Jump to content

Talk:Újlaki family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:House of Ilok)

Name

[edit]

The following list shows that the present title of the article ("Újlaki family") is fully in line with WP:Name: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with what you just linked is the fact we cannot discern what actually refers to this specific noble family and what is generic mention of Ujlaki (which btw is still a relatively common surname in Hungary). Do not move the page again until it is fully discussed and/or we have WP:3O. Shokatz (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW the proper way to move/rename a page is to request a WP:RM, not moving it on your own based on your personal estimates and whatnot. Shokatz (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to read the realiable sources offered to you before making unilateral actions. Among others, the following books from the list clearly refer to this family: (1) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology; (2) Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary; (3) John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom; (4) Millennium in Central Europe: a history of Hungary (5) Castle and Society in Medieval Hungary (1000-1437) (6) The Architecture of Historic Hungary. Would you list the books which refer to the family as "House of Ilok" before moving the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mate there are no sources here, you listed NOTHING. Before you actually start moving the page you should actually make a list of a valid sources and preferably start a WP:RfM, what you just did here is nothing but POV pushing edit warring...and what is worse you duped an administrator into protecting this page with the edit you are pushing. Look at the article now...the article title says one thing, the article itself refers to the family in other variants of the name. You reducing this article (to a neutral observer) to a meaningless confusing jibberish. Shokatz (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid edit war, I guess a move request would be an appropriate and useful method where arguments can be discussed. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a move protection ([2]) about an hour ago. While the article is protected, editor Shokatz will have time to find reliable sources which verify his proposed move. He has so far only moved the page, without referring to a single book or article published in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't need to find anything. The burden of proof is on you, as it is you who is trying to move this article. Shokatz (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is why I listed reliable sources published in Englush which use the form "Újlaki family". Please read the list above. Could you provide a list to verify the use if the form "House of Ilok"? Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a Google link is not "listing reliable sources". Second, even if we take it for granted there was absolutely no discussion about this before you actually did it. And third, the proper way to move a page is to request a WP:RfM. Shokatz (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding is correct, your above remarks mean that you cannot refer to reliable sources which use the form "House of Ilok". Without such a list, there is no point in continuing the debate, as per WP:Name and WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention any source as I do not need to provide any. It is YOU who wants to rename...so all I want to is - you do it properly so we can actually come to a definitive conclusion which would prevent these disputes...at least on this article...a result you yourself would probably find desirable, surely. Shokatz (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Ilok → Újlaki family – The present name cannot be verified based on reliable sources. On the other hand a number of academic works published in English support the proposed name. For instance, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology ([3]), Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary ([4]), John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom ([5]), and Millennium in Central Europe: a history of Hungary ([6]) use the "Újlaki family" form. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for combinations like Ilok family, Iločki family, Ilok noble house, Iločki nobles... there are a lot of sources that use such names. However, there are also sources that use the Hungarian name. The names used in contemporary charters are, among others, "Wylak" and "de Illoch". I think that there is no English version of the name. Tzowu (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged versions "Ilok family" and "Ilocki nobles" cannot be verified (please checque your above lists). The version "Iločki family" is only mentioned in Fodor's Croatia: with a Side Trip to Montenegro - I think a travel guide could hardly be regarded as a reliable source. The version "Ilok noble house" is only mentioned in Breath on the Mirror: Mythic Voices & Visions of the Living Maya, a book dedicated to the Maya myths in Guatemala (the further books write about buildings). On the other hand, there are lots of books which use the form "Újlaki family" ([7]) or refer to the most notable member of the family as Nicholas Újlaki ([8]). Please also note that not only Hungarian authors use the "Újlaki" form. For instance, The Crusade of Varna, 1443-45 was written by the British professor, Colin Imber ([9]), The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438-1444 by John Jefferson [[10]), and John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom by the Romanian historian Camil Mureşanu. Furthermore, The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 7, C.1415-c.1500 was published by the Cambridge University Press ([11]), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology by the Oxford University Press ([12]). All these data suggest that the "Újlaki" is the preferred form in academic works published in English independently of the nationality of the author. Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to show was that there are a lot of sources that use the name "Ilok" or "Iločki" when writing about the noble family or its members, not that "Ilok family" etc are more common than "Ujlaki family". Btw, of course that Romanian historians will use Hungarian names in the vast majority of cases, just like Slovenian authors would use Croatian names. We don't have much in common with Romania. Tzowu (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We agree the form "Újlaki family" is the most common version in books published in English. That is why I do not understand why do we need to waste our time debating it. Please also read my remark about the alleged use of Hungarian names by Romanian historians below ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that the words "Újlaki family" joined together are more common than the words "House of Ilok" or "Ilok family" or "Iločki family", but that doesn't mean that sources use "Újlaki" more often than "Ilok" or "Iločki". Tzowu (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To actually come to a conclusion what name should be used one must take into consideration that both names (Croatian and Hungarian) version would be quite hard to validate as they can both refer to other things. Also referring to other encyclopedia for naming purposes is IMO undesirable as encyclopedias belong under WP:TERTIARY in general. The other issue is neutrality. However with all that in mind whatever name is actually prevalent in English language should be used here as well. Personally I would suggest asking for a WP:3O and see where we go from there. Shokatz (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think The Crusade of Varna, 1443-45, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438-1444, John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom and The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 7, C.1415-c.1500 are encyclopedias? Do you think the British and Romanian historians do not use the most common English version of the family name? Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends who is the author of those books, if they are in English - that doesn't mean they are in fact written by English authors...which I see there are several cases where the books are in English and the authors are in fact Hungarians who would of course use their own native variant of the name. Romanians would also most likely use a Hungarian variant as well due to history and the fact Hungarian and Romanian variants are often the same for those same reasons. Whatever the case is...we are here to discuss it and come to a conclusion. Stop acting like a child and let's come to a proper conclusion via discussion...and also improve this article as well while we're at it. Doon't know what the problem is that you take it so personally...but just stop it already. Shokatz (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you do not want to remember my previous messages, so I repeat it from above: "Please also note that not only Hungarian authors use the "Újlaki" form. For instance, The Crusade of Varna, 1443-45 was written by the British professor, Colin Imber ([14]), The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438-1444 by John Jefferson [[15]), and John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom by the Romanian historian Camil Mureşanu." Could you verify the version "House of Ilok"? Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Why do you think that Romanian and Hungarian variants are the same. Romanian and Hungarian are quite different languages: Romanian is an Indoeuropean language, while Hungarian belongs to the Uralic language family. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide you several sources which only confirm that both titles are mostly in use but "House of Ilok" or "Iločki" or whatever is as much used as it is the (if I may say so) the archaic variant Újlaki...which BTW is the same thing as Iločki only in Hungarian...means those of Ilok or Újlak as Ilok was named in Hungarian. For example you have The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century by John V.A. Fine referring to them as Iločki 1, Dennis Tedlock in his book Breath on the Mirror: Mythic Voices & Visions of the Living Maya refers to them as noble house named after Ilok i.e. of Ilok 2. The you also have couple of books referring to them as both of Újlak/Ilok respectively Then Work of Jacques Le Goff and the Challenges of Medieval History by Miri Rubin, Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: A Cultural History. And these are just from a quick glance from my point of view...so it's not really that clear as you'd like to make it. This is why I wanted this discussion in first place so we can actually "probe it" in a more definitive way and come to a valid conclusion. Shokatz (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question on the naming in Romanian and Hungarian language - it doesn't matter to what family linguistically they belong. Romanian and Hungarian share a common link when it comes to historical naming of people and places. It is a fact...and in that regard they are much closer than f.e. say Croatian and Hungarian. Shokatz (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) One of the above cited books (The Work of Jacques Le Goff and the Challenges of Medieval History) does not mention the family. It writes of the village Újlak (Ilok), mentioning both versions of its name. As I mentioned above, a book dedicated to the Maya myths in Guatemala could hardly be relevant. So we can conclude, there is a single relevant book, Fine's work, but it does not use the form "House of Ilok", but a third version ("Iločki"). (2) Would you please refer to the source of your assumption that "Romanian and Hungarian share a common link when it comes to historical naming of people and places"? For instance, in his cited work, Camil Mureşanu writes of "Oradea" instead of "Nagyvárad", of "Ocna Sibiului" instead of Vízakna, and of Pancrațiu of Dindeleag instead of Dengelegi Pongrác. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the book is about...we are discussing the use of the name in the English language...these books show the name is in use in the English language, which is what you asked for. I didn't mention Fodor's book Fodor's Croatia: with a Side Trip to Montenegro since you mentioned it before already. Second of all, Iločki and of Ilok are one and the same thing...and in fact Ujlaki means the same thing as well in Hungarian, as Ujlak is a Hungarian variant of the name Ilok which is a modern-day used name of the town and one used in English language today as well. So that should be kept in mind also...as we are talking about a family whose "surname" is literally "of Ilok" i.e. "Iločki"/"Ujlaki". So this is also about which one is the most appropriate as well considering modern-day variant of the name used for the town...or at least it should be partially under consideration too. As for examples of Hungarian and Romanian historiography using the same names - you can see them in the names of such families (and their members) like: Bathory, Apafi, Thokoly, Rakoczi, etc. Both Hungarian and Romanian use exactly the same variants of their (sur)names and these families all had figures which featured prominent figures in both Hungarian and Romanian history. Shokatz (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I forgot to make a clarification....the Croatian variant of the name is Iločki, the Hungarian is Ujlaki....both feature (as we can see from examples) almost equally, while (House) of Ilok (which is a literal translation of both) features the least...however the reason why this article is named in this way is exactly because finding a compromise between Croatian and Hungarian variant would be and is nearly impossible. So I personally have nothing against using it as it is a compromise with which neither side would be completely happy nor unhappy. Even though as a historian myself I have no problem in any version. Shokatz (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are towns in Romania. In cases where there is no alternative in Romanian language, they will more likely use a Hungarian name than a Croatian or Slavic one. Tzowu (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand that according to your own research Romanian historians prefer the Hungarian form, so we cannot take them into account. However, we should accept a travel guide. Interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a very difficult question. In our common Hungarian-Croatian history of nine centuries, there was a nobility of uniform status, when ethnicity was irrelevant. Anyway, in the Middle Ages, Slavonia was integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, its several towns belonged to Körös, Zala, Somogy Counties etc. (see Körmendi, Tamás: Szlavónia korai hovatartozása, SZÁZADOK 146: (2) pp. 369-388.; Szeberényi, Gábor (2015): Szlavónia határai a 13-14. században. Megjegyzések a Dráva és a Gvozd határszerepének megítéléséhez. In: Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 8. A VIII. Medievisztikai PhD-konferencia p. 215-226, Zsoldos, Attila: A Dráva-Száva köze az Árpád-korban. In: Építészet a középkori Dél-Magyarországon. Tanulmányok p. 13-22.) The ancestor of the family Lawrence was called "Slav" (Slavonian? which also could mean the territory where from he originated), but his descendants integrated into the Hungarian nobility. Nicholas Kont was Palatine of Hungary, beside that he held ispánates throughout in Hungary (Zala, Vas). He served in the Hungarian royal army and participated in Louis' Italian campaigns. Nicholas Újlaki was an important figure in Hungary's civil war in the 1440s. As Voivode of Transylvania (also a Hungarian court dignity), he fought against the Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile he received large extensive estates in Hungary, as well as his son Lawrence. Other members of the family also held the dignity of Ban of Macsó (which is today in Serbia), also an important Hungarian office. Borsoka proved that the "Újlaki" name form is the most widespread version in reliable English-language publications. Before that I never heard that "Romanian historians will use Hungarian names in the vast majority of cases". I guess numerous Romanian editors had a heart attack while reading this. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit off topic, eastern Slavonia was part of Hungary, but today's northern Croatia (which was back then called Slavonia) had a separate status and mostly had the same administration with Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. And Romanian editors can be calm as that quote refers to noble family names from this area only :). Tzowu (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Ilok is the most common form in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogizer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Would you subsantiate it? Ilok is the name of a town, so I would be surprised if you could refer to a single book which writes of the "Ilok family". Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current form is a Wikipedian neologism. The proposed form is more common than the alternative, Iločki family. Both should appear in the lead. It is worth pointing out, however, that the preponderance of Újlaki over Iločki in English texts has nothing to do with correctness. No English author or editor is likely to care between the two alternatives. Srnec (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note 15:13, 22 May 2017‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (44 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (EdJohnston moved page Újlaki family to House of Ilok over redirect: Restoring status quo ante). Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Magyarization of the name

[edit]

Why was the name change allowed? The House of Ilok were obviously Slavs first and any form of Hungarians second, and "House of Ilok" is a very neutral name. This pan-Hungarian irredentist nationalism doesn't belong on wiki. I have noticed this Magyarization attempt on other pages too.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Újlaki_family&oldid=1207894883"