaning from Wallachia? (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Name variations in the intro

János (John) Hunyadi (Medieval Latin: Ioannes de Hunyad or Ioannes Corvinus, Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Iancu (Ioan) de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko) (c. 1407– 11 August 1456), nicknamed The White Knight...

7.5 names, plus one nickname. Getting a little long.

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section)#Alternative_names
• Wikipedia:Proper_names#Personal_names
• Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Treatment_of_alternative_names

Ocaasi (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed, dubious and original research

Howdy all. I think this article has way too many "OR", "CN" and "dubious" templates. I suggest that if any of the information in deemed unwanted, just remove the information. Having so many of the above mentioned templates makes the article look worse.--Rockfang (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that user FabricioRB would indeed prefer this solution, but I doubt that user Borsoka will have it. SISPCM (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Romanian origin?

How can the Hunyadi family be of Romanian origin when Romania didn't even exist? If you mean "Vlach" origin that would be a better word. 184.96.238.72 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

True, Romania didn't exist at the time, Romanians on the other hand did and they most likely used the endonym as we know it today. After all, Sun Tzu is undoubtably Chinese although China did not exist at that time. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Romania existed for a long time. Only problem, that they speak Greek and was located In today Turkey, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria. That name the Byzantine used for themselves. Romania=Roma=Constantinople=Byzance=Roman Empire.

Hunyadi might have been Vlach, but there are hardly any evidences. Unfortunately Pius II's Austrian history says nothing on his descent, as Fabrizio falsly alleges above.

Only Heltai and Szeremi György say after 100 years after his death that he was a son of Sigismund of Luxemburg and the lady of Morzina, assumed to be Vlach by later writers, since that was the earliest Vlach settled part of Transilvania (documented from 12-13th century)

The discussions are far from the topic the deeds of Hunyadi...

For the use of Hungarian, fortunately there are several dozen books, songs, religious text surviving from the period of 15th-17th century, revealing strong Hungarian sentiment opposite to Romanian, Slovak texts, only German or Latin are similar. Please, consult them before making strange statement based on communist era Romanian "history" books. I think the topic very poorly researched, need some new lights--Vargatamas (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Erzsébet Morzsinay or Elisabeta Morşina

I don't know why is Erzsébet Morzsinay mentioned in the article as Elizabeta Morşina and why is a problem if I correct it. She wasn't romanian by nationality. --Szabi237 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Her nationality was Hungarian (from Krassó-Szörény) and her ethnicity was Romanian or Hungarian. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I added sources about this, but unfortunately somebody always tries to delete those.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably is disturbing somebody. --Szabi237 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The form Erzsébet Morzsinay is in no way more accurate than Elizabeta Morşina or Elizabeth Morsina or Elizabeth Morzinay, etc. That the former is heavily employed by Hungarian historiography or Hungarian-influenced historiography does not constitute an argument in favor for its preferred usage. I suppose the article could present all versions of her name, nonetheless. SISPCM (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Morsina would be suitable to me.It songs neutral.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources (manually archived)

(Archived manually as per WP:Others comments)

Note: User:Ronaldka is suspected to be the sock of User:Stubes99 (Iaaasi (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

That is not really relevant to this topic Iaaasi. This is about the reliability of the information and sources to it. Please can you delete that, those sort of things should be kept to personal talk pages (where I am more than happy to discuss those sorts of things) and checkuser/ani/AfC pages. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

However, I think that it is an important information; if he is confirmed as a sock, his edits should not be discussed anymore. We must not support the contributions of a banned user (Iaaasi (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

Quotes

Hobartimus, I don't understand the motivation of this revert. Why do you consider this edit acceptable and mine not?

The quote "the ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians." is longer than "although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars". If full quotes "can be found in the reference, no need to copy whole books into article body", why didn't you also revert, by analogy, CoolKoon's edit?

However, you should not delete sourced content if there is not a consensus. If we would really have to renounce providing long quotes, the most suitable phrasing would be the initial one: "[...]other researchers affirm that the overwhelming evidence supports the view that he indeed was not Magyar" because it refers to H. Munro Chadwick's presumption (Iaaasi (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

I don't know what are you talking about I edited this section only. The new version is as follows:

"John Hunyadi was presumably "Hungarian", while other researchers state that overwhelming evidence supports the view that he was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin." In my new edit I restore the original version and changed the POV term "affirm" to the neutral "state", what you added was a simple repetition of the statement. Hobartimus (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also removed this from the article body "- in a book examining comparative literatures in various countries and at various times, and thus touching upon the topic of Hunyadi only incidentally -" as this is a wikipedia article and not a discussion forum or personal soapbox. Hobartimus (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact the old version is: [...]Hunyadi was presumably "Hungarian",[18] while other researchers affirm that the overwhelming evidence supports the view that he indeed was not Magyar., you can check. Please don't remove content in absence of a consensus

And the term "affirm" is a neutral term(Iaaasi (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Please don't claim content was removed when it was not. "State" is more neutral than "affirm" don't you agree? Hobartimus (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that my nick's been mentioned for the record I think that your addition is quite unencyclopedic: it not only suggests some bias against Hungarians in general but also suggests that Hungarian historians in general have no regard for NPOV and are heavily biased against anything that doesn't fit their "agenda". Even if you have such opinion, I doubt that a Wikipedia article is a proper place to voice it. I would've removed it, but can already see that Hobartimus has removed it.

This is the content in question: Other researchers affirm that "although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin(...) CoolKoon (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Obviously the text's been reinserted by Iaaasi since, so I had to remove it again. Please refrain from such formulations in the future. CoolKoon (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not my formulation, but an exact quote from a valid source. What about the phrasing "the chauvinist historians from Budapest and Bucharest"? (Iaaasi (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Well, even if it's a quote straight from a book, it's full of weasel words, such as "SOME Hungarian historians" (which?), "the OVERWHELMING evidence" (what evidence?), so it sounds like taken out of context for me. The phrasing you mention, harsh as it is, doesn't assert that ALL historians in Budapest and/or Bucharest are chauvinists, but only that there's an ongoing dispute between the ones that ARE chauvinists, without accusing any of them of chauvinism. Therefore it's more factual than saying that "some Hungarian historians tried to prove X, but the overwhelming evidence supports Y". CoolKoon (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, I will ask for a third opinion (Iaaasi (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Fine, go ahead, but please try to ask someone independent (i.e. someone who hasn't been involved in the editing of this article so far). CoolKoon (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder to try and retain NPOV, be you Hungarian or Romanian. The encyclopaedia has to remain neutral, and that often means quoting both sides of the story. Removing "Romania" or "Hungary" is equally POV if it upsets the balance. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have had to decline the request for a third opinion since there are no less than four editors involved in editing and discussing the article and this dispute. You may wish to try a request for comment to gain consensus on your quotation issue. Above all, please remain cool. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This is an ureliable source, per WP:SPS. So User:CoolKoon 's revert has no real basis (Iaaasi (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

Unfortunately I have to agree as the whole website has a "Source materials" page - it is completely blank! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you also check the bibliography section of the page? I don't think that it was made up and besides even the edit itself doesn't show bad faith at all. CoolKoon (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not one for the page, that one (and thanks for the speedy reply) is for the whole site.

The problem here is that the additions to the Hunyadi article would have to be sourced to the individual books and a reference put in for them. If the material was correctly paraphrased (or quoted), reliably soured and notWP:UNDUE, then it should be left in. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't read any of those books and I doubt that I could find them in the local libraries either (the libraries in Bratislava -or Slovakia in general- are so miserable and ill-equipped that anyone that needs to do some serious research goes either to Vienna or Budapest for locating proper sources). So far (according to this and this) it seems to be likely that the text inserted by Ronaldka is correct, isn't made up and isn't biased either. So what else is to be done to show that the text is legit? CoolKoon (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would put the proposed text in here then we can discuss and refine it. I am a little confused at the mo though as it appeared to me that the Ottoman forces had cannon and hand-gunners of their own. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, here's the text that's been deleted by Iaaasi twice:

In a comparison with contemporary Western European art of war, Hunyadi's campaigns are also famous for the usage of unusually high ratio of early gunpowder units like handgunners and cannons.

It was inserted in the introduction, to the end of paragraph beginning with "Hunyadi's aim to re-organize the military forces of Hungary..." or here's the diff. CoolKoon (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
NOTE (regarding the deleted discussion): I don't think that you should make any accusations of sockpuppetry, especially for someone who hasn't been confirmed as a sockpuppet.... CoolKoon (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

well we already know the source quoted (webpage) was not reliable. Some of the books listed on the bibliogaphy page are available, but not necessarily to all of us here.

• Ian Heath is a published by Wargames Research Group [11] + [12] - prob not a reliable source.
• John Zizka ... by Heymann [13]

Not English language friendly:

• Osveta JE. Perwolf [14] - although there are references to it in some books in English.
• Lipany a konec polnich vojsk Rudolf Urbanek [15]

Not found:

• Husitite Voyensive*, J Dandik - Nothing in google books.
• Armiata Hunyadi Glelen - Again nothing in google books.
• The Hussite wars Count Lutzow - cannot find on google books or scribd.
• The Life and Times of Master John Hus (or Huss) - cannot find.

Dorland talks about the importance of the Tabor (or Tabur - "war wagon") armed with firearms in 1444 and how the Ottomans defeated Hunyadi, capturing most of them. Cardini (p. 132-133) talks about "in the second half of June 1446 ...the sultan ... suspended his siege of Belgrade and withdrew his decimated troops" but also goes on to say that the sultans forces included "his fabulous cannons and the huge crowd of [different types] and Christian gunners" from "Germany, Bosnia, Hungary, Dalmatia and Italy."

It is not clear that there is any support in those for a numerical supremacy compared to western European countries. I think that on balance the text would have to be supported from some other source, if one can be found at all. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lastly I would like to point to History_of_gunpowder#Europe. Here it states that "by 1411 it was recorded that John the Good, Duke of Burgundy, had 4000 handguns stored in his armory" and is pretty well sourced to Early Gunpowder Artillery: 1300-1600 Norris, John (2003), Marlborough: The Crowood Press .[16]

Well..... I haven't had luck with some of the books, but was successful with some others you told you have problems with. Let's see:

• Lipany a konec polnych vojsk - The book's fine, but no matter how hard did I try, I couldn't find anything that even remotely relates to Hunyadi
• The Hussite Wars by Franz Lützow - unfortunately search within this book's not allowed, but the book's also mentioned in Count Lützow's biography. The same applies to
• The life & times of Master Jan Hus by Lützow too, though its searchable at least. Lützow's name can be spelled either Franz, Francis or František, count (or hrabĕ in Czech) was his rank. Jan Hus' name can be spelled either John or Jan Hus, but never Huss.
• Armiata (Ármáda? Ármádia?) Hunyadi by L. Glelen (probably Gellen/Gellén) - unfortunately I couldn't find a single mention of such book and/or its author either. No Gellen/Gellén with its surname beginning with L comes even close to being a historian.
• I'm not sure about this, but AFAIK Osvĕta (also spelled Osveta, which's its Slovak counterpart) is/was a publisher. I also found a book titled Osvĕta (volume 3) from 1873, but it has a different author. The only other book called Osveta of interest is this one from 1881, where a certain Josef Perwolf is mentioned (presumably he's the author of the book) and that's it.
• Sborník Žižkův by Rudolf Urbánek - I couldn't find anything in this either, but the search within the book seems to be VERY restrictive with limited possibilities of search as well (I couldn't get anything of value even when searching for targeted and/or popular keywords in Czech e.g. introduction, TOC, publisher etc.)

I haven't found anything in regards to the purported author "J. Dandik". I didn't bother with the Polish sources, since I can hardly understand any Polish let alone speak it (and besides the verification of the Czech sources have taken up a LOT of time too).
As for the text itself, you've managed to make me uncertain about the whole thing. The thing is, I wasn't the one who inserted the text. It was later removed by Iaaasi under dubious claims, which raised some suspicion about his motives. As I've told you before, I really don't have the resources to find a book (or other, "reliable" source) that'd support the passage removed by Iaaasi. CoolKoon (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. From my point of view the material and the article quality is important, not really who puts it there :¬)

If the material was good and sourced and really meant that Hunyadi managed to get his forces to a much higher balance of weapons than western Europe - that would be very notable and definitely have to go in.

At the moment it looks like the balance of gunpowder weapons was maintained across Europe as a whole, although there may be some differences in the quality of the arms and powder mixes used this seems negligible. On balance I do not think Hunyadi had any special advantage over western Europe and the benefit towards the Ottoman forces seems to have been the "wagons", and that advantage appears to have been quickly taken away after he lost the battles in 1444 and they captured most of them and any weapons technology he had with them.

It looks as if the material should be left out for now. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Endrey

I've just finished an article on Anthony Endrey, a prolific Australian-Hungarian author. I attempted to place a link to the Endrey article on the reference to his book on Hungarian History, which is also cited in the Endrey article itself. I know nothing about Hunyadi, and the discussion is too complicated for me. If what I did is not acceptable please correct it or remove it. I seem to have done something incorrect but cannot work out what I did. Pestbuda (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Solved (Iaaasi (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Thank you most sincerely.Pestbuda (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Varna

"Branković, however, fearful of the sultan's vengeance in case of disaster, privately informed Murad of the advance of the Christian host, and prevented Kastrioti from joining it. On reaching Varna, the Hungarians found that the Venetian galleys had failed to prevent the transit of the Sultan - indeed, the Genoese transported the Sultan's army (and received, according to legend, one gold piece for each soldier shipped over). "

In the above quote from the original page there is not a single citation or reference. Sourcing from Hunyadi:Legend and Reality, there are two errors in the above quote, namely:

1. Brankovic never made contact with Murad regarding the army; he did hinder Skanderbeg, but there is not a single shred of historical evidence to state that he went to the Ottomans and ratted out his allies. Preventing the Albanians from joining in negated the need to even go to the Sultan since it showed that the despot was not taking an active part in the conflict and on the contrary, was attempting to scuttle it.

2. When the Hungarians reached Varna they did find out that the galleys had failed to prevent the crossing (a messenger is spoken of delivering the bad news) however, the theory that the Genoese transported the Ottomans across to Europe is ludicrous and a nice myth but nothing more. In reality, no one knows what happened, but to directly claim (without citation i.e. proof) that the Genoese did something is not true.

The passage should read as follows:

"Branković, however, fearful of losing his newly reclaimed fortresses in Serbia, set about preventing Skanderbeg (Kastrioti) and his army from linking up with that of Wladislaw and Hunyadi. Upon reaching Varna, the Hungarians found that the Venetian galleys had failed to prevent the transit of the Sultan - (according to legend, the Genoese transported the Sultan's army and received one gold piece for each soldier shipped over). Additionally, the Byzantines had (although it would not dawn until later) not secured the coast, thereby allowing the Ottomans to cross with relative ease."

Source:

Held, Joeseph. Hunyadi. Legend and Reality. New York (1985). Pgs. 108-110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.200.124 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy of John Hunyadi

I believe that, in similar manner to Skanderbeg, who inspired WW2 nationalist Albanians to form a mountain division within the Waffen SS and is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Skanderbeg, mention should be made of the Waffen SS division raised from Hungarians and inspired by their hero John Hunyadi; 25th SS Grenadier Division Hunyadi (1st Hungarian). Regards Lachlan Gow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.249.58 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

H. Munro Chadwick

Hello. I removed H. Munro Chadwick's reference, since this author only cursorily touches upon the topic of John Hunyadi, in a context bearing no weight to the dispute (a volume on the history of literature - auth. cit. The growth of literature, Volume 2; by "Hungarian", he most definitely meant "of Hungary", using the term without any ethnic meaning. 85.122.25.226 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the source is reliable. Pages 316-317 "Hungarian leader John Hunyadi, is the most...He and his comrades are recognised as being Hungarians...where he is frequently called Ugrin Janko, 'Janko the Hungarian'."

I could go on, but it is better you read the source yourself [17]. Once you have looked then we can discuss the rights and wrongs etc. (if you feel there is still a reason to remove the source) Chaosdruid (talk)

I have also restored the quotes to their proper order and wording.

This constant "de-Hungarianising" and "de-Romanising" really has to stop.

The article has to remain WP:NPOV, with no WP:FRINGE and no WP:UNDUE. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid , that phrases refer to his description in popular folklore. Poems and literature in general can't be a scientific source. I think this book examining comparative literatures in various countries and at various times, and thus touching upon the topic of Hunyadi's origin only incidentally, is not a reliable source. Hunyadi could not have been "presumably Hungarian" as ethnicity, because Vojk is certainly an immigrant from Wallachia and his mother is according to primary sources and part of modern sources a Vlach noble lady. (so in the past case he was half ethnic Hungarian) (Iaaasi (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I do not want to participate in this debate whether this source is reliable or not, however I have fixed the citations, because Chaosdruid is right in connection with this (Pages 316-317).Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant Iaaasi, WP:BRD - IP boldly changed, I reverted and called for discussion on here. You reverted me without discussion, I reverted you giving us a 2RR situation. Do not change them back again until we have consensus.

1. overwhelmingly is a puffery and was removed for that reason. The first sentence also says "most sources" and so the statement is not really needed at all.
2. the statements were made and were quoeted, there is nothing worng with that and certainly no reason for you to remove them, unless you can show why they should be removed
3. I have added "in poems and literatureof the time" to reflect your point.

Now, please discuss, then we can agree on weighting issues and what exactly to include and where Chaosdruid (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I have tried to fix it up. Chadwick is a historian. We will disregard him if he analises contemporary literatures? These verses also emphasize John's Serbian origin.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those - I did not notice I had broken the link

I got stuck looking at the originals and trying to find out what the terms Chadwick used meant, especially "bugarstica", trying to see if we could word it better and you did it for me lol... Chaosdruid (talk)

I am also thinking that if the source only talks about Serbian literature it should be moved to the end of the paragraph? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugarstica is a Serbo-Croatian epic. These are contemporary poems and this is most important thing. I think it can move to the end of the paragraph.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that maybe we should actually rearrange that whole introductory section? One point is that the first sentence "The Hunyadi family were a noble family in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, of Romanian origin according to a majority of sources" - it seems that a majority of sources do not state that, they seem to say "unclear as to family origins" and "John Hunyadi was Hungarian of Romanian origins"

but first the rearranging - I think it should be like this:

1. text (and refs) for Hungarian/Romanian origins of family
2. text (and refs) for John's Hungarian/Romanian
3. other sources such as literature
4. any conclusions

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, such a discussion is necessary (Iaaasi (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

You say that "it seems that a majority of sources do not state that he was of Romanian origin"... Here is a list of sources about Vlach/Romanian origin: [18] (Iaaasi (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I have been watching you assemble them on that page. However I was talking about the sources in the article, not ones that you have added to a page this morning. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources about his Serbian origin or Cuman ancestry and those are slightly neglected.

• Vlach, Serb/Slavic, Cuman, Hungarian theories

I have found another source about his Slavic name, Ugrin Janko. Chadwick does not say he was probably or presumably Hungarian. He just mentions his Serbian name.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)::::::I have turned this into a sub of the earlier as they are both topics concerning Munro Chadwick.

Iaaasi - Is not that last point, in the section below, to do with John Hunyadi, not his father? If so it should really be in this section.

It seems to me that quote you have linked (below) is Munro Chadwick now saying that Hunyadi is a Magyar, whereas he was earlier saying that the poems and literature were saying he was Magyar. Is that an accurate picture? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep,Chaosdruid, You are alright, I have lost my eyes.:( I did not see that "Hunyadi is a Magyar" before but the book contains it. I was careless. He really states that. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

About his father (Vojk's father)

Could anybody explain this sentence to me? (about his father) "...and was the son of Şerb (or Şerban, Sorb or Serbe) a Vlach Knyaz from the Banate of Severin."

• Knyaz was a Slavic title
• If he is a noble from Wallachia it will not mean that he is a Vlach. It is the 15th century. He can be Vlach, Serb, Cuman etc. Somebody comes from the British Isles or Spain that fact does not mean he is English or Spanish (There were a lot of ethnic groups).
• There is no citation and it would be useful in this case.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Slavic title, just like Voivode (Vajda). We got a source that states that Vojk was a Vlach knyaz (kenez) http://books.google.com/books?ei=D-ptTavRKtOH4gb9sNyfDQ&ct=result&id=8OQ4AAAAIAAJ&dq=History+of+the+Hungarian+nation+By+Domokos+G.+Kos%C3%A1ry%2C+Steven+B%C3%A9la+V%C3%A1rdy%2C+Danubian+Research+Cente&q=vajk#search_anchor but I dod not find anything about Şerb (Iaaasi (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

In this case we should use that source.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, which is your opinion about Chaosdruid's edits? Do you think that popular poemes can be credited as reliable sources?

It is not the poems that are being referenced or quoted, it is the secondary/tertiary source analysing or discussing the poems/literature which is quoted in the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I tell you again: The book describes his portrait in different epic poems. The only quote that refers to the historical reality is this: [19]. The presumption of the author does not seem to be founded to me, but that it is(Iaaasi (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Can somebody please show me where this text: "his Serbian origin was mentioned in the contemporary Serbo-Croatian epics.[18]" is situated in the book? However, I've moved that text to the Legacy section, where it is also presented his image in Bulgarian folklore. If someone is against the move, he is free to input a comment here (Iaaasi (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

p 317. "There is indeed one bugarstica which makes Janko to be of Serbian origin"Fakirbakir (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So the bugarstica doesn't emphasize his acknowledged Serbian origin, but makes him of Serbian origin (Iaaasi (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

Source Encyclopaedia Britannica

Hi

I would like to use EB as a ref.

Unfortunately I can only use any info from there under this agreement which does not really say how much can be used, I suspect it is not very much. "You can quote or use material from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition if you properly cite the source. All encyclopedia articles include ready-to-use citations."

• Hunyadi, János. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition:

The problem is that I can check against the EB entry, and then cite it using a ref, but I do not think I can use the "quote=blah blah" field within the ref. I have asked them and am waiting for their reply.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

EB is a tertiary source. It can be used, though generally for broad summaries rather than specific detail. See WP:PSTS. Provided you are not intending to use excessive material from the EB article, then quoting is allowable under copyright laws, provided you cite the source appropriately. You do not need permission to quote provided you are not using a substantial part of the original text, and you cite appropriately. See Wikipedia:Quotations for guidance, and advice on how to format quotes. SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputes

I note that there are banners on the talkpage regarding previous disputes, and that there have been various reverts - particularly on IP accounts and newly created accounts. The dispute appears to be about ethnicity - a common reason for disputes. Often in such disputes people take an either/or attitude. That is, the person in question is either Green or Red. The aim of Wikipedia articles is not to take a stand on such issues, and to come down on the side of either Green or Red, but to record that there is such a dispute if sources indicate this. So it would be appropriate to say something like - "Some sources say XXXXX is Green, while others say Red". If there is a source which has some analysis of the ethnicity question, that would be ideal to reference. As far as such disputes go, it should be remembered that it is not what the individual editors think or feel (no matter how strongly), it is what the sources say. We are not interested in formulating an opinion either way, we are only interested in summarising existing knowledge. As regards the IP & new account edits. If these are perceived as a general problem, then let me know and I'll look into semi-protecting the article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest changes (Wallach as a seperate ethnicity) January 2011 ?

Can you please explain this edit 1 ? I have a couple of questions:

• Someone who is familiar with Romanian culture, why are you adding "Wallachian" as a separate ethnicity/culture ?
• Why did you remove a referenced text ? (Because of his origins ref http://books.google.ro/books?id=ta3Nj6_qIUAC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=Because+of+his+origin+he+was+named+Valachus+or+Balachus&source=bl&ots=qwNrW63Yqp&sig=2XNdjsq-aRnd0Op6TvO0E4cEYZM&hl=ro&ei=mO45TYbCF4aTswbr_bzzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=%22because%20of%20his%20origins%22&f=false ref)
• Why did you remove this block of referenced text ? (ref [20] "it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin" ref) Adrian (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is a great deal of refactoring going on here. When discussing something which happened during a specific time period when other countries and areas were in play we use the then name followed by notation to state the present name. For example talking about Constantinople in a paragraph and article about the 12th century would be correct. "in Constantinople, present day Istanbul,".

It is along these lines that talking about Romanian in the context of the 12th to 16the centuries is not correctly formatted here. The area was Wallachia, the country was then Hungary. The correct usage would be "Wallachian, now in Romania,"

The refactoring of "Wallachian" to "Romanian" is not really acceptable.Chaosdruid (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time I quote Paul Lendvai on this talk page, the man being, I believe, beyond any suspicion of pro-Romanian nationalist bias. "One of the many contradicitons of our history is that at moments of crisis, statesmen and poets have emerged, "whose family trees" and careers have in no way conformed to nationalistis, let alone racial assumtions. Hunyadi came from a Romanian (according to some sources, Slav) family that migrated from Wallachia to Transylvania. The Hungarian name stems from the castle of Vajdahunyad (today Hunedoara in Romania) which Janos's father Vajk, a minor Romanian noble received from Sigismund". Chaosdruid, your argument is based on flawed logic. This is not about a country or a city this is about ethnicity (whatever that may have ment in the 15th century). There is nothing wrong with substituting "Wallachian" with "Romanian", as Lendvai does, for the simple reason that the ethnonym is much older than the country. Besides, it is easier to grasp by the modern reader. We identify Sun Tzu as a "Chinese" general although the political realities of the time were quite different from modern ones. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In reality Sun Tzu was Han Chinese, born in the period of the Zhou Dynasty. He was Chinese. China was China then, so your example is not really very useful.

Lets try someone else, say Boudicca. Nowhere in that article will you find anyone saying she was an English Queen. England did not exist at that time and she was Queen of the Iceni, and at best a Queen of the East-Angles. She was an Angle - the ethnic group that would later become the English.

There is not doubt that she is an ancestor of England, and of the English. She was not, and never could be, English as England did not exist at that time.

The problem is that the words you have chosen are incorrect. He was almost definitely Român, the correct name for the ethnic peoples, but was not Romanian as the country did not exit then.

He was also Hungarian by birth, being born in a Hungarian area, at the time it was Hungarian - rightly or wrongly. It is like saying that someone born in Northern Ireland is not British, even though they choose to be Irish and go and live in Eire when they became older. They were still a British subject and citizen when they were born and while they lived there. Until naturalised as a citizen of Eire they would also still be British. They could not get an Irish passport, just a British one. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wallachian VS Romanian - Again ?

I see that this was recently changed [21]. I have analyzed this sentence The Hunyadi family were a noble family in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, of Wallachian[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] origin according to a number of sources. We have 7 sources, from which 5 of them say "of Romanian origin", 1 of "Wallachian origin" and 1 I can`t check online. If the majority of references say (and it is known that Wallachia-Wallachian was a state of Wallachians that are today known as Romanians - History of the term Vlach) why is this changed ? Please review this discussion where this issue was already discussed. Adrian (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is because of the context. Since we are dealing with 14-15th century context (14 in the case of father grandfather). And Wallachia was the state where they were (presumably) from. Wallachian is just more appropriate. Hobartimus (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But we have 5 out of 7 sources saying exactly "Of Romanian origin". My detailed response is down. Adrian (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Vlach and Wallachian have dissimilar meanings. For instance, "Proto-Romanians" from Wallachia, Aromanians, Istro-Romanians can be Vlachs, but basically Aromanians and Istro-Romanians can not be Wallachians. Wallachia is a historical and geographical region.
• Wallachian also means somebody from Wallachia. It explains his origin (where from) but that does not mean 'entirely' ethnicity. Cumans, Slavs from Wallachia are 'Wallachians' as well.
• Vlach word has Slavic and German roots, We can identify it with the Romanians, but it usually meant a lifestyle/culture together with the Slavic peoples.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This kind of questioning and logic reminds me of the (at times heated) debates in Slovakia regarding Svatopluk. They made a statue depicting him (even though nobody knows how did he look like) and he was named in the inscription as the "king of Old Slovaks" (the latter obviously referring to the people inhabiting the country he was ruler of). No matter how many historians have pointed out the idiocy of the term "Old (or Proto-)Slovaks", another group of (obviously agitated and heavily biased) historians stood up too and confirmed the then prime minister's fallacies as truth. Still, the thing is, back in the 9th century there were only Slavs, not Slovaks. Using the same logic I have a feeling that the same can be said about Wallachians too. Sure, nobody denies the fact that Romanians have descended from Wallachians, but nobody has referred to them as Romanians in the contemporary sources and IIRC there were also some other people that were part of the Wallachian peoples than Romanians. CoolKoon (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. You are right, but according to the sources, 5 (out of 6 , 1 can`t be checked online) say exactly "of Romanian origin".. ? If the sources made this conversion from Wallachian to Romanian, and we have it here, should`t we do it to? Isn`t this source corruption? Like this it is very confusing. Very little people know who Wallachian`s were, and presented like this, it looks like that was some sort of separate ethnic group. Especially because where the current link redirects. It is the same if we would say that Magyars are not the same as Hungarians.Adrian (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If Wallachian meant only the Romanian ethnic group Slovaks and Romanians/Vlachs would be Hungarians in the 15-16 th centuries in Hungary? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

???? Wallachian historically - today Romanians - as seen from the references. I don`t know about the Slovaks, but Romanians(Daco-Romanians) from everywhere were usually regarded as Vlachs.. But how does that have anything to do with this? Wikipedia is about verifiabilityWP:SOURCE and sources say "of Romanian origin". By same logic, should we say that Magyars are something separate from Hungarians? Or that Szekely are not Hungarians? So Wallachian is not Romanian!?Sorry, but I don`t want to develop this discussion in the wrong way - the way that has nothing to do with this problem. We are dealing with sources. Bottom line, this change is against the sources present at the article - it states something that it is only in 1 of 6 references and having in mind the relation of term Wallachian-Romanian and Vlach it should be changed to the stable version of the article. Adrian (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Wallachian is not entirely Romanian. Exactly. What about the Pechenges, Kipchaqs, Slavs (Bulgars, Serbs etc.) beside the Vlachs? There was a remarkably mixed population in Wallachia. They were Wallachians as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course no country is populated only by one ethnic group, but if this was the case, then sources would indicate a Pecheng,Kiqchaqs,Slav, Bulgarian or other as his origin - sources would`t indicate directly Romanian origin. Don`t forget that in this article there is also a claim for this ethnicities also. If this would be the case, then Romanian would`t be mentioned at all, especially because this is considered as a controversial subject. Also, sources indicate "Of Romanian origin" not Wallachian. Only 1 source that was recently added says "Wallachian origin". Adrian (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The ethnogenesis of the Romanian people was completed in the 8th century, The words Vlach / Wallach / Wallachian are exonyms, they don't designate a different population. The information from the sources must not be altered or re-interpreted, because that is original research. The provided sources explicitly use the word "Romanian", the same should we do (Iaaasi (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I am moving the discussion to the top to prevent multiple versions again.

And welcome back Iaaasi, however, you cannot simply delete the fact(well, the ref) that he was Wallachian. The ref is the EB, and it is a reliable one. I have added (Romanian) - If your argument that the exonym is valid, then Wallachian cannot be objectionable to you as it is an exonym for Romanian. However, the fact remains that Romania did not exist then. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that references say exactly "Of Romanian origin" - everything else is very misleading and source corruption because you are adding something that is is not supported by references. I mean why is this even discussed if references state otherwise????? Even in this present form, Romanian link redirects to Vlach where it is also inaccurate. The term "Vlachs" is used today to designate Romanians living outside the Romanian state. Also using Wallachian as you try to use it here is not appropriate. You are creating confusion and some sort of artificial separation of Wallachians from Romanians. I don`t understand your change really, nor I can see it in good faith if there are references that say otherwise and creating confusion about Romanian origin. The old version was established a long time ago, and now you need to change it? Also this recent change is only bringing disruption to the article. I am really astonished with all this. I never saw a case where we have references and somebody else insists on other information - not supported by references... Adrian (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ex: If sources say that John was of Chinese origin(for example), I will write that. I am not interested if China existed then, neither if he was Han Chinese or some other part of the Chinese nation. Everything else, if I interpret the source as something else than it states is as Iaaasi stated original research.Adrian (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Iaaasi changed it today, I undid his change. The version was fine with the Encyclopedia Britannica sourced quote of Wallachian, if you read my first comments, in the text above, you can see that the discussion ended ther, and this recent discussion is a continuation of it. The problems seem to me to be that:

• Romania did not exist then, Wallachia did though.
• Some people are trying to ethnically link his background, Wallachian means "from Wallachia", not that he was a particular race/creed/ethnographic background. Romanian means "from Romania" as well as the other meanings.

It is important that Wallachian is the correct term for that time period and it is neither Hungarian nor Romanian, which should also prevent Hungarian v Romanian ethnicity warring.

As for the Vlach problem I do not know how you wish to handle that, but, once again the problem is that this was a long time ago, long before Romania existed as a country. What Vlach means now is not that important as the article is about a period of history over 400 years ago. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Romanian means in this context "of Romanian ethnicity", not "from Romania". (Iaaasi (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

There is only one references supporting his Wallachian origin - not being from Wallachia. Every reference states exactly his origin, not from which country-region he was. Please check the references for this information. I did`t saw that it was edit warring about this and this sentence was established a long time ago. I really don`t understand your POV. I understand that the name Romanians did`t existed back there - they were called Vlachs, but if references made this conversion from Wallachian to Romanian - why are we talking about this? It is from references, not from any of us [22]. After all, the present form of the article is not supported by references. Even that 1 reference state "of Wallachian origin" which implies Romanian - from this reference "János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry.". I repeat, like this it is very misleading and does not support the information from references. This is an artificial separation of Wallachian and Romanian. It would be like saying that someone was of Magyar and Hungarian origin.. The stable version of the article should be re-established. Adrian (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly why I added the (Romanian) in brackets. If you want we can make it "...Wallachian (a region now in Romania)." which is closer to the EB entry. Iaaasi has already changed Vlach to Romanians lol...he never was one for discussion :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of explaining something so obvious. If you refuse to accept my version I will ask for help from an admin.(Iaaasi (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry, but I have the impression that you are not reading my comments. You are acting on one reference only - the one provided by you. What about the other 6? I have at home the new edition of Brittanica where it also says that John was of Romanian origin. If you want, I can scan the page and upload it for verification. Brittanica also made this conversion from Wallachian to Romanian. Numerous times I explained the correlation between Wallacian and Romanian... Please read the quote from the reference stating "Wallachian origin" - from this reference "János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry." - it is not about a man who is from Wallachia or any other region, it is about a man that is of Wallachian ancestry. And what about the other 6 references that state exactly "of Romanian origin" ? Adrian (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is false reasoning. If I am American and I came from America you will not know my truth ethnic origin, but I will have American origin, of course. I could show you 6 other sources about Hunyadi's Cuman (Tatar) ancestry from Wallachia (prior to that period, !!Cumania!!). It is a problem of interpretation. Romanian is a latter word, we can use it for Vlachs. The problem is not really the Romanian/Vlach subject. The expression of Wallachian is the problematic word. Wallachian word is different, a lot of researchers/historians are careless about it and they take an equal sign amongst Romanian and Wallachian. It is not entirely true. Additionally they take another equal sign betwixt Vlach and Wallachian. This is also problematic. It is about a man who was from Wallachia. You can determinate a region where he was from and a part of the modern historians conclude and presume his Romanian ancestry. "White knight of Wallachia" means a man a noble ( had a !!Slavic!! title Knyaz) from Wallachia. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Wallachians were assisted by the Tatars (who may also have also been Cumans)" (Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental military in the pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365)
• "therefore, by the name "Wallachians" should perhaps be meant rather the Cumans"Bulgarian historical reviewFakirbakir (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are constantly talking about some sort of term "from a country" and "of xxxxx origin". As explained many times, this is not the case here. Reference say "János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry.". If it would be the case you are claiming, then it would be "János was from Walachia (a region now in Romania).". And you can`t compare moder conceptions of ethnicity with the ones back then. Cuman, Tatar or any other theory is already present in the article. What is there more to discuss? How many times should I explain that we have 6 references stating that John was of Romanian origin and one of Wallachian. The correlation is clear. References state that, not me, or somebody else. We are interpreting what references "should" say according to each one of us. That is original research. Article should state what references say, nothing more, nothing less. What you are proposing is to invent some sort of artificial separation of Wallachian, Vlach and Romanian and IGNORE all this references. I am sorry, I never saw a similar problem on wikipedia. I am tired of explaining one thing over and over again, therefore I suggest reverting this article to a stable version to stop this discussion "arguing with references" and respect the provided facts.Adrian (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In hope of clarifying this to everybody and restoring the stable version of the article I will repeat my example: If sources say that John was of Chinese origin(for example), I will write that. I am not interested if China existed then, neither if he was Han Chinese or some other part of the Chinese nation. Everything else, if I interpret the source as something else than it states is as Iaaasi stated original research. Sun Tzu is Chinese even if China or the Chinese ethnicity(under that name) did`t existed back then. And he isn`t Han(as some of us propose this artificial separation of Wallachian/Vlach/Romanian) or some other part of the Chinese ethnicity. Han is Chinese today and he is simply Chinese. Also I am ready to add the information from the new Brittanica and totaly eliminate this confusion with the word Wallachian - ref: ISBN 978-973-675-776-1 , page 8.Adrian (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said you can not use the sources. You can use Romanian form If the source states it. But do not state Wallachian means just the Romanian ethnic group. You wrote it before, but those sources not. Wallachian origin does not mean entirely "Romanian", but you stated it. You do not understand me. I do not care about the sources. I responded because of your false (in my opinion) comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if we are talking about a person who is from Wallachia(state,region) then no(he isn`t necessarily Romanian), I perfectly agree with you. As you stated, in Wallachia lived many other ethnic groups also. But if we are talking about a Wallachian - somebody who is of Wallachian origin, a part of the Wallachian ethnic group(not Tatar,Cuman or other), then that means that we are talking about a person of Romanian origin.Adrian (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Romanian origin. Serb ( we do not know his ethnicity) was of Romanian origin, perhaps Vojk as well. In this case Hunyadi was of Hungarian origin, because it is not about ethnicity. He was from Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary. He was Hungarian. (It is not about ethnicity, It is about nationality).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Convenience break

If you read my note below in Source EB you can see I am setting us up to make sure that we can use the current EB texts as sources (and have been for a week or two) as the 1911 one is a little out of date on many issues. I also had to email EB and got an answer back only a couple of days ago. This was to make sure we would not get into and copyright infringements for using their texts, specifically how much text, in words, we can use. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don`t really understand your comment. Since my knowledge of English isn`t very high (level 3), can you please explain your idea? I understand the words but I don`t understand your idea. I understood that you got confirmation that EB can be used (no copyright problems) and that the old one isn`t very good. I read your previous note, I understood that EB is a Tertiary source, and as such, it isn`t very reliable (3rd category). But I still don`t understand. If it`s not a problem, can you please explain it to me? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The nickname White Knight

Google Books search results:

• "white knight of wallachia" -> 139 hits (96%)
• "white knight of wallachia" -> 6 hits (4%) (Iaaasi (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

I've seen that someone has restored the older version. I think this variant gives undeserved importance to a nickname, "White Knight of Hungary", which is supported only by 4% of the sources (Iaaasi (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

But the "White Knight of Hungary" had some sources appended to it as well. I can also cite you the results of the Google search for "white knight of Hungary" (1560 results) and the Google search for "white knight of Wallachia" (832 results). Does this mean that the former wins and I get to declare all the mentions of "White knight of Wallachia" including all the sources that quote it void? Because you're basically saying the same: you seem to declare that since sources for "White knight of Hungary" are less, it can be rejected and you get to remove it along with the sources as well, right? I think I've told you before (on my talk page IIRC) that Wikipedia is NOT the right place for this. Once again, nobody has problems with the term "white knight of Wallachia", but you shouldn't remove properly sourced material of an opposing theory either. For a concept called NPOV, you know.... CoolKoon (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Magyar Katolikus Lexikon

While for the Vlach origin there are tens of sources, the Cuman origin is supported by a single source. I think this is a fringe theory and the source itself is questionable. Does anyone have more information about it (its authors etc)? (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

I have inserted MTA source about that.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with this source. If he had Tatar-Cuman name, it does not mean he was Tatar-Cuman. For example the name George is of Greek origin, but that does not imply that George Bush had Greek origins

PS What means MTA? (Iaaasi (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This is an Academic source. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But the source is still unuseful, because it referrs to the origin of the name not to the origin of the person. In addition I don't understand why the name Voyk from medieval documents was corrupted to Bajk (Iaaasi (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

You are not right, He was probably from Wallachia this is a place and it does not explain his origin, and we do not know whether he was Vlach, Cuman, Serb etc. Origin and the place where from he was originated are different things. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there are also many sources saying he was of Vlach ethnicity

My question about Magyar Katolikus Lexikon is still active. (Iaaasi (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

• The linguistics can explain this name problem, I can not. Vajk, Vojk, Bajk, Bajik etc. I did read, Vajk or Vojk can be Turkic or Slavic as well.
• However you reverted an Academic source about Hunyadi's origin. And it was about Tatar-Cuman origin, moreover you reverted two sources about his Serb origin as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited:'Recalling what has been said above concerning the Turkic name Bayq, we may rightly come to the conclusion that the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin.' -I think it is about John's father in connection with his family. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin" does not have the same meaning with "Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin"(Iaaasi (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

From Catholic Encyclopedia "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin". Moreover, it is a tertiary source and it is very old (from 1913). I respectfully ask you to stop the edit war and to discuss here first the changes you want to make(Iaaasi (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Academic source exists about his Tatar-Cuman origin and you reverted it. We can draw conclusions about his name and if his name was probably Turkic he would have Turkic/Cuman ancestors as well. I did not violate the 3 reverts rule it is not an edit war from me. You also disregard the Serbian versions. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"and if his name was probably Turkic he would have Turkic/Cuman ancestors as well" - this is original research (Iaaasi (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Hypothetically, If you have German or Slavic name you may have German or Slavic ancestors. And this is what the Academic work states. Vayk is possibly a Turkic name and probably he had Cuman ancestors. (Cumans were Turkic).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it states only that the name of Hunyadi's father was Tatar / Cuman. The text from a source must not me intepreted or corrupted (Iaaasi (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

I think it's kind of obvious that MTA (academic) sources should not be removed from the article without good reason. Hobartimus (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)