Talk:Matthias Corvinus

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

• Oppose It's a nickname; so is William the Conqueror - or Henry the Lion. All three are what anglophones call the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, as for "Matthias Corvinus" is 21 900 results 1 and "Matthias I of Hungary" only 7010 2. Adrian (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title is the one the subject is most known under, and as documented above, such naming is not uncommon Wladthemlat (talk) 07:33, 29 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).