Jump to content

Talk:Matthias Corvinus/Archive 2

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

Hungarian names for places before 1867

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [1], using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names Wladthemlat (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin was used only in written language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.229.34 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless it was the only official language at the time. Adrian (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, (mostly) only clericals could speak Latin in medieval Hungary. Therefore it was only a written language. Latin was never used as spoken language in medieval Hungarian royal court.--Balancedright (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The official language became magyar in the Hungarian Kingdom, in 1844. But since 1791, the texts of the laws had been written in latin and in hungarian. It doesn't mean that written hungarian did not exist at all in the middle ages! The first texts, written in hungarian, date back to the XIth century. These not official documents used hungarian terms, concerning geographical units/tribes/citis etc. AND even in the official documents you can find these hungarian names. What is more, there are plenty of official documents from the middle ages, written in hungarian! So using hungarian names etc. is NOT ANACHRONISTIC. --Ltbuni (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I call for unbiased artibration

My recent additions to the article has been complete removed for unknown reasons. Everything I provided in the opening stanza merits consideration for standing as it was all drawn the article itself. Let me again emphasize everything I wrote was complete drawn from the material contained in the origian article itself. I ask for unbiased impartial historical opinions who know the era and of the history of Central Europe to re-instate my additions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMyronGuyton (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are reverted for several reasons.
1. The data you are trying to add is "essay" like.
2. It is data without any valid reference. Even if you could provide references it should be rewritten because in this form it is very exaggerating.
3. This article is one which is under constant "attack" by the banned user Stubes99 and as new users appear and edit the same(or very similar) data this user tried to insert it is very suspicious at-least.
Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, my constant attacks? I had 5 edits in this article. Dear romani-an chauvinist wiki-activist (My original name is not Stubes99, but Celebration81 Celebration 1981) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.229.34 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I call for a wikipedia editorial review? I stand by edits, they are factually correct in every sense, in fact I just reworded what was contained in the article itself. The article didn't have an opening introduction to the career of Corvinus and it needed to be added. I'm not Romanian, I live in the United States.

MrMyronGuyton (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

You should read WP:MOS and also providing references for controversial material is a must. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the underlying issue here is a suspicion of being Stubes99. MrMyronGuyton, you should come back to this article after you have a bit of an editing history, because your account is very new it is not given enough credit, so to speak. It is unfortunate, but it seems it is the case here. Your addition is not lost it can be found in the article history, meanwhile you should try with smaller additions, maybe base them on some sources etc. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This really wasn't my motivation, I don't usually jump to conclusions about new users being sockpuppets. The content itself is a problem - it is unsourced and very opinion-laden, reads more like an essay. The starting point would be MrMyronGuron providing us with the source of the quote so reliability can be judged and then some copyediting will still be necessary. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My edit - explanation

I reverted as vandalism (by mistake) this edit [2]. Sounds silly.. but it was a slip of a mouse. Anyway I have reverted a banned user. Greetings to everybody. Adrian (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction. I did`t notice that this statement [3] was written by some IP editor. It was a mistake taging it as vandalism, I should revert it normally (as I said, slip of a mouse). Anyway, I apologize for the vandalism revert. Adrian (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2011 (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) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus → Matthias I of Hungary – Matthias Corvinus is a nickname. See:[4]Fakirbakir (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Or see any other English labguage Encyclopedias, the main title is always Matthias I of Hungary or Matthias I. Corvinus is mentioned only as byname in English encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.29 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment It is true. Wiki is also an encyclopedia, so we should adhere to the encyclopedic rules.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Those same encyclopedic rules also allow us to have Alexander the Great instead of "Alexander I of Macedon", to give just one example. However, if it is true that "Matthias Corvinus" is not the common name in reliable sources, we should rename the page. Ucucha (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If it were true, we would rename the page. But it isn't; not in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
Comment William I would be the better name for its page.[5] That article also sounds unencyclopedic because of this.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Please observe that there has been a long discussion about that article ending with consensus to change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 27 September 2011 (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.

Article receiving vandalism

Please do not alter the top heading nor the preamble summation of this article. Everything is based on fact, any revision to its previous form is vandalism. The preamble information is historical fact that is contained in the article itself. I will seek arbitration if any editors delete my addition. This is a free open-source encyclopedia, and I have added informative text into the header and the body. MyronGuyton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

In English: Matthew

If the page is in English, the correct name is Matthew Corvinus.

Read this: John Calvin and not Jean Calvin etc; There is a single form in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.226 (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You can call me Matt. - Corvinus :-) - Csurla (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not Magyarise Latin names !

The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.35 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading Latin documents and English documents (Magyarised) finally is hard to find correct data. For experts, clarity and precision must be the first objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.35 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the non-Latin names got Latinized in the Middle Ages. Do not you think? Anyway this page is written in Hungarian context.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to an ongoing edit war bewteen User:Newnou and User:Sylvain1975, this page has been temporarily protected from editing. Please discuss the issue on this page and arrive at a consensus before editing the article further. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Some issues in the edits of User:Sylvain1975:

  • The edit removed the part about the Battle of Baia
  • The source itself admits that the vassality relation between Moldavia and Hungary is not recognized by other historians => fringe view
  • The source does not mention Szekely forces sent by Matthias to participate at the battle of Vaslui
  • unencyclopedic language: "great" victory" Newnou (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(I am sylvain1975) I hope, that here I can discuss this issue. 1. I noticed that the part wrote from newnou was without any citation and wrote only one part of the truth. Yes, Stephen won a victory against Matthias at Baia. Firstly I just wanted that the whole truth about the relation between the two monarchs to be said. So I wrote also about the fact that Stephen became vassal of the king, and in change he received help from him against the Turks. And in the battle of Vaslui participated also Hungarian-Transylvanian troops, consisting mainly of Szekler warriors. I also gave citation, an article of one of the best Romanian historians, Marius Diaconescu, professor in the University of Bucharest, in which he writes about all of the things, that I mentioned: [6]. So you cannot say that I show here weak or Hungarian prejudicial opinions, because I used a Romanian source of a serious Romanian historian. At that moment I left the part of the battle of Baia too, and only added my contribution to this article. After a day, I saw that my contribution was deleted. So I added it again, but again was deleted, I think by newnou, so I was angered, and I deleted his writing about Baia too, because in this situation, when only the battle of Baia is mentioned, shows only one part of the story, and wants to hide the fact that Stephen was helped in his wars against the Ottomans by Hungarians, wanting to misslead the readers that the Moldavian prince was fully independent, and defeated the Turks only by himself. Please notice that in the page about the battle of Breadfield (1479), in which Hungarians defeated the Turks, nobody deleted the bart that shows the Romanian contributions in the Hungarian victory. In the by me cited Romanian article, Marius Diaconescu, himself writes, that some Romanian historians do not want to talk about the fact that in some times when Romanian princes were Hungarian subjects, hiding the historical truth, but every time speak very much about their victories against Hungarians. So they show only just parts of the historical truth which they like. So I think that you make a big mistake to delete my contribution with citation (if you want, I can give as many citations you want), and live the malevolent contribution of newnou, without any citation, that only reflects a part of the historical truth. I consider this intervention harmful to the historical truth, which reflects only the nationalistic view of some Romanians, like newnou, who want to show only that part of history, which they like, and to hide the parts, which they do not like, and think that the whole historical truth shows their national heroes in a bad light. But I think, that we have to show all the historical truth, not only what some people want to show! Don't you agree? So I suggest a compromise: live our both contributions on the page: that with the battle of Baia and also mine, with the historical fact that he was Hungarian his vassal, and that Hungarians helped him in the battles against the Turks in the following years of the battle of Baia. And please notice that this page is about the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus, and you should show all of his accomplishments, and not only his losses, only because some prejudiced Romanians want to do so. Please show the whole truth! So I hope that I made myself understood, and I live this in your hands to decide impartially what to do. With respect, sylvain1975.

You still did not answer to issue no.2 and issue no.3. Szekelys aren't anywhere mentioned in the article and the vassality claim is disputed Newnou (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer: 1. Interestingly the moderators do not want any citation from others, only from me. Where do you find citation from the person who wrote about the battle of Baia? So you ask from me to show where is something about the Szeklers, but you do not want any citation from him... Sorry, but this seems very unfair from you... See the citation about the Szeklers from here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C4%83t%C4%83lia_de_la_Vaslui Or look at this: http://www.hetel.ro/index.php/2010/12/1102/ Note that I give you Romanian and not Hungarian sources! Do you want Hungarian sources too? - Vassality claim disputed? Common! Who is disputing this issue? People who do not take in consideration the historical facts? I gave you Romanian sources on what I wrote, but you accept contributions with no citations from others? And you are talking about what is disputed and what is not? Please, answer me: are you fair or not? I give you Romanian sources about the fact that Moldova was vassal, and you still say that is disputed? And the historian about who I am talking, and who accept the vassality of Stephen III. is one historian, that cannot be categorized as a friend of Hungarians, look at his writing about the Szeklers in the Historia journal (http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/mit-manipulare-constiinta-secuilor-manualul-istorie-secuilor). What do you want more? Where is your impartiality? And how do you think that Stephen was not vassal to the Hungarian king, but he could keep his villages and lands, given to him by the Hungarian king in Transylvania's, that time a Hungarian land? Hungarian kings, when some of their Romanian or Serbian vassals denounced their vassality, took back the villages and lands given to those people as fiefdom in Hungary. Is this not enough for you? Or you do not put the question, how could the Hungarian king help Stephen against the Turks after being defeated at Baia, without asking anything in change? Because if he would do this, he would loose prestige in front of his own country and the other monarchs. Other Romanian source, that says about the vassality: http://www.historica-cluj.ro/anuare/AnuarBaritHistorica2011/05.pdf Other, this time English source about Moldova's vassality. http://books.google.com/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (71 o.) So I gave you sources and logical explanations too. - Ok, you can take out the „great” adjective before the word „victory”. But you are writing about Matthias's defeat as "bitter". Is that ok to write about the defeat at Baia as "bitter", and saying "great victory" is not ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1975 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Newnou (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And where are your sources about the battle of Baia? Is that ok to ask ask sorces, but you wont write any? About the participation of Szeklers, again from one of your big historians: http://www.bjmures.ro/bdPublicatii/CarteStudenti/P/Papacostea-Stefan_cel_%20Mare.pdf (page 13) I think that the source is ok now... From http://www.historica-cluj.ro/anuare/AnuarBaritHistorica2011/05.pdf: from p. 104/8 to 106/10 Vasalul de neinvins. From the other book, now myself too cannot find the reference.

Instead i give other sources, but you have to know Hungarian... http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01267/html/06kotet/06r05f30.htm „De Váradon, hova 1468 január havának második felében érkezett, a moldvai vajda megújítja hűségi esküjét,” Look at other proofs: Raporturile dintre Ştefan cel Mare şi Matia Corvin — relatarea Letopiseţului de la Putna: “Şi după câtva timp au făcut pace între dânşii, Ştefan voievod cu craiul unguresc, Matiaş şi încă, după împăcarea cea bună, a dăruit domnului nostru, Ştefan voievod , 2 cetăţi, anume cetatea de Baltă şi Ciceu; în Ţara Ardealului, precum sunt şi până acum.” Another: http://www.history-cluj.ro/Istorie/anuare/AnuarBaritHistorica2007/20Mitea.Relatiile%20Tarii%20Romanesti%20cu%20Transilvania.pdf (p. 300/16) (Bogdan Murgescu, Istoria României în texte. Ed. Corint 2001: p.135) So do you think that Matthias gave castles to Stephen, without receiving anything in change? About Walachia: “Cel puţin până în momentul acutizării relaţiilor dintre unguri şi turci la finele anului 1473 putem presupune că relaţiile lui Radu cel Frumos cu Matia au fost ca de obicei în perioadele de pace dintre cele două puteri, adică domnitorul român a plătit tribut turcilor, dar l-a recunoscut suzeran şi pe regele maghiar.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1975 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Letopiseţului de la Putna is a medieval chronicle (a primary source). It should be avoided. Secondary sources are to be preferred
  • This source http://www.bjmures.ro/bdPublicatii/CarteStudenti/P/Papacostea-Stefan_cel_%20Mare.pdf talks about an "alliance" between Moldavia and Hungary, not about a vassality relation. Szekely troops are said to have participated at the Vaslui Battle, but it is not written that they were sent by Matthias.
  • "Cel puţin până în momentul acutizării relaţiilor dintre unguri şi turci la finele anului 1473 putem presupune că relaţiile lui Radu cel Frumos cu Matia au fost ca de obicei în perioadele de pace dintre cele două puteri, adică domnitorul român a plătit tribut turcilor, dar l-a recunoscut suzeran şi pe regele maghiar." - this is only a supposition of the author, not a fact. Also it is not written that the princes of Wallachia, remained vassals of Matthias Corvinus, until the kings death. Newnou (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. you again try to find quarrels in my straw. How about your straw? Please, explain me: for what wanted Matthias to give to Stephen castles and villages in Transylvania, without receiving anything? I wait for your explanation. And look at the Hungarian source, I gave you: „De Váradon, hova 1468 január havának második felében érkezett, a moldvai vajda megújítja hűségi esküjét” – But in Várad (Oradea), where he arived in the 2. part of January 1468, the Moldavian voyvod renewed his vassality oath.” That was after the Baia incident. Is this enough for you? No? Another source: “Ez évben a szultán a magyar fennhatóságot elismerő István moldvai vajda ellen indult, aki támogatást kért Magyar Balázs erdélyi vajdától. Magyar Balázs seregei a király utasítására be is nyomultak Moldvába és Berlat folyó mellett súlyos vereséget mértek a török seregre.” – This year the sultan went against Stephen, the Moldavian voyvod who recognized the Hungarian suzeranity, who asked help from Magyar Balázs, the Transylvanian voyvod. The troops of Magyar Balázs, at the order of the king, moved in Moldova and near the river Barlad caused a serious defeat to the Turkish army. (Asztalos-Pethő. A magyar nemzet története. Budapest 1934, p. 149) From the first volume of the book Erdély története: “Mátyás még az évben hadat viselt István moldvai vajda ellen is, aki az összeesküvés egyik felbujtója volt. Bár egy szerencsétlen ütközetben maga is megsebesült, és seregeit hazarendelte, a vajda mégsem tartotta tanácsosnak ujjat húzni vele, hanem hűbéres esküvel kötelezte magát hódolatra. Ennek megpecsételéséül kapta hűbérbirtokba Csicsó és Küküllővár uradalmait.” “... the voyvod didnt wanted to pick with him (the king), so he made an oath of hommage (to the king). In exchange for this, he received as fiefs the domains of the castles Csicsó and Küküllővár”. (http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/70.html#79) So, some of the the Romanian historians (but not all) forget to mention that Stephen received the Transylvanian castles of Csicsó and Küküllővár, for the fact that he recognized himself as vassal to the king. But Hungarian historians show the real fact about this “gifts” of the king. - Szekely troops were not sent by Matthias? Szeklers were Hungarian subjects, living in Transylvania, which belonged to Hungary, and had the obligation to fight in every campaign that Hungary led to the east. So it was their obligation, inresponse to their status in Hungary, that every Szekler should fight in a campaign that Hungary sent to the east. How do you think that they could fight in a battle, without being sent by the king? But look at this source: „Nemsokára nagy erdélyi sereg (21000), köztük 5000 székely vonult a király intézkedésére István moldvai vajda segítségére a török ellen. Az egyesült erdélyi és moldvai sereg 1475. június 17.-én fényes gyozelmet aratott a törökön a Berlád folyó mellett. A gyozelmi jelekbol Mátyásnak is küldött István vajda, aki hálából és újabb segítség fejében a magyar királyt természetes urának ismerte el és huséget fogadott. Mátyás (1475. augusztus 15.) viszont a magyar korona huségére visszatért és neki, mint természetes urának újra meghódolt István moldovai vajdát fiaival, bojárjaival és egész országával együtt kegyelmébe fogadván s neki eddigi vétkeiket megbocsátván, oket elodei, a magyar királyok által adott minden jogaikban, kiváltságaikban és szabadságaikban megtartani ígérte.” (http://www.reformatus.ro/adatok/weberek/otlettar/Szadeczky_Kardoss_Lajos-A_szekely_nemzet_tortenete_es_alkotmanya.pdf, page 43). I think that this will response at your questions about the vassality of Stephen too. From the same source: “Az 1146.-i osztrák hadjáratban is a besenyok és a székelyek szokás szerint a magyar hadsereg élén jártak. {4} Megjegyzendo, hogy itt nem az erdélyi, hanem a nyugati határszéli (a vágvidéki és a mosonyi) székelyekrol van szó. De megvan ennek az eloorsi kötelezettségnek történeti bizonyítéka az erdélyi székelyeknél is. II. Ulászló király ugyanis 1499-ben a régi székely jogszokásokat megerosítvén, úgy rendelkezett, hogy ha a király kelet felé, azaz Moldva ellen hadra kél, a székelyek összes lovas és gyalog hadereje köteles a sereg elott járni, visszatéroben pedig a királyi sereget hátvédül követni.” It is true, that it is an ulterior (24 years after the battle of Vaslui) law, but the writer states very clear that this ordinance just reconfirms the old Szekler customs and laws. - "Cel puţin până în momentul acutizării relaţiilor dintre unguri şi turci la finele anului 1473 putem presupune că relaţiile lui Radu cel Frumos cu Matia au fost ca de obicei în perioadele de pace dintre cele două puteri, adică domnitorul român a plătit tribut turcilor, dar l-a recunoscut suzeran şi pe regele maghiar." This presuposition is about the events after 1473, so before of it, it was sure. So, at least before that year, the Hungarian suzeranity was a reality. After that, for the writer of the article, an important Romanian historian, says that it coulded be, because the trading and the relations between the countries, continued as it were before. - I stop here to write about this issue, because, I think that I had brought enough proofs about my truth. And I want to be judged equally, like the other people here. And I ask those who will make a decision here: how can they believe in one person, who continuously deletes others contributions without giving any explanation? How can somebody with responsability to delete contributions with citations, like mine, and live those those without any citation (about the battle of Baia and all the chapter entitled: Policiies in Wallachia and Moldova), just because they belong to him or people from his nation? How can be somebody like him trusted as impartially? But I leave the decision on those who will decide. • Sylvain1975 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • "How do you think that they could fight in a battle, without being sent by the king" - Here http://www.dponline.ro/istorie/articol.php?id=3 it is written "Ştefan reuşeşte să recruteze şi 5000 de mercenari secui" (Stephen recruited Szekely mercenaries)
  • "Cel puţin până în momentul acutizării relaţiilor dintre unguri şi turci la finele anului 1473 putem presupune că relaţiile lui Radu cel Frumos cu Matia au fost ca de obicei în perioadele de pace dintre cele două puteri, adică domnitorul român a plătit tribut turcilor, dar l-a recunoscut suzeran şi pe regele maghiar." This presuposition is about the events after 1473, so before of it, it was sure - no, the presumption is about the pre-1473 period
  • You can write here a paragraph version (with attached sources) and if I have any objections, I will comment Newnou (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

1. What are his sources? Do he give any sources about this? This is just an affirmation and nothing else. The writer did not mentioned any bibliography to his paper. How can Stephen recruit soldiers, which are not his? I gave here not one but many proofs that Szeklers were sent by Matthias. 2. Ok, I recognize, it is about the time before 1473. Sorry. Here is my Text: However, after the battle of Baia, Stephen the III. subdued himself to the king, receiving in change as fiefdom the castles of Ciceu (Csicsóvár) and Cetatea de Baltă (Küküllővár) in Transylvania [1]. Stephen received help from the king when he needed help against the Ottoman invasions. For example in the battle of Vaslui, in January 1475, the Hungarian forces, consisting of Hungarian and Székely warriors, helped Stephen the III., to win a victory against the invading Ottomans [2]. Although after the conquest by the Turks of Chilia and Cetatea Albă castles in 1485 by the Turks, Stephen the III. had to pay homage to the Turks, he continued to be a vassal to the Hungarian king and his followers too. [3]

Sylvain1975 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Some observations:

Newnou (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Szádeczky's book is one of the most important books about Szeklers. But if you say its too old, I gave you: http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/70.html. (Nemcsak a nemesek, hanem a székely és szász lázadók is bűnhődtek, a szebeni polgármester fejével fizetett. Mátyás még az évben hadat viselt István moldvai vajda ellen is, aki az összeesküvés egyik felbujtója volt. Bár egy szerencsétlen ütközetben maga is megsebesült, és seregeit hazarendelte, a vajda mégsem tartotta tanácsosnak ujjat húzni vele, hanem hűbéres esküvel kötelezte magát hódolatra. Ennek megpecsételéséül kapta hűbérbirtokba Csicsó és Küküllővár uradalmait.) - The upper given source and citation gives response to ypour 2. question too. - "he continued to be a vassal to the Hungarian king and his followers". I mean the next Hungarian kings, like Ulászló II. and Louis II., and Stephens successors until at least 1517, as the fiefdoms of the Moldavian princes in Transylvania shows, that the vassalhood continued after the death of Matthias. Sylvain1975 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1975 (talk • contribs)


Romanian or not?

If his dad was a Romanian that makes him a Romanian too, isn't it? 2QW4 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
What original research? His father was a Romanian! 2QW4 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Or was he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.243.229 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/70.html#79
  2. ^ http://www.reformatus.ro/adatok/weberek/otlettar/Szadeczky_Kardoss_Lajos-A_szekely_nemzet_tortenete_es_alkotmanya.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/matia-corvin-romanul-tronul-ungariei
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthias_Corvinus/Archive_2&oldid=1043897620"