Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Squash Racket redecorates the article.

Wait a minute, you redecorated the whole article as you like, while i was willing to make a compromise you are still pushing your nationalist POV. Do you have any sense of neutrality ? When we talk about his Romanian origin the line is way down, when we have Cuman or Hungarian origin the line suddenly goes up. What is this? Do you own this article? iadrian (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to dismiss his Romanian origin as much as you can by moving the alternative theories way up. You were never ready for compromise since it doesn`t match your Hungarian version of history. YES! Please, try the truth!iadrian (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You started this edit war by pushing your POV , i got banned with the help of your good friend Nmate , i am just ending it since there is no compromise with you.iadrian (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian yu judges others without actually checking the changes made

His Romanian origin is mentioned FIRST with numerous references. Try the truth.
It was you who removed the Cumanian reference from the first line as a "compromise".
Also at his father his Vlach origins are mentioned FIRST with sources listed. What are you talking about? Squash Racket (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed since it repeat itself. Try reading the TALK page. After your redecoration the article has no sense. iadrian (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

His Vlach father was also mentioned twice. I removed it. I didn't redecorate anything, you can't follow the changes, that's not my problem, but WP:3RR is still a rule.

I didn't repeat the Cumanian reference again, I moved up the alternative theories so the Romanian one doesn't stand there alone, it would seem too ultra-nationalist so. Right? Squash Racket (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know why are you rushing into an edit war? No, it seems like the violation of the WP:OR violation again. Looks like there is no compromise with you, therefore, i`l try to challenge the neutrality of this article since the only Hungarian sources are valid and there are many biaest edits made by you and makes almost the whole "origin" section. I have a real life too so i can`t argue with you forever just to prove something already proven. iadrian (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit war was started by you.
Where was WP:OR violated? Try to be more specific. Empty accusation?
About Hungarian sources: some Romanian editors usually use Hungarian sources themselves when it fits their nationalist POV (your words) and dismiss them when not. Squash Racket (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, already explained that, try reading the Talk page, but this time , don`t ignore my comments. iadrian (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, most statements in the article are supported by English references and there are Romanian sources too.
I removed one Romanian source supporting his Vlach father's origins as two English sources already supported it. That is your problem? We can reinsert it tomorrow, no problem, I thought it was superfluous. Is THAT the problem? Squash Racket (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian origin

I took a look at the text of the book from reference 19: [1] and I think it isn't written anywhere that he was an ethnic Hungarian. The only affirmation I found is that in some serbian epics he and his comrades are regarded as being Hungarians (in page 317) If I am wrong, please correct me (Umumu (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I see the expression Ugrin Janko (Hungarian John), but that's on page 367. Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that doesn't deny his (probably) Vlach origins. He integrated in the Hungarian nobility and practically became a Hungarian. As the article tells, he was "a Hungarian general". He was a Hungarian with Romanian roots, but still a Hungarian. Anyway, it doesn't seem ok to take some folk epics as sources for an encyclopedia (Umumu (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Folk epic songs are not to be considered as a reliable source, not even as a source, especially not Serbian, after all that are only songs. I studied high school in Voivodina, in Serbian language/program. If you listen to their epic songs you can say that Marko Kraljevic was a demi-God that killed millions of Turks but you don`t see that in the article about him. Hardly a reliable source since Serbian epic poets are well-known for their " facts". It is like their "job" to exaggerate everything, Iancu was a general in Hungarian army and by that he become a Hungarian. iadrian (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko's (János Hunyadi) origin; but presumably he was a Magyar." That's a verdict of the book's author, not based on the epic song which he describes above that sentence on the same page.

Umumu, if you claim to be speak only Serbian and English on your user page, why do you use the Romanian Google Books? Or may I ask: who are you exactly? Squash Racket (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway. a book about literature is not exactly the best source. I think the theory about the Hungarian origin could be considered a Fringe Theory. For the Vlach/Romanian ancenstry there are tens of sources and here there is a single (and not very scientific) source(Umumu (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Proposal

I think that the article about Hunyadi family should be named "Hunyadi family" and the page "Hunyadi" could look like this:

Hunyadi may refer to:

• Hunyadi family, ...
• John Hunyadi, a Hungarian leader...
• Laszlo Hunyadi...

(Umumu (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

If nobody is against i will make that change tomorrow(Umumu (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Iancu de Hunedoara, historiography importance.

Iancu de Hunedoara (John Hunyadi) is also a very important person in Romanian historiography and the only part where that is mentioned is one small sentence at the end of the second section. It is forcing a pro-Hungarian POV and this is one of the reasons why this article is disputed.iadrian (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Historiography or history? I think we can all agree that Hunyadi played a part in the history of Hungary and played no part of the history of Romania whatsoever. Similarly if today a person that is of possibly German origin (German father) and becomes a minister or other important office holder in Romania, he plays a part in the history of Romania and not in the history of Germany. Correct?Hobartimus (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Historiography. Of course he was a part of Hungarian history since he served in Hungarian army and lived in Hungarian society. Of course , correct. I think that there should be at least a little bit more mention about his importance to Romanians, it is worth mentioning. He would`t be mention in the Romanian national anthem if he is not to be considered as a very important person. iadrian (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I agree with you on the gist of the matter but not exactly on the point you made on Romanian ministers as this is the argument why Áron Márton is sometimes edited as a Romanian bishop. I would rather formulate the question like this: Can our Romanian friends bring any reliable historical evidence that supports the idea that Hunyadi himself identified himself as a Romanian or Wallachian, used Romanian language as his mother toungue or at least as an essential mean of communication, maintained special relationship with people or communities undoubtedly identifiable as Romanians, promoted in a preferntial way individuals or communities because of their Romanian ancestry, showed signs of special affiliation to Romanian / Wallachian traditions. I think that receiving such information and confronting it with Hungarian historical views on him would be an interesting subject to discuss. What we see on this page is a rather shallow discussion on unrelevant ethnicity issues. In the middle ages, inter-marriage was very common, e.g. there were no pure race royal families.

"As a result, many of the Romanian cnezes in the area of today's Bánság and Hunyad county won conditional nobility and, by the end of the century, attained full nobility. It is hardly coincidental that the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of János Hunyadi, for this great general had grown up among them and understood their aspirations. When he served as Transylvania's voivode and Székely count (the first time that the two offices were held by one man), Hunyadi drew into his retinue not only Hungarian and Székely retainers but also several Romanian cnezes.[...]In the second half of the 15th century, the number of {1-494.} newly-ennobled Romanians in Hunyad county compared with that of the lesser nobility in any Hungarian county"http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/81.html (Umumu (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

"for this great general had grown up among them" and "not was one of them". I still think my above opinion is correct. I am looking forwrd to receiving new information with respect to above aspects.--Rokarudi 17:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was not about his probable Romanian ethnicity (from article: he was "according to most sources — of Romanian[5][6][7] origin."), but about his relation with Romanians, I just answered to your question (I tried to show that he "maintained special relationship with people or communities undoubtedly identifiable as Romanians") (Umumu (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

A question before I waste my time here: Umumu, are you User:Iaaasi? Squash Racket (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am new. I am not iaaasi. I can see he/her is a sockpuppet Bonaparte. Anyway that ip is blocked, so I can't be him ... (Umumu (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Taking a look at your edits so far would you describe the editor as "new"?

If you claim to be speak only Serbian and English on your user page, why do you use the Romanian Google Books?

So you say you never heard of dynamic IPs? Squash Racket (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what dynamic IP means. I don't understand what you want from me. (Umumu (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I am Serbian, but I am now a student in Romania. I don't know Romanian very well. But what relevance does it have that I am now in Romania? (Umumu (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I think it is high time to investigate into the activity of User:Umumu and User: iadrian as obvious sockpuppets of late Iaaassi

User:RokarudiPlease respect the Civility rule. Please talk about the subject not about unsubstantiated accusations.iadrian (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There weren't ethnic Romanian leaders of Wallachia and Moldova in medieval age

The first rulers of these states were [cumans]]. The early "Romanian" elite has cuman origin until the end of 15th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is only a personal POV (Umumu (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Look the ethnicity of the founder's of Romanian principalities. They were Cumans. The territory of Wallachia and Moldavia belongs to Pechenegs and latter they belonged to the Cumans. Please learn more history. Just read the Pechenegs and Cumans article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The territory belongs to the people who lived there and they were then Vlachs, now Romanians. The founder of the Romanian principalities Basarab was probably of partial Cuman origin, just because of the construction of his name, which is hardly a hard prof "evidence", Basarab was regarded as a Vlach(Romanian) and that is what the most historians think about his origin, anyway, the origin of a person in that time can`t be proven 100% therefore exist alternative theories like Cuman origin, or on the other hand the Slavic,Magyar or other origin of the Iancu de Hunedoara (John Hynadi). iadrian (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The founder of Wallachia was Basarab I. Charles I of Hungary speaks of him as "Bazarab infidelis Olacus noster" ("Bazarab, our treacherous Vlach").
The founders of Moldavia were Vlachs/Romanians. The members of the House of Muşat, the first ruling dynasty, were ethnic Vlachs. (Umumu (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

John Hunyadi and his Romanian descent

Medieval chroniclers state clearly that his father (Voik) and his mother (Elisabetha) [2] were Vlachs/Romanians. Also there are "numerous documents in which Hunyadi's by-name appears as János Oláh. (Oláh is the Hungarian word for Wlach.)" [3]

In addition there are tens of modern sources accepting the Vlach/Romanian descent (I listed only neutral and Hungarian sources, in order not to be said that the Romanian works are biased). Even Britannica says he came from Wallachia (so he was an alien, not a Magyar)

How can we still take in consideration a SINGLE book about literature which PRESUMES that he was a Magyar? It is false that this book "deals with the ethnicity of Hunyadi on at least a whole page", because on that "page" it is discussed his representation in epic poems, not the historical reality

Also his Cuman origin is supported by a single Hungarian (possibly biased on this subject, like Romanian sources too, so we must be at least circumspect about its reliability) (Umumu (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

In Serbian epic songs i have read that Prince Marko could kill ten Turks with just looking at them. Should we presume that he had a "hidden ability", a deadly vision that killed people? Should we present that as a fact on wikipedia too? Since when a poem has a historical relevence? iadrian (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

János Hunyadi" and "John Hunyadi

You are saying that János is English ? Letter á exist in the English language? Please show me the English alphabet where is this letter represented as a part of the English language.iadrian (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia see no problem with it. Besides, concensus on Wikipedia generally leans towards using diacritics even when English basically never uses it. See extensive archives on tennis players' names. Squash Racket (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not Britannica, and here on the English wikipedia we prefer English names only, other language name as presented in the article. Beside ,Catholic Encyclopedia is no reliable source. It is biaest and if i present data from an Orthodox Encyclopedia you would dismiss it because we can`t take religious based encyclopedias as a reliable source. iadrian (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to answer that mess. I hope. Squash Racket (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) There, i hope you can read it now. I am waiting for an answer. iadrian (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is this is English version of the Wikipedia(not Britannica) and we put names in English. iadrian (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point. You asked for an English reference, I brought the largest, most reliable English encyclopedia. That's it. You already read the extensive archives on tennis players' names and diacritics? Squash Racket (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we compromise and name the article Janos Hunyadi without the letter à? I agree with the anglicising of many foreign names; however, most readers would be confused when they see John instead of Janos. Wikipedia has many examples where the name of an article is not the English version, such as Marie Antoinette, Giuseppe Verdi, Sean MacStiofain, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

John Hunyadi's ethnicity

I've opened a thread about John Hunyadi's ethnicity on Fringe theory noticeboard: [4] (Umumu (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Ascension error?

The text states that the King of Hungary borrowed money from John. Is that possibly accurate? If so, can a supporting reference be made here in the discussion, please? That should clarify it, either way.

"long campaign" was written in latin or german

• the famous expedition known as the hosszú hadjárat or "long campaign."

is there any original document that displays this hosszú hadjárat for Hunyadi's campaign ? from what i understand, the chronicles in Hunyadi's time were written either in Latin or German

Title of Gubernator

The proper English translation of Gubernator is Regent, not Governor.

Let's make the article better

I suggest to discuss how to make this article better regardless of his ethnicity. - I think that the abundance of references is already counter-productive, it muts be cut or re-arranged. This is not an essay on the marxist-leninist evening course, who can collect more citations from Lenin's works. - the ethnicity and origin issue should be summarized. We can even make clear that there is controversy between Hungarian and Romanian view as to his origin or ethnicity, but all the rest must be separated to the Hunyady family article. - we should revise all the rest of the article and give prominence to his achievement: only central-european leader who tried to unite all the nations of the region against the advance of the Ottoman Empire being the first and last effort of the nations of the region for centuries to get rid of Ottoman dominance.

John Hunyadi's possible Hungarian, Slavic or Cuman descendance

In a Cambridge University Press reliable source the author draws his own conclusion about his possible Hungarian origin, doesn't base what he thinks on epic poems. The reference is perfectly OK, and the theory itself is only presented as an alternative along with the Cuman and Slavic theories. Squash Racket (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an analysis from an epic song. I don`t see what relevance has the fact that it is done on the Cambridge university? It can be NASA study if it is based on Roman mythology (planet names) it doesn`t have a scientific relevance, in this case historical.iadrian (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When the author draws his conclusion, he clearly doesn't talk about the epic song, but adds his own verdict. I won't repeat this once more even if you still don't understand it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he clearly draws his conclusion from an Epic song(poetry) not historical data. I don`t see how can you even argue about this when the book is called The growth of literature and the "fact" is found in the second part of the book Yugoslav oral poetry in the section called Heroic Poetry. It looks like you are the one who doesn`t understand, or you just don`t want to. Please wait until the thread on the Fridge theory reach to a conclusion to remove the dubious form. Please read the WP:DISPUTED.iadrian (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are incapable of understanding one simple sentence: From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in his verdict. Squash Racket (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restrain your self from personal attacks. If you can`t understand something i will gladly explain, there is no need for hostility (WP:FAITH). The author analyzes the epic Yugoslav poetry, an epic song and what it is told in the song, and from there comes to a conclusion. He himself admit that he does not poses any historical data:From historical sources nothing certain seems. iadrian (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, just because you are incapable of understanding one simple sentence: From HISTORICAL SOURCES NOTHING CERTAIN seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in his verdict. Squash Racket (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please divert my attention when i attacked you personally. Please be civil WP:CIVIL there is no need for hostility (WP:FAITH). It is an epic study, not a historical one. the book is called The growth of literature and the "fact" is found in the second part of the book Yugoslav oral poetry in the section called Heroic Poetry and when he draws to a conclusion he clearly cite some part of the epic song. After all, if this is such a big deal, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin? And we can leave the Epic songs out from historical facts.iadrian (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil. From HISTORICAL SOURCES NOTHING CERTAIN seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in his verdict.
Based on your last comment you STILL don't understand that simple sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but first you insult me(you still do) and now you are acting like nothing happened and you are calling me to be civil,.. Please, let`s be serious. Read the whole page , 316/317 where the "fact" is presented and you will see. Taken out of the contexts i understand your POV, but read everything and you will see. If this is such a big deal, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin? And we can leave the Epic songs out from historical facts. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited in the Fringe theory thread the Hugh Seton-Watson.iadrian (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but first you insult me and now you are acting like nothing happened and you are calling me to be civil,.. Please, let`s be serious. From HISTORICAL SOURCES NOTHING CERTAIN seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in this verdict.

Hugh Seton-Watson is a Romanian/Hungarian source in your world? Squash Racket (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Seton-Watson you mentioned, and if you would kindly remember what you said everything would be explained.iadrian (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket, you must accept that a book about literature where a philologist issues an assumption is not the most scientific and trustable source when we talk about historical facts. Why don't we also take in consideration travel guides or the opinions of historical films directors? (Umumu (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

It's a Cambridge University Press source (good enough I hope), H. Munro Chadwick is a British historian and philologist and I don't know why you pretend to not know that sources are clearly in trouble identifying his mother. I also don't like the fact that Romanian editors themselves cite Hungarian sources when they fit their views and disregard Hungarian sources when they don't. Squash Racket (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

on his wiki page it is written that he was a British historian OF LITERATURE... In Britannica it is written that he was a historian... (Umumu (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Isn't it funny that you bolden the unreliable Wikipedia info, but don't highlight the Britannica article which says H. Munro Chadwick British historian? Regardless of that, it's a good enough source and not presented as the mainstream view. Squash Racket (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard thread, you were right here. It seems he really was a proper historian. The above post was before you provided the Britannica link, and I added the part "In Britannica it is written that he was a historian..." after I saw your reply, the fact that I did not bold that too was something random.

But the source for the Cuman origin remains questionable in my opinion(Umumu (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

I am sorry, maybe i wasn`t so clear about this, i will repeat the idea. There is no problem about Cambridge University Press, that is a very good source, there is nothing wrong there, the Book is the problem, it simply isn`t a history book. It is not a historical study, it is an epic study of various national poetry. We can identify this by looking at the book and how it is organized. The part where the sentence is about his origin can be found in the book The growth of literature and the "fact" is found in the second part of the book Yugoslav oral poetry in the section called Heroic Poetry. Please find another source, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin. Then we can leave the Epic songs out from history. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited the 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."iadrian (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself, keep doing it if you wish to. Squash Racket (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(Comment removed by Iadrian Yu)

I'm glad you finally understood everything, so I won't have to repeat myself over and over again. Squash Racket (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannca talks clearly about his Wallachian origin, while Britannica 1911 tells "JANOS HUNYADI (c. 1387-1456), Hungarian statesman and warrior, was the son of Vojk, a Magyarized Vlach who married Elizabeth Morzsinay.". I think we should write that Vojk/Vajk was undoubtedly Vlach/Romanian. Aside from this, the single source for the Cuman remains questionable (Umumu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Vajk was either Vlach, South Slavic (three references), Hungarian, and a number of sources refer to the obscurity surrounding the Hunyadis' origins. As you very well know. Besides, Romanian editors themselves do cite Hungarian sources but only when Hungarian sources fit their views. Why is that? Squash Racket (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If a source is Hungarian it does not mean automatically that it is unreliable, it is just possibly unreliable. Especially when the affirmation is not supported by other neutral sources, it is not 100% trustable. This case is just similar with the theory of a Romanian author who asserted that Stephen I of Hungary had Romanian origin (Umumu (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

About Catholic Encyclopedia: what is wrong with 19th sources? What new discovery was made since them to infirm that sources?(Umumu (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

"This argument is considered by some to be tenuous, since Oláh is the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock" - this is an obvious anti - Hungarian propaganda. I is ridiculous to make such an affirmation. (Umumu (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Unacceptable editing

These changes will be reverted, I just don't want to break WP:3RR like User:Umumu did. This is just a reminder. Squash Racket (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respect the WP:OWN. This article is for everyone who has access on wikipedia. These changes are well documented with reliable sources therfore by the all wiki standards that is a valid contribution to the article.iadrian (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't ask for feedback here. This is just a note. That's all.

I just don't want to break WP:3RR now like User:Umumu. Squash Racket (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Where have I broken WP:3RR? (Umumu (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

i) Why did you remove this reliable English source? To "maintant the NPOV"? ii) Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Plus, Umumu, if you dont speak Romanian, why are you adding a Romanian source?--B@xter⁹ 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The text was from a Hungarian (so possibly biased, like Romanian ones) source (The Rákóczi Foundation):

"This version of his origin which, if true, would indicate royal blood, is vehemently disputed by Rumanians, who are proud of Hunyadi's Wlach origin. They point to numerous documents in which Hunyadi's by-name appears as János Oláh. (Oláh is the Hungarian word for Wlach.) This argument is tenuous, since Oláh is the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock."

It was not specified in the wiki article if the name "János Oláh" indicates or not a Romanian origin, so Squash Racket's add, "This argument is tenuous, since Oláh is the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock" did not suit, because it was not an argument of a sentence
2. I understand Romanian quite well, but it is not my mother tongue and I don't speak it very good. Anyway that is not the subject of this forum
3. What personal attacks are you talking about? (Umumu (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

"so Squash Racket's add, "This argument is tenuous, since Oláh is the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock" did not suit, because it was not an argument of a sentence" - so you just added the "János Oláh" part for fun, not as an argument supporting his Romanian ethnicity.

Many Hungarian settlers, who were sent to live among Vlachs, were called Oláh. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the Corvinus Library source can be considered reliable according to wikipedia guidelines. Be that as it may I fail to see why these minority views ar given so much weight, even if we stick to Hungarian sources only. Further more no distinction is made between the XVth century ethnic background of the family and its more distant supposed ethnic origins. I have already quoted Lendvai on the topic on this very talk page. Let me also point out that given the specific nature of the debate, specific sources should be used. A book on the Crusades is too general to be relevant here and I'm having troubles finding Seton-Watsons contributions to Medieval History. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is Seton-Watsons' paragraph that Squash Rackey speaks about: [5]. I think that POV is not very competent, because the author doesn't even know that in Romania John Hunyadi is said to be the son of Voyk, not of King Sigismund.

On the other hand I think the source that pretends that Hunyadi was ethnic Magyar is not the most reliable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#2._Hungarian.2FMagyar_origin_.28Magyar_is_another_term_for_Hungarian.29. Umumu (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

This is a contemporary history book, the reference being to a footnote. It does not stand for a reliable source. Further more, Molnar and Lendvai are miss-cited, they do not say what this wikipedia article makes them say. As for the Corvinus Library source, unless some proof is provided about its author being a medieval history scholar I will remove it and everything pertaining to it. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and I support you(Umumu (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Hungarian national hero

Most (or all?) of the English sources consider him a Hungarian national hero and as this is the English Wikipedia, this is more important than what Hungarians think of him. We also prefer English sources all along regarding the ethnicity issue. Squash Racket (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Oláh is the Hungarian word for Vlach, but it is also the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock"

This interpretation is ridiculous, I think it is only Hungarian propaganda. In the middle ages the names and the surnames were not meaningless like today, when George Carpenter is not a carpenter. Moses Szekely and Gyorgy Szekely were Szekelys, Olah Miklos was a Vlach and only Janos Olas was Hungarian? (Umumu (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

What you think doesn't really matter compared to what sources say. And that source was respected by you too. Now that you found something you don't like you'd drop it.

Many Hungarian settlers who were sent to live among Vlachs were called Oláh. Suggesting anything based on an attribute like that is simply original research. Squash Racket (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, untill you provide an academic source backing this extraordianry theory (which the Corvinus Library source is not as far as I am concerned) you are the one spreading original research. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Hunyadi was called in medieval documents "John the Vlach" is mentioned in more than a source. The text of the Hungarian source [6] is: "This version of his origin which, if true, would indicate royal blood, is vehemently disputed by Rumanians, who are proud of Hunyadi's Wlach origin. They point to numerous documents in which Hunyadi's by-name appears as János Oláh. (Oláh is the Hungarian word for Wlach.) This argument is tenuous, since Oláh is the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock.". Author's comment that "This argument is tenuous" is biased in my opinion(Umumu (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Unacceptable editing part 2

These changes are unacceptable and will be reverted. Just another reminder. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respect the WP:OWN. This article is for everyone who has access on wikipedia. These changes are well documented with reliable sources therefore by the all wikipedia standards that is a valid contribution to the article.iadrian (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the childish edits and don't lecture anybody on WP:OWN based on your performance here so far. Squash Racket (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also stop with the false edit summaries please. See section below. Squash Racket (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself from personal attacks. Respect the WP:CIVIL and the WP:VAN. I am kindly warning you ,if you continue to write comments with personal attacks i will ignore them until you reach a certain number for a new wikiquete section. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In your false edit summary you accused me with vandalism right after you made this edit. It's probably really time to call an administrator right now. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You accused me first for false vandalism with your incorrect use of the {dubious} form, while you were doing it was OK, when i did the same you called that vandalism, therefore, your edits are vandalism too. Please, i would rather recommend for the Administrator intervention. iadrian (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The section below details the reasons for every single "dubious" template I used. Squash Racket (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t see any detail that recommends the use of the "dubious" template where you did. Please read the information about the dubious template and it`s use. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First sentence: Add after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute. You are still being civil, right? Squash Racket (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, i was never uncivil. I really can`t find that sentence. Can you please help me with it? Wiki page about dubious statement. iadrian (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy in Romania

• "He is remembered as a Romanian national hero": he is remembered as a national hero in Romania is more correct, he wasn't Romanian.
• "mostly due to his Romanian origin": disputed, explained further up in the article
• "and his role as Voivode of Transylvania": Transylvania was part of Kingdom of Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon (1920). This is one of the reasons in fact for which he is respected as a Hungarian national hero.

Squash Racket (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote he wasn't Romanian ? I am sorry, but majority of the modern historians(even Hungarian) tend to disagree with you. Voivode of Transylvania is a valid title. The fact he is considered a Romanian national hero is the fact that he was of Romanian descent. iadrian (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you pretend not to understand the problems is not uncivil. That you add frivolous or inflammatory comments has nothing to do with Wikiquette of course. Squash Racket (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is incorrect. I could say that i have the same opinion, but i restrain myself from talking about personal nature or character of a particular person/persons. This is an encyclopedia and we are here to write article`s and to talk/represent the facts.iadrian (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When we are speaking about his legacy or more precisely how and by whom he is remembered, we may bravely mention that he is respected by both Hungarians and Romanians as their national hero. This is fact regardles wether he was actually Hungarian or/and Romanian. Hungarians regard (and rightly) the 12 of Arad Hungarian national heros, although most of them were not Hungarians at all.

I think the lead is too long and uses quite complicated formules. Unless someone is an educated native speaker, he/she may have difficulties to understand who he exactly was and why he was an important figure. I think that in the lead only the Hungarian and the Romanian name (one name version as the Romanian colleagues choose) should stay. And we can make a separate section on all of his names and his presentation is different national folklores. I repeat as I did before: Unless we expect only Romanian and Hungarian readers to come on this page, we must present him as valient soldier respected by all nations in the region rather than the object of nationalistic tud-of-war. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, some parts of the article should be "cleaned up" and rearranged but it is hard to do so on a such controversial person/article. As for the Legacy part, we could divide it in 2 subsections, something like "Legacy in Hungary/for Hungarians" and "Legacy in Romania/for Romanians" to avoid any possible confusion.iadrian (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New text

It is hardly coincidental that the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of John Hunyadi, for this great general had grown up among them and understood their aspirations. When he served as Transylvania's voivode and Székely count (the first time that the two offices were held by one man), Hunyadi drew into his retinue not only Hungarian and Székely retainers but also several Romanian cnezes.
It would be very misleading to present this text in the "national hero in Romania" section without mentioning that these cnezes have become part of the Hungarian nobility. I don't think this has anything to do with Romanian national pride, on the contrary, they strengthened Hungary after their ennoblement. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Many Romanian cnezes were assimilated and became Hungarians, part of the Hungarian nobility in Transylvania. He is considered a national hero in Romania too, i don`t see the problem there and why that part should be deleted. There is nothing misleading there since the first part of the article concentrate only on the Hungarian POV. For almost the same reasons he is celebrated in Romania too but for some reason, it can`t be presented in the article. It is important for Romanians because he was of Romanian descent. I don`t see why should a part of text be deleted if it has valid arguments and references. iadrian (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment

There is a valid contribution(referenced) to the article that is refused by other users, the article should not contain any data that is not in their accordance, even if it is referenced by valid sources. The history is here : here and the contribution at the question is here. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In an RFC we don't link other users' name, but focus on the issue. Even if we are uncivil.

About the disputed parts: presenting Transylvania as a "Romanian historical region" is misleading; talking about the Romanian cnezes in Hunyadi's retinue as a source of Romanian national pride without mentioning the minor fact that they were part of the Hungarian nobility by that time is misleading; "he was born a Romanian" is misleading knowing about the insecurity surrounding Hunyadi's ethnic origins. Etc. Squash Racket (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I would ask you not to modify my comments, after you informed me i would remove it myself. I think that the big problem is "Hungarian pride" that can`t accept even now, that John Hynadi was of Romanian descent. Transylvania is a historical Romanian region, the Romanian population were always the majority.. to make a long story short that is a fact and not the issue here. Ok. Let`s see what other users have to say. iadrian (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please spare your personal attacks seconds after citing the civility issues and threatening me with noticeboards.
Sources refer to his possible Slavic, Hungarian descendance and a number of sources refer to mystery, obscurity surrounding his ethnic origins. AND nobody really knows who his mother was.
Transylvania was until 1920, the Treaty of Trianon a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Romanians weren't there in large numbers until Hungarians let them settle there during the Turkish wars. That's the fact. Squash Racket (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the topic (Transylvania was a semi-independent principality with Romanian majority, only for a short time proper incorporated in Kingdom of Hungary as a Hungarian land and not Imperial. Romanians are the indigenous people in Transylvania... Please this is not the issue and i don`t want to talk about a whole other non-existing problem, let`s talk about the subject at hand.) In Romania he is considered a national hero, whatever controversy about him exists or not. The facts are in the referenced contribution that we are discussing about. As the fact that he is considered a Hungarian in Hungary, even if that is against existing facts, but that doesn`t change the fact that he is considered a national hero in Hungary and a Hungarian of course.iadrian (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Note for uninvolved parties. This is a longterm edit war where two parties seem to be in constant conflict about several pages related to hungaria / romania. Previous discussions are present on this and other related talk pages, and also on my own talk page here, here and here. There has also been a related SSP case, a third opinion among several others i might not know or recall (I believe ANI and the edit war noticeboard were among them). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence can illustrate the problem here "the Romanian population were always the majority.." note the word always. It also seems to be a big problem with using the term "Romanian" instead of "Vlach" in the text. It's a "bit" out of context seeing the small distance of more than 400 years between the death of Hunyadi and the events constantly mentioned here. Hobartimus (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the topic (Romanian population represented the majority in Transylvania, from it`s creation until it`s unification with other Romanian principalities. If you want, we can talk about Transylvania another time.) Romanian is used in the sources too and having in mind that "Vlach" is an exonym for modern-day Romanians it is the proper use to avoid any possible confusion. iadrian (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Repeating my earlier comment onthe points offered by Excirial: I think a mediation case would be better, I no longer trust talk page discussion as Iadrian yu too many times pretended not to understand something, gave some not so convincing answers and then jumped into revert warring. And his false warnings... I would be happier with a third party watching the process.
I did NOT accept all those points and I also don't see the other party accepting them. As Excirial himself put it: If either party doesn't accept I would refer you to RFM to open a formal mediation case as this has been dragging on a long time by now. Formal discussions have the advantage that they are being centralized and led by a member of the mediation cabal who has handled these cases before. The level of talk page discussion WITHOUT third party supervision is not accepted by me any longer and can not be a basis for self-imposed restrictions. I'm happy to go by those rules if an admin gets involved or a mediation case starts only. The bad experiences with Iadrian yu's talk page behavior, the fact that after he made a report on revert warring 25 minutes later he jumped in to make the same revert himself are not trust-building at this point.
"he is considered a national hero in Hungary and a Hungarian of course" - from the same guy who keeps deleting the FACT that the majority of ENGLISH sources see him as a Hungarian national hero. That is just provocation, not discussion.
Squash Racket (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I could make exactly the same comment with valid arguments but let`s keep to the subject please.. This comment is just another provocation, even now you can`t keep your little remarks to yourself (And his false warnings... ). Please start the mediation cabal process if you disagree and inform all the patries involved. You violate the WP:OWN and any data that is not conform you cannot be the part of the article. You don`t have a single valid argument why shouldn`t this text be a part of the article... From now on my comments will be strict to the subject to avoid everything that is not relevant to this discussion. This is a request for comment and i am very interested what other users have to say about all this. If you want something else, please use the other available standard wiki channels to do so, please don`t take our time with the comments like your last one that is off the topic we are discussing here. iadrian (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat the topic of the discussion There is a valid contribution(referenced) to the article that is refused by other users, the article should not contain any data that is not in their accordance, even if it is referenced by valid sources. The history is here : here and the contribution at the question is here. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian editors DID recently make a few changes after long, baseless edit warring. However, Transylvania, a historical region of Romania is still a bit misleading. I'd make a small change: Transylvania, a historical region in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time (now in Romania).

I'm also asking to present material (I guess even this text contains this) that shows Romanian cnezes have become Hungarian nobles after their ennoblement. "mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of John Hunyadi" - They've become Hungarian nobles. As this is the section dealing with the "national hero in Romania" stuff, this way it is misleading.

By the way I don't see how this referenced text is so relevant as he had Serbians and others too in his military. Squash Racket (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Transylvania, a historical region in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time (now in Romania). sound like it is a historical region of Hungary, and that is not correct. Maybe something like this? Transylvania, a region at the time part of the Kingdom of Hungary now part of Romania). simple and informative, after all that is the goal of wikipedia, to inform people and everybody should think what they like.

The referenced text is important because John is a national hero in Romania (the reasons doesn`t matter why, he is considered) and that is nowhere to be found in the article about him.iadrian (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also asking to present material (I guess even this text contains this) that shows Romanian cnezes have become Hungarian nobles after their ennoblement. "mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of John Hunyadi" - They've become Hungarian nobles. As this is the section dealing with the "national hero in Romania" stuff, this way it is misleading.

I'm only repeating what you seem to have completely missed in my comment. Squash Racket (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i was just preparing to answer about that, i was looking it in the article and reading. Maybe we can move that sentence somewhere else in the article? (about cnezes). I am just looking it at the source but i am not familiar with it, it is a big text and it isn`t specified where can the fact be found. I will ask Umumu, since it is his source. iadrian (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Umumu [7] about this problem. iadrian (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One questionable phrase

I keep seeing the phrase "he is considered a Hungarian national hero by the majority of English sources". Is this supposed to mean that other sources dispute that he is a hero in Hungary? It seems to me that if our English sources (cited of course) identify him as a Hungarian national hero, further qualification is not necessary. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with that fact (he is considered a Hungarian hero in Hungary, Romanian hero in Romania.) it is just that he is considered a national hero for roughly the same reasons in Romania too. As a prof for that is the fact that he is mentioned as one of the hero figures in the Romanian national anthem.iadrian (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

..which is a bit of a "so what?" The point is that I don't see where this qualifier "by the majority of English sources" is coming from. As far as I can see it should be dropped. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it is important if it is a bit of a whole nation that we are talking about. I just thought that the Romanian legacy part should also be mentioned. iadrian (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a Romanian editor

The article in the present state is, simply put, a mockery of wikipedia standards and regulations. What has started as an ill-contained dispute about Hunyadi's origins, which should in all accounts form a small and distinctive bit of the article, has become a massive and inane trench war between the least competent positions one can possibly take in such a debate. On one hand, we have the introduction of absurd phraseology such as the quoted "is considered a Hungarian national hero by the majority of English sources", and the proposal to make this article into an explanation about how knyazes of x descent in general became Hungarian (however interesting, it makes no sense unless the sources explicitly mention Hunyadi's case). On the other, we have methods such as the grotesque parroting of sources, with the manifest intention of enforcing a tug of war system: we'll pull it over on "our side" if we have to. All sides have produced ridiculous, careless, citing of random material, and just combing through the many mistakes or manipulations is a major headache. I would presume Competence is the only issue, where I not convinced that, at least in part, we can dismiss WP:AGF - particularly since evidence is piling up that one of the users involved may be the sock of a permablocked gentleman.

The failure of both sides to recognize that the reality is so disputed one may never get to the "bottom" of it (whatever that is), the tendency toward revisionism on both sides, and the complete disregard for issues such as format, grammar, fluency or sanity together indicate that this is a serious crisis. At this point, I feel, the issue could in fact only be solved with some topic bans on both sides and a revert to something from months ago. Dahn (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The part about the "bottom" of it i tried to say when i first stumbled on this article, but i got banned in stead :) (guess i didn`t represented in the right way). I tried to do something and i guess i got "killed" between the lines. The article has many problems and yet there is nothing in plan for resolving it, I guess that it will stay like that for a long time. Every second edit on article`s regarding Transylvania "stuff" follow a nationalistic pattern from both sides. I just wanted for the article to also have a Romanian POV, to state that John is important in Romania too but as everything got complicated i decided not to participate anymore. Maybe the best solution really is reverting the article to the state from some months ago. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the problem here is this inability on both sides of this debate to note that POVs are not necessarily "national". One is right to object that the historiographic folklore about Hunyadi's Romanian roots is not present just in Romanian sources, but one is equally right to point out that there are Romanian voices who either question the reliability or ultimate importance of such ideas. The conflict here, on wikipedia, has made this page a reflection of propaganda and the POVs held by users, as opposed to a coherent and intellectually honest review of secondary sources. The editing approach so far is inherently flawed. Dahn (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving most of the ethnicity material

Guys how about moving most of the ethnicity material either into Hunyadi family or a new article Ethnic background of John Hunyadi while leaving this in the article:

Hunyadi is a Hungarian noble family — according to the majority of sources — of Vlach/Romanian origin. A few authors suggest Slavic or Magyar descendance and others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins.. For further details see Hunyadi family.

And possibly a sentence about not knowing much about his mother's identity. Would that be OK? Squash Racket (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving the issue to its own article strikes me as quite odd, especially under this title: the entire issue would be better addressed by the Hunyadi family article, with a more rational and less essay-like title. What sense would it be to discuss John's ethnicity here, when you can discuss it for the entire family there - even though that article too is quite crappy. But I take serious issue with the phrasing proposed for the summary. It not only has several spelling errors, but it reads like an editorial comment and addresses disputes between wikipedia editors rather than summarizing the issue at hand and properly attributing the views of outside sources. How could the text possibly summarize the entirety of sources to the point where it determines what "the majority of sources" say? This is not encyclopedia writing, it is an exercise in intertextuality, and POVed while at it - it is an unwitting assessment of how solid an(other) opinion is. It needs to be rephrased into something that simply states what the account is, and then followed by the other accounts. I also have to wonder about the Easter egg link to Kingdom of Hungary - it presumes the readers are idiots who did not already get the location from the lead, and adds nothing but another layer of ambiguity.

Btw, will you gentleman who bicker over this article at least consider following the WP:MOS? Even in the short sample above, we have links to disambig (Slavic, Magyar), bare urls, several styles of citation, random quotes, incomplete data in referencing, punctuation marks on both (!) sides of the notes... Clean up your act, please, at long last clean up your act. Dahn (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I basically copy&pasted this from the current text with a slight change, I'm only asking for comment on the idea generally at this point. Be assured that the wrong links and the improperly formatted references weren't added by me.

BTW if we have to somehow summarize all the views in 1-2 sentences, it will sound a bit odd. But better having 1-2 odd sentences than having 5-6 odd paragraphs. If you begin to attribute all the different views of outside sources, the current 5-6 sections of ethnic origins with 100 references will reemerge with the next User:Umumu that shows up. In short: we'd like to get rid of the disturbing issue and only link to it after a short introduction. Squash Racket (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea to expand on this in the family article is a good one; the idea to create yet another "let's rant" article is not - if anything, precisely because of users like Umumu.

Also, my comments were not addressed to anyone in particular. They meant to say that it's high time all editors started considering MOs issues while they edit, not after they edit - this entire article, whoever wrote whatever part of it, was basically crapified MOS-wise.

As for the summary: it would be a good idea to return to a pre-Umumu version of the text and work from it. We don't really need to "move" such info, since much of it was added by a since-blocked disruptive user - it may be entirely disruptive (faux citations, text cited in bad faith, plagiarism and so on). IMO, it may be that, in any "main article" scenario, the ethnic origin will still require one fairly large paragraph here. Dahn (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dahn. We don't need a separate article for this, but a return to the version pre-banned user and removing his edits is a good idea. The Hunyadi family article could also hold some of the information without a need for a new one. Hobartimus (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a close look to the changes that were made? Many users contributed to the article since then, maybe some of the changes are valid. iadrian (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made by others can be readded or preserved in the first place, those are not problematic in this context. Hobartimus (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-add some changes

Since we said that after the revert we can re-add some of the contributions, so i am wondering, how about this one? "Pope Pius II writes that Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born.reference " the data can be found on page 42. iadrian (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

After all the unconditional support you showed towards probably the most disruptive banned puppet master on Wikipedia (User:Bonaparte/User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi), accused me wrongly in the most bogus reports I've probably seen here I don't know how or why we should trust you anymore and pretend that nothing happened. You also stated you wouldn't participate anymore, just two days ago. Probably it would be better so.

Were you at least included in the Checkuser so that I can be sure I'm not talking to User:Bonaparte again?

We said we'd readd contributions by other editors, NOT those by User:Bonaparte/User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi. Per policy. Read "what we said" again. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are starting "on a wrong foot " here. I support fact that appear valid, i don`t judge the content of the data if it comes from a specific nationality/user. If they pointed to a valid facts with references we must dismiss them just because they are coming from those users? They are accused for socketpuppetry not for unreferenced data. If it is necessary i will gladly do i check user so we can talk about the article only. Since i never done that, would you be kind to guide me how to do that please? iadrian iadrian (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When i said i "give up" that means i don`t want to argue anymore, not that only one side can/cannot participate to the article. From now on, if i talk here, i will try to strictly talk about the facts only. iadrian (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the context for this? Why would a Roman Catholic Pope say that about the Roman Catholic Hungarians and the Orthodox Vlachs?

I couldn't find an English or a Hungarian reference for that famous quote and the Romanian reference was added by User:Bonaparte/User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi.

Update: a typical such work is the Transylvania history sponsored by Gheorghe Funar, edited by Anton Dragoescu. In short: removed.

Again: how or why we should trust you anymore and pretend that nothing happened? Squash Racket (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know why should Pope say that, that is not my problem, the important thing is that he did. Ok, i understand that source that was primarly there maybe wasn`t so cler therefore i added 3 other references and i deleted the reference that was. I repead, that user was accused for socketpuppeting not for unreferenced text, that means if he/they pointed to i valid fact that is still valid. The references are still valid because of their authors not because some user pointed out to them. iadrian (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One Romanian historian says that he did (not counting the Funar source of course).

A neutral source would be nice, as the statement is controversial and I don't know that one other guy to what extent was influenced by Ceausescu's nationalist Communism. The publication dates are not very promising. Squash Racket (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your opinion but don`t forget that we already have some sources present at the article that are from Hungarian communist authors. Anyway the 3rd source is not by the same person it is by Ioan Aurel Pop source from 1997. year..iadrian (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Hungarian Communism wasn't nationalist, on the contrary. For now I don't remove it, it is attributed to Romanians. But the quote seems simply unlikely. Squash Racket (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well not really, If you remember, Causescu, the communist leader of Romania, was accused for genocide on his own people. Causescu did more harm to the Romanian people than any enemy in any war to Romania and it`s society. Every communism was nationalistic, some more, some less, but the point is that they were. Quote has 3 valid references and i don`t see any reason why should`t be there in the text. If it would be only one then it would be "shaky". iadrian (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Romania had a national Communist system, Hungary did not. That simple. I don't remove it until I don't know the context of it or whether Pius really said that, so we needn't continue this. Squash Racket (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are over-simplifying things, Hungarian historiography has been plagued by nationalism as well. As far as the quotation from Pius II is concerned it is perfectly valid, it's form Cosmographia Pii Papæ in Asiæ et Europæ eleganti descriptione and Maria Holban's study to which the Romanian translation can be traced to is a perfectly valid reference, quoted by Romanian and non-Romanian medievalists. Pius II, like other Italian scholars of the age was fascinated with the resemblance of the Wallachian language to Italian and dedicated a consequent section of the Cosmographia to them. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course you do not rank yourself to those people, who are plagued by that what you are accusing Hungarian historiography of. Such is this case.--Nmate (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And your usefull contribution to the discussion is... ? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)