Talk:Matthias Corvinus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Peter Váradi

"For instance, he had Archbishop Stephen Váradi imprisoned in 1484, and ordered the execution of his Chancellor of Bohemia, Jaroslav Boskovic in 1485." - it's really great article (which perhaps meets also all the criteria of FA), however this sentence is incorrect. In fact Archbishop of Kalocsa and Lord Chancellor Peter Váradi was imprisoned in 1484 and was held in captivity until the death of Matthias. Stephen Várdai, also Chancellor and Archbishop of Kalocsa died in 1471 yet, and was cardinal too. --92.249.130.175 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matthias Corvinus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Only two sources are available online, and one of those is in Hungarian, a language that I don't know. The other, offline works are reliable works published through third-party sources, as are the two sources with online availability.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Several images had some blank parameters and so didn't explain why they can be used in the US, but I went ahead and fixed those, as that was a minor issue.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passed. Good job!

Retroactive feedback

Figureskatingfan was concerned that I quick-passed this article because I left very little in the way of feedback. They have allowed me to supply this feedback retroactively.

• Sourcing - My above comments about the sourcing are rather vague. I commented that most are offline, and one of the two online sources is in Hungarian. I am excepting all of those sources AGF. As they all are reliable, and the usage in the article is meticulous, I am assuming that the editor has taken the time to ensure that all of the citations are correct. I also am AGFing the issue of copy-vio, as none of the content of the article looks like it has been lifted directly from an academic work.

• Prose - the prose looks fine to me. When I passed that article, the lead had a sentence which said that Hungary was the first nation outside Italy to "adopt" the Renaissance. I saw no problem with that usage, thinking that it was merely a stylistic device, but another editor challenged the usage of that word, arguing that it did not grammatically work. So, I went ahead and changed that word based on their feedback. It now reads "embrace", which is a word used in at least one reliable source (the source might not be used in this article, but it is verifiable, and the term reflects the cited material in this article). I feel that I should mention this incident as I am retroactively supplying feedback.

• Scope, balance, and neutrality - I can't find any problems with balance or neutrality, and the scope of the article is both focused on the subject, but adequately provides context for the subject and its role in history.

• Images - Images are useful and instructive, relevant to the subject. As noted above in my initial comments, there were a few images with technical issues with the permission templates, but this issue had no bearing on their copyright status.

• Overall, a good article. I've worked with Borsoka in the past on their GA nominations, and I look forward to doing so in the future.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, I'm pinging you again just to make sure that you see this additional feedback. I don't see any problems with the article, but I want you to see the review. Thanks, --¿3family6 _contribs 03:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

3family6, thank you for your review. I agree that the new wording is better. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Renaissance

How does one know when a country has embraced the Renaissance? Srnec (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I read in some of the sources when this article was being discussed for DYK, these factors are the main markers for when Hungary embraced the Renaissance: Corvinus patronized many Italian Renaissance figures, he sponsored a massive library with a humanistic bend, and under his patronage, architectural projects adopted new, Renaissance styles. The article explains in much more detail.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

I request the addition to the first sentence of the alternative Romanian name (Romanian: Matia (Matei) Corvin) which exists for instance at the French-language article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Ier_de_Hongrie. The king is half-Romanian and has an important place in Romanian historiography. There are many Romanian works that mention it, and also English-language works: [1] 83.64.164.18 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 22:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How many

The article writes that the exact number of his books is unknown. How can anybody determine that his Bibliotheca Corviniana was larger than any library? Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It is 1000% natural that we do not know the exact number of books of medieval libraries. Yes, all libraries before the 18th century are based on estimation, these are not facts. Even Vatican library based on estimntions. Like the imagination of inland revenue of Matthias. (Forexample, economic historians did not know the GDP of Austria-Hungary Spain or Italy in the early 20th century(!), they had not enough data , therefore they made estimations, which are very controversial and they have a very high standard deviations.... Only you try to interpret the inland revenue estimations as "facts"...--Bibliothec (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the allegedly cited source (Berenger (2014), p. 116.) does not write that Matthias's library was larger than the Vatican Library. The cited source writes: "At this period, the Corvinian was equal to the finest libraries in Italy. Apparently 3500-5000 volumes while the Vatican library founded by the pope had 3500 in 1489, the Laurentine of the Medicis 1017, and that of the duke of Urbino, 1120." The information that his Corviniana was one of the largest libraries of Europe is already mentioned in the article. Why should we repeat it? Borsoka (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it is estimated larger 3500-5000 volumes. http://www.corvina.oszk.hu/studies/csapodi_hun.htm De alapjában véve ez a szám keveset mond. Nem a kötetek, hanem a művek száma a fontos. Egy kódex pedig igen sokszor nem egy, hanem több művet tartalmaz, méghozzá különböző szerzőktől is. Ha így a művek és nem a kötetek szempontjából vizsgáljuk az állományt és figyelembe vesszük nemcsak a Corvina fönnmaradt töredékét, hanem azokat az adatokat is, amelyekből elveszett művek meglétéről értesülünk vagy ilyenekre következtethetünk, akkor látjuk csak, milyen gazdag volt ez a könyvtár, mennyire sokoldalú, és mennyire reálisnak látszott az a terv, hogy megközelítse a „teljes" könyvtár fogalmát - humanista értelemben. Eddigi eredményeink szerint körülbelül 650-re tehetjük a Corvina Könyvtárból fönnmaradt vagy hitelesen ismert művek számát, s ezen az alapon a királyi könyvtár állományát 1490 körül 4-5000 műre becsülhetjük. (Ebben a számban nincs benne az említett kápolnai könyvtár anyaga.)--Bibliothec (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Humanism and Renaissance appeared before Matthias in Hungary

It must be mention in the article: Jean Berenger A History of the Habsburg Empire 1273-1700--Bibliothec (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Size of Bibliotheca Corviniana

More sources say that it was second-largest after the Vatican Library, but Berengar says that it was bigger (5,000>3,500). 188.123.106.85 (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As it can be seen, there is a a contradiction between 2 sources, the numbers must be added after a serious debate. 188.167.227.21 (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the numbers so important in this article? They are only assumptions. The whole issue could be presented in the proper separate article (Bibliotheca Corviniana). Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Languages spoken by Matthias Corvinus

I am concerned about the following text from the article:

According to Antonio Bonfini, Matthias "was versed in all the tongues of Europe", with the exceptions of Turkish and Greek.[7] Although this was an exaggeration, it is without doubt that Matthias spoke Hungarian, Latin, Italian, Polish, Czech, and German.

I was not able to find the full text of the books "Kubinyi 2008" and "Tanner 2009". I only managed to find the text below, from "Tanner 2009":

"Apart from Turkish and Greek, he was versed in all the tongues of Europe. We need not take that too literally but he could clearly get by in several tongues. His childhood in Transylvania had, of course, acclimatised him to the sound of languages other than Hungarian. After the devastating Mongol invasion of Hungary in the 1240s, Slavs and Romanians had resettled the border areas of the kingdom, while Germans and Walloons came from the Moselle, the Rhineland and Luxembourg to revive the ruined towns."

The enumeration "Hungarian, Latin, Italian, Polish, Czech, and German" is not present here. Moreover, since he lived in Transylvania during his childhood, it can be supposed that he also spoke Romanian, which was also the mother tongue of his father. User:Borsoka. if you are kind, can you please provide here the relevant quotes from these two books? Thanks in advance! 79.117.154.36 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that Janos Hunyadi's mother tongue was Romanian? What if Hunyadi's mother was a Greek lady? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"it can be supposed that..." and " the mother tongue of his father", read WP:OR. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir, ok, father tongue then :)) Let's not forget that he was called "a Vlach" in medieval sources.

I am just asking for the relevant quotes from the referred sources (Kubinyi 2008, p. 24) and (Tanner 2009, p. 28). Nothing more. If I understand correctly from the edit history, Kubinyi refers to "Latin, German and Italian". I was not able to find any reference to Polish and Czech in Tanner 2009. 79.117.154.36 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 28 (book written by Tanner): the courtier Galeotto Marzio claimed that a Polish embassy addressed the King for two hours at Visegrád in their own language, "for Matthias alone in the great assembly of men understood the Slavonic language [...]" --Norden1990 (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Slavonic language and Czech language are synonymous terms. I wonder how was this article passed as a good article. These checks should have been done before. 79.117.201.41 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this whole quote refers to his Polish language knowledge. I do not own the book, I used only Google Books (and only a portion of page 28). --Norden1990 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we have the necessary reference about his knowledge of Polish language, but what about Czech language? It is difficult to search a non-public book, but apparently there is no mention about it.79.117.152.111 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Among the languages which were certainly spoken by Matthias Tanner lists Latin and Polish, Kubinyi lists Latin, German, Italian, and "the main Slavic languages" on the cited pages. Matthias's knowledge of the Czech language is explicitly mentioned on an other page (Kubinyi p. 86.) in connection with Matthias's 1469 campaign in Bohemia (which is also mentioned in the article). Please read basic WP policies, including WP:AGF, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR before making remarks of articles and editors and sharing the results of your own research on these pages. Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Map

I think the position of Transylvania and Croatia was quite similar during the reign of Matthias Corvinus: both realms were administered by a royal official and both realms had their own general assembly (I think I do not need to refer to reliable sources to verify these statements). However, I think the map misleads users: for instance, it suggests that Transylvania, Croatia, Slavonia and the banates on the southern frontier were not parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you verify that Transylvania have own diet in medieval kingdom of Hungary? MEdieval (pre Mohács era) Transylvania was under the legislature of the Hungarian parliament.

The diet sessions at Vásárhely (now Târgu Mureş) (20 January 1542) and at Torda (now Turda) (2 March 1542) laid the basis for the political and administrative organization of Transylvania. The diet decided on juridical, military and economic matters. It ceased to exist following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.55.221 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Have you read of the general assemblies in Transylvania headed by the voivodes or by the voivodes' deputies? Borsoka (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yuo are wrong. The Hungarian parliament was the only legislative body which could create laws for the whole Kingdom. These real laws have supremacy over all local or government's regulations. The local regulations should not interfere with parliamentary laws. All of the Transylvanian counties had delegations in the Hungarian parliaments like other counties of the kingdom, even Székelys were represented there. For the absolute superiority of Hungarian parliament over whole Transylvania.

Just see these examples:

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=812

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=1281

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=1143

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=1392

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=1441

So their medieval assemblies had not more right in the legal hierarchy of medieval Hungary than the statutums of the royal free towns in their own urban territories.

Tessék végre megérteni, és végül felfogni, hogy a jogörténet egy külön szaktudomány, metszete a történelemnek és a jognak.

Szimplán politikatörténetet tanuló, jogot sosem végzett un. "mezei történészek" laikusnak számítanak a témában.

Ajánlom továbbá a következő könyvek elolvasását: Mezey Barna: Magyar jogtörténet c. könyvét

Béli Gábor: Magyar jogtörténet

A klasszikus Asztalos László - Csizmadia Andor - Kovács Kálmán: Magyar állam- és jogtörténet c. könyvét — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.169.162 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It must be really fascinating if an editor is able to continue a debate with himself. Please try to read and understand simple texts. Nobody claimed that there was a legislative assembly in Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please try to read and understand simple facts like the above linked contemporary laws. I know that a legal university is more complicated than your school, and you are far from being an expert in legal history.

"Nobody claimed that there was a legislative assembly" only your protege suggested that.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.180 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have not realized, but it was me who began this discussion under this subtitle and nobody has so far joined us. If you was engaged in a separate debate on an other Talk page, please continue that debate on that Talk page. If my understanding is correct, you try to say that you do not debate my first statement under this subtitle and we can stop this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Romanian is Matei Corvin not Matia Corvin

The correct form of his name in romanian is Matei Corvin. Matia doesn't exist in our language.

If this is the case, the title of the corresponding article of Romanian WP should first be changed. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it should be changed, but it's not the case.--213.233.84.15 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In English WP, we cannot and should not decide which is the proper Romanian name. Borsoka (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting of Romanian language

Why was the addition to his languages of Romanian deleted? It was properly sourced with clear evidence. Vladcmirel (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you quote the text from the allegedly cited source which verifies the deleted sentence? Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir, here it is: "...according to the late 16th century testimony of Polish author Varsevicius (Krzystoff Warszewiecki), who drew on the work of authors from the time of Matthias, the Hungarian king received some Moldavian envoys (whom the Polish author called “Wallachians” ) dispatched by Stephen the Great. When they began their message with the Romanian words “Spune domnului nostru” [Tell our lord], he told them that if that was their language, then he did not need an interpreter." And the link to the article: http://renaissance.elte.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Ioan-Aurel-Pop-The-Names-in-the-Family-of-King-Matthias-Corvinus.pdf Vladcmirel (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you quote the full context? The deleted sentence referred to his father [2]. Where is the reference to him? Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It refers to Matthias, not his father, John. Please read more attentively, it clearly states that is was Matthias who refused a translator, not John: " the Hungarian king received some Moldavian envoys (whom the Polish author called “Wallachians” ) dispatched by Stephen the Great. When they began their message with the Romanian words “Spune domnului nostru” [Tell our lord], he told them that if that was their language, then he did not need an interpreter. Nicolae Iorga believed that Matthias’ refusal to use an interpreter after hearing the three Romanian words in question" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladcmirel (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The deleted sentence referred to Matthias' father. If Pop does not refer to Matthias' father, the sentence contained original research as I stated it when deleting it. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that Matthias probably spoke Romanian as he did not need translators in order to communicate with a Moldavian envoy sent by Stephen the Great, just as Pop stated. I leave the quotation here once more and I will highlight where it says that it was in fact Matthias who refused the translator, not his father John: "the Hungarian king received some Moldavian envoys (whom the Polish author called “Wallachians” ) dispatched by Stephen the Great. When they began their message with the Romanian words “Spune domnului nostru” [Tell our lord], he told them that if that was their language, then he did not need an interpreter. Nicolae Iorga believed that Matthias’ refusal to use an interpreter after hearing the three Romanian words in question". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladcmirel (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But in the deleted sentence you referred to Matthias' father ([3]) and you have been unable to verify that reference for days. Sorry I do not have time to continue this debate. In accordance with WP:NOR, I will always revert all edits that cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I said: It is highly probably that Matthias was also able to speak Romanian, being of Romanian descent on his father's side. Later in his life, Matthias was able to perfectly communicate with a Moldavian envoy dispatched by Stephen the Great in the Romanian language. I referred to his father only saying that he is of Romanian descent on his father's side, as he is Hungarian on his mother's side. This should be added, Matthias was half Romanian and was able to speak the language. You fail to mention this in the article. Matthias' ability to speak Romanian should be added to this article along with the other languages he was able to speak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladcmirel (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you quote the text from the allegedly cited source which verifies that Matthias could speak (?) Romanian because of his father's descent? Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

After working this out with Vladcmirel in detail, I believe I have reached a solution. Here is the sentence I propose: "In response to speculation that Matthias was able to speak Romanian, historian Ioan-Aurel Pop has declared that the issue is 'unclear'." (source: http://renaissance.elte.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Ioan-Aurel-Pop-The-Names-in-the-Family-of-King-Matthias-Corvinus.pdf ). Is this satisfactory? DS (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you quote the text form Pop's article which suggests that he answered "speculations"? Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Page 5, "It is unclear whether [Matthias] could understand Romanian just because it was so close to Latin, or because it was the language of his ancestors and of some of his subjects." DS (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the following version: [4]? The sentence contains only a single fact which can be verified based on the cited source, but it does not refer to speculations (as per WP:DUE) and does not qualify them. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. @Vladcmirel:, what do you think? DS (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the sentence proposed by @DragonflySixtyseven: fits better. Shorter, gets to the point in an elegant fashion and is less confusing. Thank you for hearing me out by the way . :)

My principal concern is that the text quoted from Pop's study does not imply that Matthias could speak Romanian, it only refers to his (alleged) ability to understand Romanian speech. For instance, I can quite well understand Portugal speech if it is necessary, but I do not speak Portugal (only Spanish). Matthias spoke many Romance and Slavic languages, so it is not a surprise that he could understand Romanian speech. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are correct in saying that Borsoka which is why the sentence proposed by DS is well put as it expresses that its only a possibility if he could truly speak Romanian or not. Vladcmirel (talk)

However, Pop does not write that he possibly could speak Romanian. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)]

He writes that it is uncertain, but it obviously is a possibility.Vladcmirel (talk)

In this context, I think Borsoka's version — according to Warszewiecki, Corvinus was able to understand some Romanian words — is more valid. We do have to avoid synthesis. DS (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

:The article is stating that Corvinus understood Romanian, however it is unclear if it was due to his knowledge of the Latin language, which is extremely similar to Romanian, or if he could actually speak the language.Vladcmirel  —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 

Because it is unclear, according to the cited source. We do not need to mention all marginal hypotheses in the article. What is clear: according to a late source, he could understand Romanian - and this fact is mentioned in the article based on a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Romanian (small) noble family"

The stable version of the article contained the following sentence: "John Hunyadi, born in a Hungarian noble family of Vlach (or Romanian) ancestry, was a pre-eminent military commander and political leader of the Kingdom of Hungary, who spent most of his life away from the family estates." The bold text is fully verified by historian András Kubinyi's words: John Hunyadi's father, Vajk, was the "offspring of a Wallachian boyar, that is of Romanian aristocratic descent. … With the family's possession of the Hunyadvár estate, he became a highly influential Hungarian nobleman, but not a particularly wealthy one. The Wallachian origins of [John Hunyadi] are also noted in János Thuróczy's chronicle." (Kubinyi, András (2008). Matthias Rex. Balassi Kiadó. p. 9. ISBN 978-963-506-767-1.) On the same page, the same author also states that "the possibility that [Vajk] was the son of a Romanian kenéz (a man supervising the settlement of Romanians in Transylvania) from Hunyad County" is "preclude[d]".

The new version of the same text is the following: "John Hunyadi, born in a Romanian (also called Vlach) small noble family, which became part of the Hungarian nobility, was a pre-eminent military commander and political leader of the Kingdom of Hungary, who spent most of his life away from the family estates." One of the allegedly cited authors, Aleksander Gella, says "It was the fourteenth century before the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia became the first autonomous states of this country. During the long periods of wars and revolts against the Turks, the nobility of these provinces … gradually gave up their national identity and were assimilated into the Hungarian aristocracy. For example, John of Hunedoara … and his famous son, the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus, were Romanian in origin." (Gella, Aleksander (1989). Development of Class Structure in Eastern Europe: Poland and Her Southern Neighbors. SUNY Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-4384-0392-2.) Consequently, the source states that the Hunyadi family was of Romanian origin and it was a Hungarian aristocratic family, furthermore it also implies that its ancestors were members of the Wallachian aristocracy, but it does not state that it was a Romanian noble family. The other cited author, Ioan-Aurel Pop, says, "Apart from two certain marital alliances with two Hungarian families belonging to the middle nobility—Dengeleg and Rozgonyi—the other known paternal relatives of Matthias are families of knezes, voivodes, and small Romanian nobles from the region of Hunedoara-Haţeg." (Pop, Ioan-Aurel (2012). "The Names in the Family of King Matthias Corvinus: From Old Sources to Contemporary Historiography". Ethnographica et folkloristica Carpathica. 17 (35). Debreceni Egyetem Néprajzi Tanszék: 11–40. ISSN 0139-0600.

Based on the above cited sources, we can conclude that:

• the stable version of the text is fully verified by a reliable source (Kubinyi), it is also confirmed by an other reliable source (Gella) which writes of Hungarian aristocratic family of Romanian origin, and the stable version of the text does not contradict to the third source (Pop) either, because it does not state that the Hunyadi family was not a Hungarian noble family and it does confirm that they were of Vlach origin;
• the new wording ("Romanian small noble family") can only be verified by one of the sources (Pop), which in this respect contradicts to the two other cited sources (Kubinyi, Gella) which describe the Hunyadis' ancestors as Wallachian aristocrats/boyars;
• the whole issue is discussed in details in the articles dedicated to John Hunyadi and Hunyadi family, we do not need to repeat the whole issue here.

Consequently, I think the stable version should be restored. Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your demonstration is nothing more but pure original research (and the templates you added into the text are only disruptive editing). Based on the above cited sources, the conclusion is obvious for any person of good faith. If you want to continue doing what you have already done on so many Wikipedia articles, feel free to do it. Wikipedia will become more and more a source of unreliable information (unfortunately for this project, but also for the work done by the honest editors contributing to this project). (Rgvis (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC))

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", consequently statements that are based on published reliable sources (such as Kubinyi and Gella's above cited books) cannot be described as such. I will gladly continue editing WP articles fully in accordance with the principle WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cited sources you have deleted are reliable sources. Please review wikipedia policies of WP:REMOVAL and WP:REFB. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

I deleted one single reliable source (Pop) as per above argumentation. You have not explained why do you want to change the stable version, if the stable version is verified by two of the cited sources and does not contradict to the third source, while the new version contradict to two of the cited sources (as per above). Borsoka (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is only your personal interpretation, it does not contradict anything. (Rgvis (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

@Rgvis:, could you quote the text from Hochstrasser's article which refers to a "Romanian small noble family" and please also remember that you failed to add the exact page number when you provided a new reference. I requested a third opinion about the issue ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As for the NPOV template, if you do not personally agree with an author then the text is not good, isn't it? (Rgvis (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

Before making ad personam remarks, please read my above summary. Pop contradicts to both other reliable sources. Could you quote the text from Hochstrasser's article which refers to a "Romanian small noble family"? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read the full text (from all references added), you will find all the answers. The problem is that you are not looking for answers. (Rgvis (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

Only a small introduction:

No serious historian would nowadays question the Romanian origin of the family, even if many rightfully discuss the importance played by this ethnic origin at that time. Still, beyond the significance of the medieval nation, since this ethnic origin was mentioned even in the 15th century — in a neutral fashion, with admiration, or with contempt — it is the duty of the historian to take note of it and to interpret it. Also, it is almost certain that nearly all of the known family members were born in Transylvania and in Hungary, but it is difficult to say whether the more distant paternal ancestors of Matthias were themselves local Transylvanian Romanians or came from the lands south of the Carpathians. 7In what concerns their religious affiliation, we can only assume that the paternal grandfather of the king (Vojk/Voicu) and some of his relatives having Slavic-Romanian names, not present in the Catholic calendar (Sorb/Şerbor Şerban, Radol/Radul, Magos/Mogoş, another Radul), had initially been of the Byzantine rite, like most Romanians at that time. Elisabeth of Marsina (Margina? Muşina?), Vojk’s wife — probably coming from the Marginea district or from the Land of Haţeg (a member of the Muşină family of Densuş) — could have been a Catholic, in light of her given name, but she may just as well belonged to another denomination. Apart from two certain marital alliances with two Hungarian families belonging to the middle nobility — Dengeleg and Rozgonyi — the other known paternal relatives of Matthias are families of knezes, voivodes, and small Romanian nobles from the region of Hunedoara - Haţeg. Here, in the Land of Haţeg, the father of King Matthias had “co-owning brothers,” with whom he shared certain lands. ......

Quite symptomatic is the fact that a boy named Matia/Matthias, the son of a Transylvanian voivode of Romanian origin and who would become an illustrious king of Hungary, was

born in a town that intra muros was still dominantly German (as was the case with Cluj around 1440). ......

(Rgvis (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

Yes, I quoted the core of the same text from Pop's article above ([6]). Nobody denies the Romanian origin of the family and the stable version clearly refers to it. However, the statement that they were "Romanian (small) nobles" cannot be verified by all the sources, as I explained above. I repeat: this PoV is not relevant in this article because the whole issue is explained in the articles dedicated to John Hunyadi and the Hunyadi family. I would like to remind you that you have not quoted the text from Hochstrasser's article which refers to a "Romanian small noble family". The family's status and Vlach ancestry is emphasized also in the stable version. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is only your personal interpretation and POV, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a continuous project, and if other pages also need to be updated with new content (based on reliable sources), then this will also have to be done (including Hunyadi family article). At some point, you will have to understand that all your disruptive and tendentious editings will not succeed. (Rgvis (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

We fully agree that disruptive and tendentious edits should be abandoned. After reaching a compromise on this issue, you have time to quote the text from Hochstrasser's article that refers to the first Hunyadis as "Romanian (small) nobles". Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sadly reading this dispute, since the misunderstanding seems marginal (as i.e. this case there is no debate of possible ancestry, that's another issue), as there would be an 1, initial noble family that would became part of the Hungarian nobility OR 2, there would be a family that became a noble family in Hungary (= by the time of promotion immediately member of the Hungarian nobility). So I could translate it to a "sequential" issue. This approach is, if there could exist any noble family in Hungary that time that would not be a Hungarian noble family (= part of the Hungarian nobility), but still would have noble status or rights. I think this is cutting edge (if the noble family in question earlier did not have/could not have a noble status in Wallachia or Moldavia). I have to add also, that in case there is no consensus for a new edit, the stable version may be restored and it is not against any rules, but a simple practise until new consensus may be reached. I don't agree with those accusations that i.e. because of Borsoka more unreliable information would be in WP, or his edits would be disruptive, on the contrary, I think the relation between him and Rgvis became more tense because of the Transylvanian peasant revolt article. I think insated of overexaggerated accusations, cold headed good consensus with a good faith should be reached, I hope it will be successful.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC))

• @KIENGIR:, I kindly ask you to avoid psychoanalitical approach and try to imagine that there are editors who are not driven by personal feelings when editing articles or challenging unreferenced statement. Please also try to concentrate on the subject of this discussion, without expanding the debate over other articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Borsoka:, understood, however I did not refer to necessarily that personal feelings would drive from the beginning or especially you would be driven by that, I just told my observation - shall if be true or not, let's say an impression -. Seriously you know that certainly I don't think that any challenge in WP would involve any personal feelings.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC))

3O Response: Based on what I have read in this section (and assuming sources are faithfully reproduced), I feel that the stable version at the top of this section is most correct. If some of Matthias' paternal relatives were small Romanian nobles, that doesn't necessarily mean his father was; it's more likely referring to paternal uncles and cousins of some distance. The matter seems to be largely over the timeline of when his father (or earlier ancestor?) was assimilated into the Hungarian nobility. I'm satisfied that the stable version is good.
This third opinion is non-binding but I would ask Rgvis to consider reverting to the stable version as it is generally good form to follow WP:BRD (when there are no BLP, COPYVIO or other overriding concerns) and stick with the original/stable version while discussing the merits of the proposed change. One shouldn't take offence at a revert, it's really just an invitation to discuss. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your third opinion. I hope that Rgvis would follow your advice. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: The actual form is not "small Romanian nobles", but "Romanian origin small noble family". On the other hand, if you follow the Revision history page [7] you will notice that the last stable version on this subject was on 14 May 2018,[8] with the following formulation: "John Hunyadi, born in a noble family of Romanian ancestry, was a pre-eminent military commander and political leader of the Kingdom of Hungary, who spent most of his life away from the family estates." Then, on 25 May, an anonymous editor made changes without any explanation: "John Hunyadi, born in a Hungarian noble family of Vlach ancestry, ....". When, after a while, I noticed and wanted to do all the necessary corrections, User:Borsoka rejected all changes, although the information was consistently supported by references to reliable sources.

I would agree to go back to the version from 14 May (along with references provided in the meantime).

@KIENGIR: When John Hunyadi was born, his family had not the full noble status, in order to be part of the great nobility social class, so the formulation that "he was born in a Hungarian noble family" is therefore wrong. Indeed, later in his life, he became part of the Hungarian nobility, as stated in the abstract of another study on this subject [9]:

Born around 1400, among the small nobility of Romanian origin, John Hunyad affirmed himself to be as one of the most important magnates of his time.

As for the "Transylvanian peasant revolt" article, the fact that a mediator had some problems (as all participants had noticed) does not mean that the article is all right; its content remains unbalanced (and this is not only my opinion) and I am convinced that when the time comes, it will be updated in accordance with Wikipedia policies (and with the support of administrators, if necessary).

Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC))

• The "stable" version mentioned by Rgvis above was introduced by Rgvis himself without providing a single reference to a reliable source on 1 May ([10]). It was modified in accordance with the cited source (Kubinyi) on 25 May ([11]). What about restoring the status quo ante (before the unilateral changes): "John Hunyadi was a pre-eminent military commander and political leader of the Kingdom of Hungary, who spent most of his life away from the family estates. Because of his father's absence, his mother managed Matthias's education." ([12]) The same sentence can be read in the version as of 16 January 2015 ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That does seem to avoid the issue of contention. Although as a copy editor, I would suggest making clear that the "his" of the second sentence is Matthias. Perhaps "Due to the absence of Matthias' father, his mother managed his education." or "Matthias' education was managed by his mother due to his father's absence." – Reidgreg (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, I did not say i.e. "he was born in a Hungarian noble family" would be proper, as I referred above my point of argumentation was at first glance when we may use properly the "noble" designation, mainly. My problem is what you cited from the given source is just written in the Romanian language abstract of the work, however - correct me if I would be wrong - I did not find it in the text English, full length text. Thus my conclusion is, we have to check first that at the time of John Hunyadi's birth his family was noble or not noble, clearly.

As for the other article mentioned, then I read through the happenings, but as I remember that view could not be reinforced that the article would be unbalanced on the whole and finally this opinion was restricted to the last chapter of the article, and another Romanian editor joined also to the discussion. However, I did not participate in the events, but what I remembered the things got to personal. The issue has been raised/discussed on a noticeboard, also Wikiproject Romania, so we cannot say it was a "hidden" debate that was not listened. A proper synthesis should be found if some sources reflect another opinion, but i.e. - as it is my principle - that should be taken into consideration mainly that as well correlates mostly with the real happennings, even there are the "rules" that WP is not necessarily reflecting the truth, however I am convinced with a good faith we may work to tend to it the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC))

The article referred to above (Kubinyi) neither says that John Hunyadi was born among the "small nobility of Romanian origin". It explicitly confirms Kubinyi and Gella's statement about the Wallachian origin of the family. "John Hunyadi (Hunyadi János), born around 1400, began his career as a simple knight. His father, Woyk (Voicu) had taken refuge from Walachia in Hungary. Here, he became a knight of the royal court. For his meritorious deeds, he was granted in 1409 by King Sigismund (Zsigmond) of Luxemburg the borough of Hunedoara (Vajdahunyad, Hunyadvár), which, together with its estates, became the cradle of the Hunyadi family." Furthermore, as Kubinyi states, the fact that Woyk was a "court knight strongly suggests that he was the offspring of one of the "better" families ... The "court nobility" enjoyed various privileges..." (Kubinyi, András (2008). Matthias Rex. Balassi Kiadó. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-963-506-767-1.) Borsoka (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As we are already accustomed to, the User:Borsoka considers that his/her edits and his/her references are the only legitimate ones (no matter what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say).

What about restoring another stable version (with reference), from 4 December 2011 [14], before being deleted by an anonymous editor, too: "He was the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful general of the Kingdom of Hungary, who had Wallachian (Romanian) ancestry and had risen through the ranks of the nobility to become regent of Hungary." The reference (also, abusively deleted, at that time) was to Encyclopædia Britannica [15]:

Hunyadi is first mentioned, probably as a small child, in the diplomas by which King Sigismund transferred possessions of Hunyad castle (now at Hunedoara, Romania) to one of his knights, Woyk (or Vajk), who was Hunyadi’s father. János was of Walachian (Romanian) ancestry, his family originating in Hateg, Transylvania, a region now in Romania. According to the usage of Hungarian noblemen of the time, János took his family name after his landed estate. The royal donation had elevated the Hunyadi family to the top ranks of the lesser (nonbaronial) group of Hungarian nobility. Proprietors of a domain containing 40 villages, they were considered as well-to-do as but ranked far below the great magnates who formed the king’s council and exercised the real power in the country.

@KIENGIR: You know very well that references can address any source, regardless of the language in which it is written. So, what social class are the knezes? (they were not part of the great nobility)

As per following references:

Pop (p.2 - [16]):

the other known paternal relatives of Matthias are families of knezes, voivodes, and small Romanian nobles from the region of Hunedoara-Haţeg. Here, in the Land of Haţeg, the father of King Matthias had “co-owning brothers,” with whom he shared certain lands.

Hochstrasser (p. 144 - [17]):

King Sigismund gives and rewards Voicu, the son of Serban, the military of his court, for his faithful service and merits his royal possession, called Hunyadi Castrum, which will be his and his brothers, Mogos and Radu, his cousin Radu and his son, John.

and others (but not limited to these): Camil Muresanu - John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom (p. 41-47[18], Constantin C. Giurescu; Dinu C Giurescu - "History of Romanians: from ancient times until today", or "The History of Tranylvania: (Until 1541)" (p.294 - [19]):

He (John Hunyadi) came from a modest family of Romanian ennobled knezes from Haţeg

Even the Encyclopædia Britannica mentions (as shown above) the situation of the family:

The royal donation had elevated the Hunyadi family to the top ranks of the lesser (nonbaronial) group of Hungarian nobility .... but ranked far below the great magnates who formed the king’s council and exercised the real power in the country.

According to all quoted sources (more than enough), it could be used very well the form, "born in an ennobled kneze family". (Rgvis (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC))

@Rgvis:,

I see your argumentation, however due to we cannot really properly define strictly what "sections of nobility" we are discussing recently, I would accept your proposal but would combine with the recent content like this:

He was the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful general of the Kingdom of Hungary, who had Wallachian (Romanian) ancestry and had risen through the ranks of the nobility to become regent of Hungary, a pre-eminent military commander and political leader who spent most of his life away from the family estates.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC))

I could live with that version, although it clearly contradicts Pop and Muresanu (but I think they are wrong). Actually, I wanted to avoid to raise this issue (Transylvanian or Wallachian), because this is not an article dedicated to John Hunyadi, but if you like my preferred Wallachian version, it is acceptable for me. Some days later other editors will challenge it. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I lost something, what would be the "(Transylvanian or Wallachian)" issue?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

Pop and Muresanu say, the Hunyadi family was of Transylvanian origin, Kubinyi, Gella and Britannica write, it was a Wallachian family. Borsoka (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Vlach" instead of "Wallachian" would solve any ambiguity, in this context. (Rgvis (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC))

Just for clarification: we cannot refer to Pop or Muresanu to verify this statement, because it sharply contradict their views. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rgvis, possibly, however "Wallachian" or "Transylvanian" were meant to refer the place of origin, I have no problem with the "Wallachian" version. Borsoka, can we remove contradictory sources, or relocate them in the sentence in an appropriate place to avoid contradiction, so the the above proposed combined version could be viable?(KIENGIR (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC))

I would prefer the "... who had Vlach (or Romanian) ancestry …" version, because it do not contradict any of the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if everyone agrees, it can go.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC))

Yes, for now, with a specification: without the conjunction "or". (Rgvis (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC))

I think then it is easier just to write "Vlach" without any conjunction.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

@Rgvis: and @Cristina neagu:, you have been reverting to a version which contains original research and contradicts WP:NPOV. Your edit summaries show that you failed to read my edit bevore reverting it. Please avoid edit warring because it may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You do not have to open a new section on this topic, as long as there is already an ongoing discussion in the previous section. (Rgvis (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC))

Yes, I do not have to open a new discussion, but the previous discussion was terminated months ago without a consensus. Borsoka (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussion remains open, as long as all involved editors have not determined that the subject is closed (as per WP:CONS). (Rgvis (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC))

This is not an issue for me. Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I support Borsoka on this matter. The edit which has been repeatedly restored is unacceptable. LynwoodF (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So, this means that, in your opinion (based on the above discussion), the agreed version should be the following:

He was the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful general of the Kingdom of Hungary, who had Vlach (or Romanian) ancestry and had risen through the ranks of the nobility to become regent of Hungary, a pre-eminent military commander and political leader who spent most of his life away from the family estates.

(Rgvis (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC))

I support Borsoka in his last version and in his removal of the unsatisfactory edit which has repeatedly been restored. LynwoodF (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That means you have not read this discussion at all. (Rgvis (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC))

I have read the discussion and am broadly in agreement with Borsoka. I specifically support him in his removal of the edit which I myself have reverted on one occasion. Please stop this nonsense. LynwoodF (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway who cares about his grand dad's ancestry?! There is a more appropriate page to mention the origin of the Hunyadi family. Why don't you want to mention his maternal ancestry here?! Oh,it does not fit with your nationalist agenda. NPOV pls. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, feel free to contribute with valuable information and data about his maternal ancestry, too. In historical biographical articles (and, especially with respect to royal or noble families), it is common to mention referenced data on various aspects, including origins of the ancestors (fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, grandfathers, grandmothers, cousins, etc.). (Rgvis (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

RfC: information about John Hunyadi in this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article about Matthias Corvinus mention the multiple theories about his father's ancestry (including John Hunyadi's alleged descent from a Wallachian boyar family or from a small Transylvanian noble family of local Vlach origin, and Hunyadi's possible Cuman, Hungarian or Serbian ancestry, and also medieval gossips describing Hunyadi as Sigismund of Luxemburg's natural son)? Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Otherwise, we should list all relevant theories about his father's ancestry to secure a neutral presentation, but WP is an encyclopedia and we are to summarize information about Matthias Corvinus instead of expanding this article with information about the subject of other articles. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No. This is a matter which should be dealt with in the article Hunyadi family. Only the briefest mention of such things should be included in articles about individual members of it. LynwoodF (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You all agreed John Hunyadi was Vlach (Wallachian, of Romanian origins). Matthias is his son. Facts shouldn't be hidden. Just an opinion. Happy holidays! Cristina neagu (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Hunyadi was most probably of Wallachian origin. However, there are a significant number of scholars who do not share this view. We should not present their disagreement in this article. Borsoka (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In Hungary maybe, because the universal history says something else. Even some Hungarians agree. You agreed and now you don't agree anymore. From my point of view, do whatever you want, but that's not history. Moreover you say the Romanians are Cumans, this is so funny, look at our skin. We look very European, whilst many Slavic people and the Hungarians kept Asian characteristics. What did Trefilov say about Romanian female handball players? That they have beautiful legs. Please compare the Romanian women with the Scandinavian females (as legs). They look identical, whilst the Asian characteristics are different. Also our face, doesn't look Asian at all, we basically have almost none like the Asians (like in Hungary for instance and even Serbia). Cuman = Turkish. So your theories are as funny as hiding the truth. I thought you are a historian. Look, the Romanians don't want to make you look bad, but in history you must always reach the consensus. No mockeries. The Cumans invaded our whole area, from Ukraine to Hungary but those people are gone. Cristina neagu (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Btw, do you know how I reached this article? You guys were editing the article Romania. As long we didn't say anything badly about Hungary, I thought you could be a little bit more neutral. Because we don't come at Hungary to pay the same price. Cristina neagu (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cristina neagu, allow me an opinion: you've got a bit far from the topic including some POV perception and empirical classification of nations and origins that are dubious at least. I did not see anybody saying that "Romanians would be Cumans". Btw. I did not compare Scandinavian and Romanian handball players' legs - I am sure both them are beautiful - about the "Romanian appearance" I would add you should define what you consider "European", since i.e. the Caucasian people have many subraces and such designation would be a POV from a certain point of view (i.e. people from Western Europe may define it differently). I would not equal Cumans with Turks (Turkish != Turkic) and I also don't agree what you have described about "Asian charachteristics". True there are some people among the Slavs, Hungarians but as well it is true for all Central and Eastern European countries alike such apperance in a percent, but Romania is not an exception and not differs in the way you wish to present. In Translyvania many nations intermixed, in Moldova more Slavic effect may have, while in Wallachia the Mediterranean apperance is dominantly significant (that's why also in Spain, Italy or in the Balkans there are different characteristics or appearance, while Hungarians do not differ in a significant way from the people in Central Europe). Thus coming with this that Hungarians would look like "less European" than Romanians is immediately fallacious, since Hungarians mostly alike "Alpine subrace" of the Caucasian people, while Romanians mostly alike the Mediterranean subrace of the Caucasian people. Though I don't wish to pursue pseudoscience, just think about that. Merry Chirstmas!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

Yes, based on the previous discussion (which Borsoka initiated and participated), with the already agreed version. (Rgvis (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

There was no agreed version. There was a temporary compromise, but it clearly contradicted all relevant WP policies ([20], [21], [22] [23]). Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

No, because in my opinion, if this properly presented in the John Hunyadi and Elizabeth Szilágyi articles, here is not necessary, but if there is a wish for it, then properly and equally should be presented all theories regarding all ancestors, in a separate section dedicated to it (disclaimer: I reacted obviously specifically the question raised in the RFC and I do not debate the most common and accepted opinion supports the a Wallachian ancestry. It has NO connection to any "hiding"...I think some people mix here the previous consensus building trial of a sentence and falsely they believe it is against something "Romanian", though the real question is how to find a synthesis between more theories to fully comply in one sentence, that is barely possible in a short way...)(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

• No Some editors want to open Pandora's box (again). No one needs one-sided POV pushing and edit warring here. Go to the page of Hunyadi family if you really want more about the ancestry of Matthias's grand dad. This matter is irrelevant concerning a medieval king's rule. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to recall some of the basic principles of editing articles on Wikipedia (principles that some editors may not know or constantly ignore):

Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion. (WP:PNSD)

Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (WP:CON)

Returning to this context, as long as a text is edited according to the core content policies, there is no reason (apart from those that have all sorts of (more or less hidden) purposes or agendas) not to be included in an article.

(Rgvis (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC))

We agree: we should edit this article in accordance with basic WP policies and without promoting "hidden agendas" (whatever you think when writing of it). That is why we should not mention his father's or mother's or their great-grandfathers' alleged origins. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: Of course, a new section treating this (otherwise, very simple and clear) subject can be considered. After all, despite its purposes, (and, unfortunely for Wikipedia project) many articles (especially those historical) became full of all kind of "curiosities" (WP:FRINGE). (Rgvis (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC))

Why should we dedicate a whole section to his ancestors' nationality? Which WP policy does require it? Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should (re)view WP:BRIEF. (Rgvis (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

I read. It does not imply that the debates about his father's or grandfathers' ethnicity should be mentioned here. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not judge or advocate specific views or opinions, or make determinations on "correctness". Where differing views exist, they are presented objectively, without bias or undue weight. Balance derives from reliable sources, not personal judgment. (Rgvis (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

Yes, we fully agree. All relevant views about the origins of the Hunyadi family are neutrally presented in the article dedicated to the family. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The way this RFC is sitting right now it would take an invited participant hours to build the overall understanding needed to fully understand the debate and try to give a good answer. Which means little participation. May I suggest explaining it a bit more? North8000 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@North8000:, thank you for your proposal. Matthias Corvinus was the son of John Hunyadi, a renowned military commander and a most influential politician of the Kingdom of Hungary. Hunyadi's origin is uncertain and the theories about his father's and mother's origin are summarized in an article dedicated to him. The article dedicated to his family also contain detailed information of the origins of the Hunyadi family. According to a number of editors (who say "No"), there is no need to mention these theories in this article, because they are not relevant in the context; those who say "Yes" think that the theories are important and we should mention them, even to dedicate a separate section to them. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka:Thank you for that excellent information and summary. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Include a brief mention that there are multiple theories with an internal link to the article that covers it. And No for detailed coverage. Regarding degree of relevance, the topic is who Corvinus's grandparents are (on his father's side), and in an environment where lineage is important. I think that that makes it sufficiently relevant that a mention in the article is not only OK, but also needed. I think it should be brief (like 2 sentences) and not cover the specific theories and again, link to the article which covers it. As the "no" people described, it's a complex topic which would require an inappropriately large section to properly and neutrally cover in this article. And which would also be a duplication of the coverage in the Hunyadi article. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Actually, I do not think that the information about Matthias's grandparents on his father's side is important and needed. His grandparents' origin is a debated issue and two articles already cover the topic in details. The origin of the renowned Szilágyi family on his mother's side is not less notable if you really want to mention the ancestry of Matthias'grandparents. NPOV pls. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding the word "important" sets a higher-than-normal bar for inclusion. Recapping, I suggested a very brief entry with a link to an article that covers it would be appropriate. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No I get the idea of inserting a briefest of the brief mention as a compromise but judging from the comments here, that just opens the door to an indefinite ethno-liguisitic POV-pushing edit war. If there is some agreement that the Hunyadi family has Wallachian roots, then that article should mention it and cover it with available sourcing. But not every theory needs to be included on every page that is directly or tangentially related to it. How many generations beyond the subject should the controversy be included? Does the significance of this controversy erode over time? Or, if it is important, is it important enough to place a significant mention in the article about the family and John Hunyadi. Let the issue be relitigated ad infinitum there rather than a dozen.

Disclosure: I am neither Hungarian, nor Romanian. I once spent time in Budapest about 25 years ago. Just here because of the feedback request service and my only motivation is an orderly Wikipedia. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Most 15th-century scholars wrote that Hunyadi's father had migrated from Wallachia to Hungary in the late 14th century. However, a significant number of modern Romanian historians claim that Hunyadi descended from an "authochtonous" Transylvanian Vlach family. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, already John Hunyadi was born into a Hungarian noble family, his father was a courtier of Sigismund. The family's probable Wallachian roots was an important info in the articles Hunyadi family and John Hunyadi, but not here. We do not mention in the articles of every Habsburg kings that they had originated from a royal house of Swiss/German origin. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Hungarian nobility term has no ethnic connotation, and it defines a social class, very diversified from the ethnic point of view. On the other hand, the Romanian ethnic origin of Matthias is indisputable, for any well-documented (and bona fide) historian, this aspect being known and discussed since old times, even from the 15th century (obviously, in the present context, it does not matter whether the Romanian origin was from Wallachia or from Transylvania). There are many examples of such mentions in similar Wikipedia articles (a simple example would be the Stephen I of Hungary article).
The fact that certain individuals deny or are afraid to recognize these obvious historical aspects (along with many others) should not have implications for the English Wikipedia project. It is absolutely regrettable that, despite the fundamental principles, Wikipedia has come to represent only what some people (possibly organized into IRA type groups) want.
(Rgvis (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

Nobody wants to hide that the Hunyadi family and John Hunyadi are most probably of Vlach origin. You can read their Vlach origin in the articles dedicated to them. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.