Talk:John Hunyadi

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

The war over the tags

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

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

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

edit warring

Hi

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

Can editors please discuss rather than reverting?

I have hidden the text until the dispute is resolved.

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

Ethnicity in the Middle Age

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

János Hunyadi's origin

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

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

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

Currently the text says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The name of Janos Hunyadi's father (Voik and/or Vajk?)

From The act of donation, written by Emperor Sigismund of Lumxemburg, in 1409:

„Voik aulae suae militi, ac per eum Magas et Radul carnalibus, ac Radul patrueli fratribus, nec non Joanni, filio, suis terram Hunyadvár conferentis nro I. 'Voik, Radul nomina originem produnt valachicam. Tum Alberti, qui patrem Joannis nostri, expresse Olah , seu Valachum compellat, diplomate, quo hunc Banum Zeuriniensem constituit”

From Gaspar Heltai:

“Opulenti Boyeronis filiam – ex genere Morsinai – Transalpinus quidam Boyero, nomine Woyk, qui ob simultates valachicas huc (in Transilvaniam) se patriis, ex oris receperat, venustate Morsinaianae captus, duxit. – Elisabetham, vocatam ferunt”

Is there any chronicle which uses the name Vajk (the pagan name of King Istvan)?(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

"With the favour and urging of the aforementioned emperor, Waik, brother-in-law of Duke Henry of the Bavarians, established bishoprics in his kingdom and received the crown and consecration." Thietmar of Merseburg: Chronicon, Chapter 59. - Merseburg, Thietmar of; Warner, David A. (2001). Ottonian Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg. Manchaster University Press. ISBN 0-7190-4926-1 p.193. This is the only source of St Stephen's pagan name. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was not very clear. I was asking if there is any medieval source where the name of Janos Hunyadi's father appears to the same as Istvan I's pagan name (Vajk) (Rogvaiv1 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

I think there is no such a source, because it was only Thietmar who recorded St Stephen's pagan name in the 11th century, and we should accept that he could not make mention of the Romanian cneaz's name who became János Hunyadi's father at the end of the 14th century. :) Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one small additional remark, when King Sigismund of Hungary wrote the above charter of donation he was not still Emperor. Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not requesting to be a single source which mentions both of them, but one where it is affirmed that Janos is the son of Vajk (as it was presented in the infobox or here) (and not of Voik/Woyk)(Rogvaiv1 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

No, as far as I know, there is no such a source. I think the claim that Voik (the father of János Hunyadi) was in reality Vaik should be strengthened by any reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't answer anything until the multiple times banned puppet master (User:Bonaparte/User:Iaaasi) doesn't leave the discussion and the article. Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi to add my opinion to the long Latin citings, Heltai wrote NOT in Latin but in HUNGARIAN, anyway he was German.. see [1]

further I suppose the well informed user is a disguised RO colleague

as my opinion Borsoka is right, the point is in this article his doings (80%) and not his descent (max 10% of the text), which is only interesting for Romanian colleagues, since they have not enough Wlachs in their history recorded and collect heros.. in this case they might be right, but he was that much Romanian as Sarközy Hungarian, although both probably/really had one parent of that kind.. anyway Heltai and see the modern version Magyar mondak MTV series - actually almost 100% of Heltai's text- really says he was son of Sigmund and his Vlach mistress given for her rich payment to the old guy Voik.. but that is a light 16th century interpretation, the 1560s Daily Mail version..

--Vargatamas (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vargatamas (1) Heltai wrote in Latin even if he was of German origin and wrote of the Hungarian history. (2) If one reads some books of the Romanian history, he/she can realize that there were many Romanian heroes - for example, Stephen the Great who routed our national hero King Matthias (who, in turn, was the son of John Hunyadi, who can be claimed as a Romanian national hero as well being of Romanian descent); Bogdan the Founder who defeated the armies our king Louis the Great sent against him.... I think diminishing other nations' history is not the best approach here. (3) Anyway, creating national heroes seems to be a general phenonemon in our region (Attila the Hungarian, Svatopluk the Slovak, Decebal the Romanian ...). At the end of the day, I still suggest that the whole article should be rewritten based on reliable sources, ignoring Benedek Elek, Mondák könyve.... Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am not attacking you but support your view. I do not think HU users should quarrel, while other nations keep together, and their result supports this view. I did not like your argument with Squash rocket, you should better concentrate on creation not arguing some minor points.

Fact:please, check the attched link, invest HUF 2.000 or € 8 and buy Heltai: it is in Hungarian NOT Latin (if you read you will see not translation, or he did translate it 500 years ago - (ok 450).

Sorry, I was wrong. Heltai wrote in Hungarian. Otherwise, I do not think that wikipedia is about 'keeping together our nation' - it is about facts which are based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Other fact what you realized now this article is 90% about Hunyadi's descent, not his life. And if you look at the edit history, you will see who did the entries for what and will see the results. Why I do not know, because I do not look at e.g. sarközy as Hungarian, if he do not see himself I do not either. So I do not understand the Romanian zeal, assumed the intention. As I see obviously Western-style churches in Romania in deserted Hungarian villages became original Romanian buildings in Wikipedia, Vitez Mihaly 1 year rule in Transylvania becomes the reunification of Romania, so that before Bathori Zsigmond was also the ruler of the 3 countries no mention etc.

further he claimed himself Hungarian according to the sources, was Catholic, whereas Romanian are Ortodox/Pravoslav.

more if you look at the Magyar mondak comics, it is not Banedek Elek, but Jankovics Marcell, from a family actively involved in history of Hungary, and probably therefore he used Heltai's text verbatim

Please read again my above remarks "Benedek Elek, Magyar mondák.." I still maintain that neither Benedek Elek nor the Magyar mondák qualify reliable sources for wikipedia purposes. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So I am only for the truth in history, wheter RO, SK, Moravian or HU, do not like any sidings, but with authors there are a slight stochastic correlation with their nationality and the tone of their writing..

Actually, I liked that you corrected Balaton principality and Nitra, although the topic is very extremly underdocumented. I want to draw your attention to Fulda Annals year 884 in the Bavarian continuation Pannonia is the territory of Arnulf, Bratislav is the duke of the land between Sava and Drava. If you need I can copy Latin or German text from cd database

Üdv and stop molesting others on your national side, unless they do things untrue. Hunyadi's descent all theory accepted, since there are no sources apart Heltai, Bonfini, Turoci and Pius II.

Would you please refer to one example when I "molested others on my national side"? Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually to pull your leg, why Zuentibold was not Slovak? he lived there, was no difference in language / culture among Moravians, Slovaks, Czechs and Ruthenians even Croats, Slovenes and other types of Vends were the same. He did not rule any Balaton, since that was a Frankish province, Nitra I am not sure where is mentioned, maybe only in the Conversio.. so he was Tot (meaning in Hungarian other sundry Slavs like the German Windisch- not Czech, Croat, Polish or Russian or Serb, who had a name = Slovak, Slovene, today Croats from Slavonia and of Vends of Dunantul and Burgenland.. he neither had a horse that is true, but maybe he is riding now the white one got for his birthday...

Although I understand the motivation behind the opposition to make a concession in giving emphasis for the alleged (in my view quite probable) Romanian ancestry, my opinion is that this discussion does not do anything good to the Hunyady article. I consider that a lead should not contain more information than the following: John Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Iancu de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко (Sibinjanin Janko); nicknamed the White Knight, c. 1377 - Belgrade, 1456) was a Hungarian military and political leader, governor of the Kingdom of Hungary, Voivode of Transylvania. He was the father of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary. He is regarded as a hero of both Hungarian and Romanian history.

All the rest should be either deleted or put in a separate section which deals with his historical achievement. I support the arguments of Borsoka. I must add that Hunyadi's probable Romanian ancestry, the migration of his family from Wallachia to Transylvania, is an expressive example how the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity is weak versus migration theory when confronted by known historical facts (in Hunyad County all ancient toponyms are Hungarian or Slav, while current population predominantly Romanian and we can trace the process since the 13th century as Romanians started to migrate into this area from Wallachia - not from Napoca or Gilău. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Your POV is off-topic and also it states a popular misbelief. 2. Actually the migration mainstream was from Transylvania to eastern/southern Carpathian slopes. For instance Moldavia has encountered a large scale, in a long time-range, of Transylvanian migration process (including Hungarians such as hussites, counter-reformationists, Bukovina szeklers, csangos, etc). There are a lot of evidences: legends about the birth of various local settlements, documents, .. even church bells transported by the settlers from their ancestral Transylvanian villages. The foundation of the medieval Principality of Moldavia is based on Transylvanian noblemen. 3. Borrowings of the toponyms in the Romanian language are mostly Slavic. There are also borrowings from ancient Turk, then Hungarian (obviously names of settlements). FabricioRB (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion was not meant to open a discussion about daco-romanian theory here, but to seek compromise in this topic. However, I would like to encourage you to study Romanian placenames espacially the most enduring ones, river names in Hunyad area ( e.g. tributaries of Mures River) and you will see that in the upstream area (e.g. Hunyad) most of them are of Hungarian origin, in the downstream area (southern Transylvania) Slavic. Migration of Szeklers from Transylvania to Moldavia (from the middle ages until the 20th century) is well documented unlike the alleged Romanian migration after Roman era. On the other hand, Romanian migration, like that of Hunyady family, and the corresponding appearance of Romanain placenames in Transylvania (borrowed from Slavic, Hunagarian and Romanian proper) from 13th century is also clearly documented.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Here you are a list of river names, tributary to Mureș river, in Hunyad area: Orăştie (also refered as Râul Orașului - Romanian, also older Oroșteiu, also ancient Grădiștea - Slavic; Hu. origin Városvíz is excluded), Strei (possible Hun. Sztrigy), Râul Bărbat (Romanian), Râul Mare (Romanian), Luncani (Romanian), Ruşor (Romanian with Slavic root), Şerel (disputed, Hu. Serél/Syerel indicates a borrowing from Rom.), Galbena (Romanian), Silvaşu (Romanian), Cerna (Slavic), Dobra (Slavic), Geoagiul (possible from Hu. dió (nut), Hun. Algyógy differs from Rom. pronunciation), Călanul (Hun. Kalán). Here you are another example: Romanian Târnava (Slavic "Trn" = thorn), where Hungarian toponym is Küküllő. 2. Here we go again... It was a large scale migration from Transylvania to Moldova (first evidences are from 14th century, the process ending at the beginning of the 20th century). Mainly it was a Romanian migration, but also a Hungarian one. Here you are some evidences: documents issued by landlords/monasteries/Moldavian Court which indicates the position of new Romanian settlements, their rights/obligations/duties (in some cases their serfdom obligations), also Romanian Moldovan dialect is a Northern Transylvanian one, legends about the foundation of new settlements (for example an "ungurean" shepherd has established the foundation of whatever Moldovan village). Off course there are cases of migration from Wallachia/Moldova to Transylvania, but these are bits in comparison with the opposite way large scale migration.FabricioRB (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that this is the proper place to carry on the above discussion on the origin of the Romanians? Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've raised myself this concern a little bit earlier so your reaction is a little bit late!... This particular example of Hunyady ancestors coming from Wallachia (from my standpoint they could've come from China or Patagonia, it doesn't really matter) is not a "silver bullet" against one theory or another, or it feeds some pseudo-history "urban legends".FabricioRB (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

the problem that ther are no sources for Hunyadi's ancestry: Heltai said he is the son of Sigismund and a local Romanian gentry of Morzsina, but Heltai lived in 1560s, 100 years earlier and only translated Bonfini to Hungarian. You can turn to Bonfini, Roman descent.. hm.. There are few diplomas from Sigismund and Pius one book on Austria's history on behalf of Frederick 3rd where Hunyadi does not look in a good light. More than a paragraph on his uncleared descend is enough.

Probably he was of Romanian origin, the one referred diploma( I did not see this 1407 document, do not have the regesta from Jako Zsigmond for this year), Bonfini, Turoci and maybe Heltai. But he changed his mind and abandoned his roots / religion and made carrier in Hungary as a Hungarian.

1. Flavio Biondo (1392 - 1463), Poggio Bracciolini (1380 - 1459) or Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II, 1405 - 1464) wrote that John was Vlach. 2. If John switched confession sides, how come he became only Hungarian (in modern set of nationalism)? Why not Croatian/Slovak, or whatever people among others who shared the same Catholic confession in medieval Hungary? Hungarian Kingdom was an ethnic federation, a medieval spirit, Catholic, universal.FabricioRB (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Although the above list seems to be reliable, I think more exact citations are needed (2) I do not understand the second remark: there are reliable sources (based on primary sources) which state that he was Hungarian, but - as far as I know - no reliable source or primary source claim that he was or he was supposed to be a Croatian, Slovakian, German, Cuman, Dalmatian, Italian, Walloon, Pecheneg or whatever other Roman Catholic subject of the king of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(i) I've quoted three years ago from Pius II, In Europa - Historia Austrialis, but it was vandalized. Also this quote ("Vojk was a nobile from Wallachia [...]") is wrongly attributed to Pope Pius II. In fact he wrote that John did not have a noble origin. (ii) In the medieval kingdom "Hungarian" meant only subject of the king of Hungary... That's all..."Peoples" were divided politically & culturally (confession), not by languages or ethnic boundaries. "Hungarians" could be catholics (what later become Magyars, Slovaks, etc), orthodoxes (Vlachs, Serbs), bourgeois (mainly German speakers packed inside the towns), tribesmen (Cumans, Pechenegs, Iazyges, etc), peasant-soldiers who enjoyed free-tax status in return for their military services (social ethnicity / Szeklers), or noblemen who spoke only Latin inside the Court. Your "primary reliable sources" are, in fact, old documents written in Latin, but translated in the 19th century in Hungarian & spiced up with "millenar" nationalism. Magyars have become Hungarians (thus primes inter pares among the others) after the birth of nationalism. Hungarian nationalism has been confiscating toward its benefits the medieval Hungarian Kingdom.FabricioRB (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting original research. Noblemen who spoke only Latin inside the court - so the illiterate nobility of the Kingom of Hungary learned Latin in the Kindergarten?. Tribesmen - within the Carpathian Basin no people could maintain its original migratory way of life in the Middle Ages: the overwhelming majority of the Hungarians, Pechenegs, Romanians, Cumans settled in maximum two centuries after their immigration. "Our primary reliable sources", similarly to the "primary reliable sources" of the Germans, the French, the Norwegians were written in Latin, the Romanian Church and Chancellery used Old Church Slavonic - do you suggest that it means that no German-speaking, French-speaking, Norwegian-speaking or Romanian-speaking community existed in Germany, France, Norway or in the two principalities? Nevertheless, this article is dedicated to John Hunyadi and his descent is the subject of the debate, not the medieval history of the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then try to be consequent, sport!... Simply do not feed them, do not accept as "on-topic" the "off-topic's" which fit a group's biases, or reply to somebody's "off-topic" with another "off-topic".

Now gettin' back to your "off-topic" invitation... Off course they spoke "commoner" languages with their cabbies or stable men. But inside the Court it was a different story. It was a practice to use a liturgic or a cultural prestige language, not only the medieval social status demanded it, but also from pragmatic reasons: it was also a communication tool among the multi-ethnic puzzle, even for someone who could've only stutter it... For example it was "in fashion" to speak Greek inside the Roman Senate. Holly Roman German Empire and the Franks' Empire Courts used Latin. English Court, later the Prussian Court or the Romanov's Court used French. Sharing your petty irony, do you think they've learned it in the kindergarden? Like it or not, Hungarian (also German, etc) has not been a language for aristocracy; it reached its prestige (and the elites) thanks to Reformation.FabricioRB (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what was the situation in the Holy Roman Empire or in the Romanian principalities, maybe there the aristocrat used the Latin and Old Church Slavonic languages among themselves. But in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary even the kings of foreign origin were required to learn the Hungarian language in order to be able to speak with their retainers. For example, the young Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor was taken to the court of his future father-in-law, Louis I of Hungary in order to learn the Hungarian language; King Louis I's mother, who was of Polish origin, was really unpopular among the Poles when she was appointed to govern Poland in the 1370s, because during her long stay in Buda she forgot to speak fluent Polish and therefore she preferred the Hungarians around herself. In the medieval Kingdom of Hungary it was the Hungarian language and not the Latin which was used as a lingua franca. That is why Cumans, Pechenegs and the city-dwellers of mixed (German, Italian, Walloon, etc) origin of Eger, Székesfehérvár, Cluj, ... became Magyarized and not Latinized. That is also the reason of the Magyarization of several aristocratic families of foreign origin (e.g., Rozgonyi, Hédervári, Kanizsai, Hunyadi). Before the 15th century it had been an exceptional case that a king or an aristocrat could speak Latin (for example, Coloman of Hungary was such an exception, but his peculiarity was recorded even by Polish chroniclers). Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(i) Borsoka, you still don't get it... One thing is medieval "Hungarian" another thing is post-18th century ethnic Hungarian, a side effect of the birth of Magyar nationalism. I've been signaling already this false assumption: by default Hunyadi become an ethnic Hungarian (per modern nationalism set of values) when he crossed the mountains, or turn into an elite, and/or switched confessions. For instance, in Wallachia, he could've already been a Roman-Catholic (then active). There are Roman-Catholic communities in nowadays Moldova. (ii) Here we go again... What's the magic with the Magyar language in comparison with the other Kingdoms/Empires common languages? The retainers made it so special? Is there any evidence that Saint Stephen, Louis I d'Anjou, etc, spoke Magyar? (iii) In the European Middle Ages, three languages were liturgic, hence their privileged status: Latin (Catholic) or Greek & Slavic (Orthodox). There's a common belief that somebody could pray only in these languages otherwise God cannot hear them. Magyar language (among other) did not enjoy this privilege. (iv) King Coloman's "exceptionality" was in fact his ability to read & write. There are a lot of evidences of illiterate emperors/kings (Charlemagne is one of them) who could speak 3-4 languages, but they barely could've scratched their names on paper.FabricioRB (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) Interestingly, in the 18th century and in the beginning of the 19th century there were many Hungarian magnates who could not or could hardly speak Hungarian, because at that time the language spoken in the Vienna court was German. This is a remarkable difference between the 18th century and the previous period. (2) There is no magic with the Hungarian language in comparison with other kingdom's common languages. Latin was a "dead" language, it should have been learnt in order to use it for everyday purposes, therefore it was not the vernacular. I referred to King Sigismund's case in order to prove that Hungarian was widely spoken in the court of King Louis I. Would you please refer to any source which proves or even suggests that Latin was the language spoken in everyday situations in the courts of the kings of Hungary, emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, ....? (3) It is a fact, that for liturgical and official purposes Latin was used in Western Europe, but it does not mean that it was the language spoken by the "elite" in everyday situations. If one accept your argument, he/she should also accept that all the members of the Roman Catholic nations of Europe, peasants, city-dwellers and noblemen, could speak Latin, because Latin had been the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church until the First Vatican Council. Therefore, before the 1960s there were no need to interpreters, translators, because the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Germans, the Italians, the French could communicate with each other in the Latin language which they used for liturgical purposes. Sorry, but I think it is an overstretched assumption. As far as I remember my Roman Catholic grandparents did not speak and even did not try to speak Latin when they travelled abroad. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) Borsoka, we're discussing about the medieval Hungarian Kingdom, not about Austro-Hungary, or Catholic Church in the sixties. Ethnic identity from the middle ages shared a different set of values than the modern times ethnic identity. There's a common mistake to define a medieval ethnicity per modern times cultural standards. (ii) The legitimacy of every medieval empire/kingdom was expressed through the Roman Empire legacy. One of them has been Latin, a language of aristocracy (Roman legacy prestige, Church holly language, cultural expression, and bureaucratic tool). French become later a Court language too, thanks to the same Roman legacy. Old French (a conventional form promoted by the modern linguistics) it was named in those times "roman language", an elitist situation which survived until pretty late, for instance Frederick the Great used to say "I speak German only with the stable men" (iii) I have to demonstrate nothing. Magyar nationalism claims the "Magyarness" of the Hungarian Kings. That said you have to prove it, not somebody else to deny it.FabricioRB (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you who state something: (1) Latin language as the language spoken by all individuals in medieval Catholic Europe, because it was the language of the Church (2) based on an 18th century examples of a king of Prussia (who spoke French), you state that in the 14th century (when the future King Sigismund of Hungary was taken to the court of Louis I in order to learn the Hungarian language, the language of the Court) the language spoken by the upper nobility in the court of Hungary was the Latin. So would you please provide any evidence for the claim that it was not the Hungarian language which was spoken by the upper nobility in the court of medieval Hungary (between the 11th-16th centuries). Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I din't say "by all individuals" but a language widely used by nobilis ("natio Hungarica"). (2) As I've said above, I have to prove nothing!... Your nationalism foundation states about the "Magyarness" of the Hungarian Kings/nobles, so you gotta prove it, not somebody else to demonstrate the contrary. I've only presented some European models, all the documents were written in Latin (even kings' hand signature was in Latin, for instance Ludovicus / Andegavensi, not Lajos / Anjou-házy). Besides this statement "[...]King Sigismund [...] was taken to the court [...] in order to learn the Hungarian language" looks as a nationalistic fabrication, as much as this one "[...]the retainers imposed Hungarian language in the Court" (btw why not German? it was a compact German population around Buda). It is only assumed they spoke Magyar, and even so, this aspect does not provide an ethnic identity direction; languages were not an ethnicity marker during middle ages... (iii) My herein point is to signal this historic anomaly: medieval "Hungary/Hungarian/Hungaricus/etc" has been confiscated by the Magyar nationalism. That explains the eagerness to "prove" somebody's Magyarness and/or to ridicule, by all means, his non-Magyarness. Hungarian Kingdom's legacy (cultural/patrimony/inheritance/insignia/coat of arms/etc) equally belongs to all post-"Hungarian" new nations which once upon a time were the subject of the King of Hungary: Croats, Slovaks, Romanians, Magyars, etc.FabricioRB (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To the era of the Turkish wars, In fact 80-90 % of the population of Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian (Magyar) roots . It is fact. It follows that the nobles had to use Hungarian languages a sort of grade and , of course, many of the nobles had to have Hungarian (magyar) ancestry. In some way or other it was altered later because of era of Turkish wars and the new foreigner settlers in the 18th. (approx one-third of population of Kingdom of Hungary was Hungarian (Magyar) in the late 18th. It is also fact.) Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear FabricioRB! Hungarian nationalism? You deny the history of Hungarians! You should check the legacy of Hungarian nobles from the medieval age (letters, writings, files, books, poems, etc.), and you could see that their vernacular language was Hungarian. You should know that, because of Transylvania If you like better, Ardeal (e.g. Bethlen family, Batory family, Apafi family etc.) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Name variations in the intro

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

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

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

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

Citation needed, dubious and original research

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

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

Romanian origin?

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