Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

Subsection

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)

As Galeotto Marzio tells us, Hungarian 'heroic sagas', and love songs were often sung on special occasions in the king's court (King Matthias) alongside the international, 'modern' Burgundian-Flandrian music. Moreover the nobility of Kingdom of Hungary preferred to use its Hungarian vernacular The Renaissance in national contextFakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 23 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.". This statement is even denied by the Magyar historians/anthropologists peer-review. Also this one, quote "Moreover the nobility of Kingdom of Hungary preferred to use its Hungarian vernacular", end of quote, is a backwoodsy nationalist fabrication because there is not a single evidence. Also your suggested bibliography is off context because it's about post-Mohacs era. Let's stick our discussion around history, not around bogus urban legends!FabricioRB (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We have here an article on this subject: [2].If you have reliable sources that counter those percentages please provide them (Iaaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

That article is a total non-sense. Moreover there are not a single evidences to support it, speaking about figures, for one ethnic group or another... For instance, there was not a single census in the Middle Age. By the other hand, how could somebody define a Magyar ethnic group (or Serb, Vlach, etc) per 13th century set of standards? More likely the ethnicity was established per cultural/political medieval standards, confession, burgs-men, tribesmen, social ethnical groups, local communities affiliation, etc. Only archeology could give us some hints, but there is hardly any evidence which could establish some ethnic direction. It is possible to express ethnic identity by ornaments or other such type of subtle hints, but such type of research doesn't exist yet.FabricioRB (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bethlen and Apafi families derive from 12th century, Bathory family from 11th century. Records, documents prove that. I do not understand your statement. And of course, you can check the demographics of Hungary page about demographic process in Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Part of the nobility did not have Hungarian mother tongue in the middle ages, I admit it. Especially Croats (because of the union) and Germans, Serbs, Vlachs, who could get into the nobility during the time. The question is 'How much percent'.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don`t want to participate in illogical disputes but this caught my attention. Fakirbakir, so you are saying that in the Kingdom of Hungary - Slovakians,Romanians, South Slavs (Serbs,Bosniaks,Croatians) are in fact those nations people with Hungarian roots? Even if there was a strong maghiarization policy toward any non-Hungarian in the kingdom and that was (every Non-Hungarian was denied of it`s minority rights), after all a state of Hungarians (where Hungarians actually were a minority), those people, in spite of all that, miraculously, they decided to declare themselves as Slovaks,Romanians,South Slavs or something else (non-Hungarian)? Adrian (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not state that ethnic groups in Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian (Magyar) roots. I do not want a debate about percentages in the population, however I can not disregard that before battle of Mohacs the Hungarian (Magyar) element (both in the nobility and in the population) was much stronger even if I regard the ethnic groups. The calculations are between 60-90% in connection with Hungarian (Magyar) people in the 17th century. It was significant, dissimilar difference as compared to positions of 18th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you could track down Apafi, Bathory or Bethlen families since Triassic period, that doesn't prove anything. Also there is not a single document, record, etc, which would favor your statement. Also "60-90% Magyar people[...]" is a nationalist fabrication, strongly anchored into Magyar popular misbelief. Bibliography (including Pecs anthropology school) states that Magyar puszta was, in fact, a multiethnic puzzle before the Ottomans. After the Ottoman conquest, the Magyar ethnic group has started to gain momentum against the other ethnic groups due migrations.FabricioRB ([[User talk:|talk]]) 11:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I partly concur with this multiethnic puzzle status. 60-90% of the population had Hungarian mother tongue, not Magyar ethnic origin.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The place of this discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demographics_of_Hungary FabricioRB, many of us are circumspect about those percentages, but as long as we don't have a reliable source that opposes the existing ones, we should keep our doubts for ourselves(Iaaasi (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

If there is not a single source (I mean a professional one) that confirms those figures, hence there is not a single source that opposes them. Also these figures have been mentioned on this discussion page, then I'm also expressing my doubts on the same discussion page, not elsewhere.FabricioRB (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is senseless. For example a work under the aegis of Cambridge University Press is non-professional? (Iaaasi (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

First of all, you gotta read the text carefully, then jump into conclusions about what is professionalism/non-professionalism!... George Potter has mentioned about some particular areas (not the whole medieval Kingdom) where the Magyar population has decreased from 90% (15th century) to 40% (18th century). Also you're not qualified for "senseless discussion" or whatever strong statements. Anyway, I'm signing off from the Hunyadi's talk page.Fabricio (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you are right regarding this particular source. My mistake. Sorry if you considered that statement too strong, it was not my intention to offend you (Iaaasi (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Cited[3]:"90 per cent of the total". The "total" means the full population of the medieval kingdom......Fakirbakir (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian origin

I think the theory of the Hungarian origin can be categorized as a Fringe theory (WP:FRINGE). It is present in only a single source, while for example the Romanian descendance is supported by tens of sources (Iaaasi (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

He has three sources about Hungarian origin on his mother's side. I think we could find more source about that.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

True, the ethnicity of the mother is disputed (Hung/Rom) but I am talking about source 17 that presents Hunyadi as being 100% ethnic Hungarian (Iaaasi (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Iaaasi, thank you for inviting me but this is hopeless. Only on Wikipedia John`s ethnicity is "disputed" and as I said before, I will not contribute to this article because the biggest problem here is POV pushing. We have a million to one reference which confirms his Romanian origin(even the ethnicity of his mother) but some editors simply refuse to acknowledge that and use various Wiki "holes" to satisfy their personal agenda(can`t see any other reason for refusal of facts). Iaaasi you should know that, after all , Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this turns out to be another pointless discussion about John Hunyadi`s ethnicity I refuse to participate, as I said, in every encyclopedia, every decent book his Romanian origin is crystal clear, only here it is "disputed"... Since I can`t be constructive here, I am sorry, but I decline your invitation to this discussion. Adrian (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, I share your POV, but I hope that the Hungarian users invited by me to the discussion will be reasonable and will accept this (Iaaasi (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Romania only existed since 1859 - how can he have been Romanian ? Yes he may have been Wallacian, but he was definately NOT Romanian. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Romanian" refers to ethnicity, not to nationality/citizenship (Iaaasi (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Chaosdruid, If Romania did`t existed as a country back then, that doesn`t mean that Romanians(people, ethnicity) also did`t existed. Adrian (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it sort of does doesn't it - they were Wallachians. Can you provide me with a ref that shows the Romanian people before 1521?

So the first mentions of Român/Rumân are in the 16th century and Hunyadi lived in the 15th century.

We also have problems with the cites used for proving he was Romanian.

"The Hunyadi family were a noble family in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, of Romanian origin" has three refs [9][10][11]:

• [9] Encyclopædia Britannica "Janos Hunyadi" - This ref does not say he was Romanian - it clearly states he was Hungarian and so cannot be used.
• [10] [4] Ronald D. Bachman, ed. Romania: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989 - This source uses the phras Romanian to talk about things such as "many Romanians emigrated from Transylvania" when it is talking about events in 1288 and is applying the term Romanian retrospectively. It should not be used as a source as it does not state when the term Romanian should be used from. Using this source you could state that Romania existed since 97 AD, 200AD, 800 AD, or even 1211 AD as all these dates have the term Romanian attached. The source itself says "No written or architectural evidence bears witness to the presence of "proto-Romanians" the lands north of the Danube during the millennium after Rome's withdrawal from Dacia. This fact has fueled a centuries-long feud between Romanian and Hungarian historians over Transylvania"
• [11] {{cite book | author = Stoianovich, Traian | authorlink = | editor = | others = | title = The Balkans Since 1453 | edition = | language = | publisher = C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd | location = | year = 2000 | origyear = | page =53 | isbn = 1-85065-551-0 | oclc = | doi = | url =http://books.google.ro/books?id=xcp7OXQE0FMC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22white+knight+of+wallachia%22&source=bl&ots=ZMFi3V9rqD&sig=GXAnsPJU_DiGNCTBeV2CczjtrhU#v=snippet&q=%22john%20hunyadi%20was%20a%20rumanian%22&f=false | quote=John Hunyadi was a Rumanian who had entered the service of Hungary and fought with such success against the Turks that he became a Hungarian national hero|accessdate = }} - This one does not say when Romanians first became known as this. It also talks retrospectively about Romanian this and that. It only states that "The Rumanians were able to establish to semi-independant states, Wallachia and Moldovia, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, repsectively." I would say that this is the only source out of the three that can be used, though I would say that there is little evidence provided to back this up in the book. It covers topics from 20AD to the 17th century with little detail or reference.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There are references in the article for that information: source 10, source 11...(Iaaasi (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Chaosdruid I don`t think that you are making the difference of being of one ethnicity and belonging to other culture. Such as

* Encyclopædia Britannica "Janos Hunyadi" " He was a Hungarian general of Romanian descent" - Hungarian because he was in the army of Hungary and served the interests of Hungary and being of other ethnicity by birth. Just because he was a Hungarian general, that doesn`t mean that he was of Hungarian ethnicity also. If you check the article and the talk page archive you can notice that there was a lot of discussion on this subject.

* If you take it like that, many nations did`t existed until the creation of the same name state.

* "Rumanians" is an exonym for Romanians..

I don`t really understand your POV here. In this article, for all the sensetive data as this one there is a valid reference to support it. Adrian (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added 2 more sources. Now there are 4 valid references(Iaaasi (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

It makes no difference - the ref is used to suport the statement "he was Romanian" - in fact the ref does not state Romanian anywhere and so cannot be used. (I can see you now understand this point.)

Correct, many nations did not exist. Only the ethnic groups existed prior to the nation. Moldovians are also of Român descent, as per ref [11], yet they now have a separate country.

I know that "Rumanians" is an exonym for Romanians - what is your point on that?

Never accuse me of a non-neutral point of view "On Wikipedia, POV refers to the policy on Neutral point of view (NPOV)". You had better come up with some evidence of that. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this debate does not make sense. Vlach means Romanian. For instance, Hungarians were called 'Turks', 'Magyars', 'Huns' in the middle ages and everybody uses this form 'Hungarian' in connection with Magyars in middle ages.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I did`t said that you was not neutral or anything similar (I am sorry if you understood it like that), just that I don`t understand your POV per reasons I already stated in my previous comment. Adrian (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To say POV implies that the person is not NPOV - NPOV is neutral and POV means pushing a point of view.

It would be better to say "I do not understand what you are saying"

I am saying that there is a battle here between Hungarian and Romanian POV editors which needs to be stopped. I am a neutral editor who is trying to get the article to a respectable level of authenticity. I do not care whether he was Hungarian or Romanaian, my personal view is that he was both, but that the statemenets made by both sides and the references used have to be kept in an acceptable state. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I did`t know that nor did I meant it like that. When I think that someone doesn`t respect the NPOV I simply use the NPOV link. I will be more careful with this in the future. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, it is good that we finally have a neutral participant at this discussion. I personally think that the origins section should be rewritten, because we have there some possible Fringe theories (Iaaasi (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Dear Chaosdruid, it is not a battle. I can accept easily if somebody wants to use the 'Romanian' word instead of Vlach. Hunyadi had Romanian or Vlach origin according to the sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem Iadrian :¬)

That is not the issue Fakir - we are talking about the battles over nationality - is he Romanian or is he Hungarian.

However we now have Iaaasi adding half a sentence to prove that he was Romanian ! He leaves out the last half:

"it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace"

I think either the whole sentence or none should be used lol Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The debate is not about nationality. It is about origin.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No - the debate is about people changing Hungarian to Romanian and Romanian to Hungarian.

What we can say is that he was born in Wallachia which was then in Hungary.

Whether he was of Român descent is the part which is more difficult to prove - He is descended from Şerb who was not originally from Wallachia or Moldavia and so appears to have not been Român. Şerb, his grandmother or mother may have been Român so I suggest people concentrate on trying to find those references which may brign more clarity to the matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to mention, that the name "Vajk", is an old hungarian name. The first hungarian kings name (Stephan I.) originally was also Vajk. So I think is not so obvious Hunyadi's ancestry. Szabi237 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Magos, Magas, Mogos

These three words have same meaning in Hungarian. "Tall" / "High". Magas is the 'literary' variation.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Moreover Magos also means "seedy" in Hungarian.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

dates / noon bell

First of all I have to say, that I'm not a historian. Still, when I was working on this text for a different purpose, I found an obvious mistake in this article. It says... 'He accompanied the monarch to Frankfurt in Sigismund's quest for the Imperial crown in 1410, took an active part in the Hussite Wars in 1420, and in 1437 was sent south to successfully raise the Turkish siege of Semendria...', but the introduction claims that Hunyadi was born in 1407 (hungarian wiki says 1405) only. The german wiki says Hunyadi was born in 138x - then 1410 could be correct, although I doubt he was born in the 14th century already. If 1405 or 1407 is correct, Hunyadi would have been 3 or 5 years old when 'accompaniyng the monarcg' and was 13 or 15 years old at the time of the Hussite Wars. Don't know if people joined the army at this age back then. Considering the date of birth is correct, 1410 is either incorrect or not of importance as Hunyadi couldn't have take part actively. Not sure about the Hussite Wars. EDIT: Hungarian Wikipedia suggests that he entered the army of Sigismund in 1430 only and participated in the Hussite war after that. Makes sense to me. Still no explanation for the events in 1410.

Besides of this, I heard that the story about the noon bell is partly a legend. If I remember correctly, the pope was informed about the victory after he introduced the noon bell although the victory itself took place in time. It could still be that the pope attributed the whole thing to Hunyadi afterwards, so the story would be correct in some ways. I've got this from an hungarian tv show. Maybe someone could find out what's true? 91.14.133.7 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Romanian or Serbian name part

I see that there is again a problem for no apparent reason - If we would just talk I don`t think there would be any problems at all. This is my edit, I just forgot to log in [5]. Since this is a VERY sensitive article there should be no important additions without any solid references to support that claim, as in this case lacks that reference. I see that there is a doubt that Iassiii or whoever put citation needed tags, even if it is Iassiiii, and he is banned, that doesn`t mean that his every edit is wrong. Also I see that some users are "hunting" his sock puppets while ignoring others... Anyway, I have deleted this unsourced addition by the IP editor and if anyone want to add this info I would like to ask him to provide a solid reference for this claim. As I said in the edit summary, Slavic and Latin names don`t have a lot in common... Greetings to everybody. Adrian (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Groom of Ali Beg

Unresolved

Some sources contain information that Hunyadi was in service of Đurađ Branković and Ali Beg from whom he fled and became intimate of the king of Hungary.

Sources and quotations:

• Held, Joseph (1985). Hunyadi: legend and reality. East European Monographs. p. 9. ISBN 9780880330701. Retrieved 12 June 2011. Đurađ Branković, whom Hunyadi served in one of his Hungarian fortresess...Chalcocondylas mentioned a rumor that Hunyadi may have served the Ottoman Ali, son of Evrenos, as a groom, {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
• Imber, Colin (2006), The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45, Ashgate Publishing, ISBN 9780754601449, There was infidel called Yanko who had been in the following of Ali Bey son of Evrenos and so he knew all the Turks tricks. He fled from Ali bey and became intimate of the king of Hungary

I propose to add above mentioned sentence to the article, at the beginning of the Raise of the General section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"White Knight of Wallachia" vs. "White Knight of Hungary"

The nickname "White Knight of Hungary" hasn't enough coverage to be mentioned in the article. There are only 5 Google Books results where it is cited ([6]) while the nickname "White Knight of Wallachia" is used 137 times [7] on Google Books. It is not correct to give equal weight to them (188.24.34.61 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

János Hunyadi

All other (real) printed encyclopedias in the world call him as János Hunyadi, only wikipedia uses his anglicised "John" Hunyadi name. Isn't it strange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.64 (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dan II

Here it is mentioned that he was betrayed at 2nd battle of Kosovo by Dan II, but the battle was in 1448, and Dan died in 1431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.18.66 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mit csináltunk?

(Sorry, I think this is for Hungarian editors. It would be strange to write in English. Moreover, I am half-dead from fatigue.) Biztosak vagyunk abban, hogy életének legfontosabb része az ő, az édesapja vagy az édesanyja származása volt? Úgy gondoljuk, hogy bárki is hajlandó elolvasni ezt a cikket, ha nem teljesen fanatikus? Nem kellemetlen, hogy az egyik legnagyobb nemzeti hősünkről szóló cikk ilyen állapotban van? Nem kellene az egészet előlről elkezdeni? Nem kellene tudomásul venni azt a tényt, amelyet a kortársai mind tudtak, ahelyett, hogy mindenféle, enyhén szólva is zavaros teóriákat írnánk le? Ha ragaszkodunk a soha, senki által nem bizonyított kun, tatár, stb eredet emlegetéséhez, akkor legalább dugjuk el a családjáról szóló cikkben, mégsem annyira ciki. Itt elegendő lenne arra utalni, hogy vannak más nézetek is, mint amit ő és a fia környezete tudott a család származásáról. . Borsoka (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the lead

The following is only a proposal for the lead. I think there is no need to inline citation for the following sentences. I would highly appreciate any contribution. Thanks in advance. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"John Hunyadi (Croatian: Janko Hunjadi, Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Latin: Ioannes Corvinus or de Hunyad, Romanian: Iancu or Ioan de Hunedoara, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko, and Slovak: Ján Huňady) (c. 1407–11 August 1456), was a principal military and political figure in Central and Southeastern Europe in the middle of the 15th century. Scion of a noble family of Wallachian origin, he mastered his military skills on the southern borderlands exposed to Ottoman attacks of the Kingdom of Hungary. Appointed voivode of Transylvania and head of a number of southern counties, he assumed responsibility for the defense of the frontiers in 1441.

Hunyadi adopted the Hussite method of using wagons for military purposes. He employed professional soldiers, but neither did he refrain from mobilizing local peasantry against invaders. These innovations contributed to his earliest successes against Ottoman troops plundering the marches of the kingdom in the early 1440s. Although defeated in the battle of Varna in 1444 and in the second battle of Kosovo in 1448, his "long campaign" across the Balkan Mountains at the turn of 1443 and 1444 and his defense of Nándorfehérvár/Belgrade in 1456 against the Ottoman troops established his fame as a most talented general of his age. In Hungary, tradition still helds that bells of Catholic churches are rung at noon to commemorate the latter victory, although the pope had ordered this in advance, in order to encourage the soldiers fighting for Christendom.

John Hunyadi was also an eminent stateman of his age. He actively took part in the civil war between the partisans of Wladislas I and Ladislaus V, two claimants to the throne of Hungary in the early 1440s, on behalf on the former. Popular among the lesser nobility, the Diet of Hungary appointed him, in 1445, as one of the seven "captains of the realm" responsible for the administration of state affairs until the minor Ladislaus V, by that time unanimously accepted as king, came of age. The Diet of next year went even further by electing Hunyadi sole regent with the title governor. When resigned from this office in 1452, the sovereign awarded him with the first hereditary title "(perpetuus comes Bistriciensis)" in the Kingdom of Hungary. Furthermore, Hunyadi who had by that time became the wealthiest landowner in the kingdom preserved his influence in the Diets up until his death.

This Athleta Christi ("Christ's Champion"), as Pope Pius II referred to him, died some three weeks after his triumph at Nándorfehérvár. He fall victim to an epidemic that had broke out in the crusaders' camp. However, the memory of his defeat of the imperial troops hindered the Ottomans from invading the Kingdom of Hungary for more than 60 years. His fame was a decisive factor in the election of his son, Matthias Corvinus king by the Diet of 1457. Hunyadi is still a popular historic figure, often considered as their own hero, among Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and other nations of the region."

Your version is clearly better than the current one. I suggest only one change: John Hunyadi (Croatian: Janko Hunjadi, Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Latin: Ioannes Corvinus or de Hunyad, Romanian: Iancu or Ioan de Hunedoara, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko, and Slovak: Ján Huňady) (c. 1407–11 August 1456), was a Hungarian principal military and political figure in Central and Southeastern Europe in the middle of the 15th century.

--Norden1990 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I can accept your version. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the "Family" part

For the part describing his father's origins I'd suggest the following text. Of course, each sentence should be properly sourced. Borsoka (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Further information: Hunyadi family

"John Hunyadi was born in a noble family of Wallachian origin in the Kingdom of Hungary. Both Hunyadi and his father, Voyk were referred to or nicknamed as "the Vlach" in 15th-century documents. Even so, it is not impossible that the family was of Cuman, Hungarian, Serbian or Tatar origin (as it has time to time been suggested), or the family might have owned ancestral lands in the Hațeg/Hátszeg region (Hațeg, Romania) of Hunyad County, instead of arriving from the nearby Principality of Wallachia. The first certain record of the family is from 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary granted to Romanian Voicu/Voyk Hunyad Castle and the lands pertaining to it."

I have minor suggestions. I will copy your version with minor corrections in bold and explain then.

"John Hunyadi was born in a noble family of Romanian origin in the Kingdom of Hungary. Both Hunyadi and his father, Voyk were referred to or nicknamed as "the Vlach" in 15th-century documents. According to some sources there are indications of a possible Cuman, Hungarian, Serbian or Tatar origin (as it has time to time been suggested), or the family might have owned ancestral lands in the Hátszeg region (Hațeg, Romania) of Hunyad County, instead of arriving from the nearby Principality of Wallachia. The first certain record of the family is from 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary granted Voyk Hunyad Castle and the lands pertaining to it."

Explanation:

- Romanian and not Wallachian because the link of the Wallachian goes to the article Vlachs - 1 and that article is describing all Eastern Romance groups (not only Romanians). As many sources instead use the simple "Romanian" also. It is creating an artificial separation between denominations "Wallachian" and "Romanian" as 2 separate groups. It would be the same as claiming that "Magyars" and "Hungarians" are 2 separate groups.. Another example is about Iancu (John) himself, only one source uses the "Wallachian" denomination and other 9 sources simply uses the "Romanian" denomination. Also it is currently in the article According to other options, John Hunyadi came from a modest Romanian noble family from Hațeg.[27].

- According to some sources there are indications of a possible - It sounds better to me personally.

- Hațeg - clickable as per other examples on wikipedia.

Also I don`t understand what portion of the text would this part replace? And what part of the article would exactly be changed? Adrian (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, for yor message. Personally, I would accept the "Romanian" expression, but the "According to some sources there are indications of a possible" expression is too much for me. What about a more radical step? "John Hunyadi was born in a noble family in the Kingdom of Hungary. His family was most probably of Romanian stock, since both Hunyadi and his father, Voyk were referred to or nicknamed as "the Vlach" in 15th-century documents. The first certain record of the family is from 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary granted Voyk Hunyad Castle and the lands pertaining to it." In lack of documentary evidence, the Hațeg theory is as feeble as the theories on their Cuman, Hungarian, Serbian or Tatar origin. I suggest, that these three sentences should cover all information on his father and on his father's family in t h i s a r t i c l e. Editors, who would like to present less substantiated theories (including his Hungarian, etc origin, or the Hateg theory) or would like to etymologize the names of John Hunyadi's brothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and other relatives, could do this in the article on the Hunyadi family. My proposal is based on the assumption that the article in its present state is a shame for all us: around 30% of it is dealing with the family, not with this eminent military leader. The above suggested three sentences could be followed by a sentence on his mother (but it is the next step, I think we could return to it when the case of his father is solved). Borsoka (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I support this changes and hope that this will improve this article. There is very little about his military campaigns... Adrian (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I do not completely agree.

1. The current variant that uses the expression "according to the majority of sources" seems more correct. "Most probably" looks like original synthesis (WP:SYN) because it expresses a personal conclusion based on the number of sources that promote this theory. Also "it is not impossible" is not the best formula. "There are also authors suggesting a possible ..." is more adequate.

2. Why is Wikipedia:Please clarify tag needed for 15th century sources? There is already a source [8] that supports the claim.

3. There are no sources in the current version of the article supporting Hungarian ethnicity. Why did you include that in the revised version? Gigibec (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Taking into account the above suggestion, I tried to make a new version. Preliminary remark: (1) "according to the majority of sources" - who have counted them all? which reliable source contains the results of this countin? :) Sorry, but it looks like OR. (2) Yes, there is a reliable source. However, I have several times experienced that even reliable sources use weasel words ("there are lots of documents..."), therefore I think some documents should explicitly mentioned, considering the sensitivity of the issue. (3) Sorry, I do not understand your third remark. In the last version, there is no reference to his Hungarian nationality. (Otherwise, the current version contains references to this claim, but the sources used to substantiate it are either dated or unreliable.). So, the next suggested version is the following: "John Hunyadi was born in a noble family in the Kingdom of Hungary. Both Hunyadi and his father, Voyk were referred to or nicknamed as "Vlach" in 15th-century documents, which suggests that his family was of Romanian stock. The first certain record of the family is from 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary granted Voyk Hunyad Castle and the lands pertaining to it." Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(1) We can use then "according to the mainstream theory" or something like this (from my own research through online sources, it seems that most of the historians adhere to it). (2) Some examples can be the document already mentioned in the article "A document describing a loan agreement of 1.200 gold florins" (Molnar, Miklos : A Concise History of Hungary. p. 61), or Johannes de Thurocz "Herois nostratis pater fuit Voik, Valachus, filius Serbe" or Aeneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II): "Huniades, – Dacus hic (nunc Valachos appellant) natione fuit, haud claro genere natus, sed factis per arma clarissimus" or Ludovik Crijević Tuberon (Ludovicus Tubero): "Hic autem rex (Mathias) paterno genere Geta erat. Graeca voce Moro vlachus (niger Olahus)“" or the act of donation 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” or Bonfini [9]. Also "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" (see Legacy section of the article). But I don't think we need to go to primary sources level. we should trust the (reliable) secondary sources (3) Sorry, you are right about the Hungarian ethnicity issue. I was not looking at the last version version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigibec (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. (1) Sorry, I still do not understand why we should insist on expression like "according to mainstream" or "majority of sources" - these are really feeble and subjective categories, especially in hitory. (2) Glossa glossarum glossas - unfortunatelly historians (being human beings) tend to repeat sentences from scholarly books which themselves had been based on academic works written on the basis of a terciary source - therefore, at the end of the day nobody knows why is stated something. Therefore, especially in sensitive cases, I think the best solution is avoiding weasel words such "there are many documents", "it is well known from written sources", "mainstream historians are convinced that". So my next suggestion is the following: "John Hunyadi was born in a noble family in the Kingdom of Hungary. Aeneas Sylvius, Johannes de Turocz and other 15th-century scholars either referred to both Hunyadi and his father, Voyk as "Vlachs" or used the "Vlach" nickname to them, which suggests that the Hunyadi family was of Romanian stock. The first certain record of the family is from 1409 when King Sigismund of Hungary granted Voyk Hunyad Castle and the lands pertaining to it." Some copyedit still needed. Borsoka (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, such weasel words as "majority of sources" should indeed be avoided, since they are unsupported attributions. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

I think the theory of Tatar-Cuman ancestry should not be removed. We do have MTA (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) source about it. See:

We should not ignore other options. Other articles also discuss alternative theories (e.g.Hont-Pázmány). Fakirbakir (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I highly respect the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but in this specific case I have some concerns about the validity of the argumentation. Its summary is the following: (Vayk=Bayk) + (Bayk is a Turkic name) + (Tatars and Cumans are Turkic peoples) = Vayk's family is of Tatar-Cuman origin. Are we sure that we would like to present it? Actually, what does "Tatar-Cuman" mean? Why de we not analyze his mother's name, as well? And what about his own name, John? I suggest that the above argumentation from the early 1980s (if we do not want to avoid it) should be presented in the Hunyadi family article. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is just a theory, another possibility. There are too many things to think about (Cumania/Wallachia, Vlach/Turkic names, Knyaz/Vlach (Cuman) nobility etc..). Yes, we have primary source about Hunyadi's ancestry, however I think Bonfini did not know too much about Turkic names or history of Wallachia/Cumania. Unfortunately, history is sometimes just speculation. Sorbe or Vojk might have been Vlachs bearing names of Turkic origin or they were simply of Cuman extractions. The fact about Hunyadis' ancestry is that they came from total obscurity. The Hunyadi family was likely a Romanian/Cuman/Slavic/Hungarian "mix" in my opinion (I am just joking). Fakirbakir (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree all of your above point. The same is true for every individuals. However, for some reasons, his contemporaries (both enemies and friends) emphasized his Romanian origin: that suggests that this was a most important element of the "mixture" named János Hunyadi. Otherwise, I really think that theoretizing of an individual's ethnic origin based on his/her name is rather speculative: naming many times depends on trends. Yes, noblemen in Wallachia preferred to use names of (most probably) Turkic origin, which implies (but does not prove) that many of them were of Cuman or of Tatar (not Cuman-Tatar) stock. However, it does not prove that each Wallachian boyar descended from a Cuman chieftain (or warrior, if you want). Furthermore, there is no information on the ladies among Hunyadi's ancestors. Do we need to add that "among his ancestors there were p o s s i b l y Cumans, Tatars, Hungarians, Serbians, Bulgarians and many other peoples of Central and Southeastern Europe", when contemporaries were not interested in those ancestors? For instance, Stephen Báthory surely (not only possibly) came from a clan of German origin, but nobody thinks that it is important, because his contemporaries emphasized his "Hungarianess". I think the same approach is the best in the case of Hunyadi. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Archiving nationalistic rant

Nationalistic rant

Romanian nationalism

Hyniadi is Hungarian king just becaus country like Romania never existed up until the 19th century. The success in the 2 world wars and the annexed huge new territories made them think they are descendants of heroes, towns, counties. So called Romaninans use to think that even Moldavia is Romanian country and they try to annex it peacefully even today. They say that Silistar, Dobritch and Vidin are part of their Nationalist idea, Karvuna is Romanian town and Krakra is Romanian voevod. They wont ever decline their versions because every newborn country needs such nationalism. Romania is the old version of FYROM ( Macedonia), they just steal whats not theirs. Evan their name says it - Roma + nia = New Roma ( The new gypsies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Corvin legend

I know that the legend exists, but it is hard to understand now. For example, why was the staying alive of the bird a miracle if they wanted to kill him - are we on the bird's side? Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Father's name

Article:
"Vojk (or Vajk/Vayk) — Hunyadi's father
Documents:
"Voik aulae suae militi, ac per eum Magas et Radul carnalibus" - 1409 diploma (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Voik+aulae+suae+militi%2C+ac+per+eum+Magas+et+Radul+carnalibus%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1o)
"Egregius JOHANNES dictus OLAH, filum condam Woyk de Hunyad aule nostre miles" (1435 charter) (fore more information look for chapter A HUNYADIAK SZÁRMAZÁSA ÉS MÁTYÁS SZÜLETÉSI ÉVE here http://mek.oszk.hu/05700/05736/html/01.htm)

Where are Vojk (or Vajk/Vayk)?

• Personally, I would delete the "Vajk" version, even it is based on Cambride History. It is totally anachronistic and makes an artificial connection between the late 10th-century pagan name of the future Saint Stephen I of Hungary and the late 14th-century name of Hunyadi's father. However, I think this is a sensitive issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also a source that supports this version of the name in Vajk (given name) article: http://web.axelero.hu/kesz/jel/01_12/hunyadiak.htm. It would be interesting to know on what documents it is based on Batinho (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The source seems to be unreliable: it deals with Greek mithology and the origin of the Hungarian word for Christmas in connection with Hunyadi's origin. A fascinating approach. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note: it is not our role to decide which scientific theories are closer to the "truth", but to present those which are supported by a significant portion of reliable sources. The claim that his father's name was "Vajk" is mentioned by many reliable sources, such as: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Hungarian" Vajk came from Turkic. The "Wallachian" Wayk has the same Turkic roots (according to linguists). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not denied that there are reliable sources containing the Vajk form (it is rather pity, because nothing substantiate it, but a historian, probably with hangover, put it into writing some hundred years ago, and it will follow us until the end of world). Neither have I denied that the Voyk or Vajk name is of Turkic origin. However, I do not understand what is the relevance of this information in an article on John Hunyadi. Do we want to add this information on each WP article dealing with an individual: "Jóska was a famous Martian professor of etymology. His possible father was named Valdemar whose name is of Scandinavian origin." I would really enjoy. However, in order to avoid sexism, we should also add, that his mother was Dolores, which is a Spanish name. Actually, we should begin with the person's own name: Jóska, the famous Martian professor of etymology with a name of Jewish origin. Furthermore, we should also analize the surnames of at least the parents. At the end of the day we could create a huge pool of relevant information on famous personalities. Borsoka (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe (it is just a personal thought) Vajk is the later Hungarian spelling, just like Voicu is the Romanian one. Similarly. Joannes / Ioanis / Johannis are original variants of Hunyadi's name in medieval documents, while János & Ioan are later Magyar & Rumanian spellings

Or it can be a mispelling of the Hungarians. I found books where the name of the father is altered even in medieval documents. E.g:

original (real) name in the document: "tenore presentium significamus, quibus expedit universis, quod nos consideratis fidelitatibus et fidelium servitiorum preclaris meritis Woyk filii Serbe aule nostre militis per ipsum nostre Maiestati." http://mek.oszk.hu/05700/05736/html/01.htm

altered name: "Johannes dictus Oláh filius Vajk l de Hunyad filii Serbe" http://www.google.com/search?q=johannes+dictus+olah+%22filii+SErbe%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 (look also at á which does not exist in Latin)

altered name: "Egregius Johannes dictus Olâh, filius condam Vajk de Hunyad" http://books.google.com/books?id=BXIvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=johannes+dictus+olah+condam&source=bl&ots=NTgNHhRPEq&sig=NGJOjExnDaRNnru8vBCw5ny7XXc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8EFAUIb_CMjlqgHWzYCIBg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=johannes%20dictus%20olah%20condam&f=false Gigibec (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this nice pool of information on János Hunyadi's father could be presented either in the Hunyadi family article or a separate article dedicated to him. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in this question. In case we provide his father's name, we should present all possible variants that are used by considerable number of scientific sources. We should first provide the version which is the most widely used (per WP:COMMONNAME), but then the other variants should also be given between brackets. Again, we are not doing research here (see WP:NOR), it is irrelevant what we think about the given information (WP:NPOV), as long as they are supported by significant number (cf., WP:FRINGE) of reliable and verifiable sources. Hence, we should provide all variants which are widely used. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I enjoyed reading your etymological-ethnical example, it's fun, and you are right that *we* should not deduce anything from the forms and histories of the names (as it would be original research). On the other hand, it misses the point, as nobody said that we should deduce something about his father's ethnicity from his name. The point is to present the widespread versions and that's it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone recognize the problem with the birthdate?

According to the article, Hunyadi was born in 1407, but later in the text, it's said that "He accompanied the monarch to Frankfurt in Sigismund's quest for the Imperial crown in 1410, took an active part in the Hussite Wars in 1420...". How could have Hunyadi accompanied Sigismund in 1410 when he was only 3 years old? I mean, he theoretically could, but I doubt it would have any historical importance. Also, the participation in the Hussite Wars seems strange as he would have been only 13 years old at that time. The german article mentions a second possible birthdate (1387), source: ucalgary.ca, Janos Hunyadi Champion of Hungary or Saviour of Europe? (I think there's also a statue of Hunyadi in Szentgotthárd mentioning that year)79.244.34.163 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Romanian geographical names

The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.10.226 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Romanian geographical names have to be respected. If we introduce Hungarian or Turkic names of towns or rivers nobody understand where the places are today on the map. Please enter other names after local legal name. Transilvania is a Romanian territory and all geographical names must be written according to real Romanian status. Tomorrow a Russian will ask Russian names because they occupied Transilvania between 1944-1946 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.226 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a simple "rule" we respect on Wikipedia about nameplaces. Whoever ruled that territory at the time we use the name that was official to that government/ruler/whatever. Ex: We use Romanian names after the Treaty of Trianon because Romania controlled that territory. Before that we use German or Hungarian names (depends) because it was a part of Kingdom of Hungary or Austrian Empire. If we use historical names we can add in parentheses the official name that is used today, ex: Temesvar (today Timisoara) and etc. I suggest following this practice.Adrian (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please use only international rules. See all Hungarian pages about Slovacia, Serbia, Bulgaria etc. All geographical names must be introduced in this order: local national name and then other names according to history or other criteria. Do not use personal rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.226 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a personal rule, I am a wikipedian for a couple of years and have read a lot of historical articles on every one of them the practice I have mentioned is respected. Tako a look for yourself, read the article History of Transylvania, Vojvodina, Slovakia...Adrian (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a rule about this, WP:PLACE - [17]. Adrian (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian names is normally related to John Hunyadi (he was really János not John. He now was English!). Romanian names wtih this article a horrible anachronism. - Csurla (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary documents were written in Latin, and his name appeared as Joannis/ Joannes / Ioannes / Johannes. János started being used later by Hungarian historiography 79.117.139.87 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, try to reach consensus here before you edit the article. Let's see your editing. You changed Gyulafehérvár to Alba Iulia. Why do you want to use the modern Romanian form? Did you know that originally the old Romanian name of the town was "Belgrad" (Bălgrad) from the Slavic "white castle"? Moreover the medieval Latin name of it was "Alba Carolina" (and "Apulum" in ancient Roman times). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is keeping nameplaces in context with the period of time we are talking about. WP:PLACE explains it too. As Csurla said, in this case Romanian names are a horrible anachronism. At the time Hungarian names were official and as such it should be used in that context. Maybe we could add in parenthesis Romanian names but Hungarian should be primary.Adrian (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 \\\\\\\\do not magyarise latin names ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.35 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Magyar names are horrible for all latinofons.

Nobody is "magyarising" any latin names, they were generally created/translated from the original Hungarian name, later most of the cases the foreign non-latin names were also phonetically transcripted from them, would you call these today official names "horrible" because of their Hungarian charachter? Mind the words of the others before and after, they are fully right. Any comparison to the "Russian Occupation 44-46" is insane, since the temporary Soviet administration introduced would not mean any legal term to fully incorporate or rule the territory, also Russia has no relevant historical ties to the region. Many cases the language of administration or the nationality of the ruler is different, but because of the objective purposes the others mentioned here it can be judged easily which names are valid to be use. I.e. I often meet the phenomenon on some Romanian/Serbian articles they erase any original Hungarian names claiming the rule of the Austrian Empire, despite the Austrian Empire had the right on i.e. Royal Hungary/Principality of Transylvania just because of the right on the Hungarian Crown, meanwhile the administration/population remained Hungarian, but they don't claim French official names when Kingdom Of Hungary was ruled by the Anjou house or any German names from the times of Albert Habsburg - 1437-1439 - (Albert II of Germany).KIENGIR (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not Magyarise Latin names !

The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.17.35 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you please refer to reliable sources written in English which use the Latin form? Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous user, the language of administration was Latin like everywhere else in Europe in the Middle Ages and because of this the usually non-Latin settlement names got Latinized. Moreover this page has to be mainly in Hungarian context because the article deals mainly with history of medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Only the official WRITTEN language was latin, similar to all medieval Catholic countries. The official spoken language was Hungarian, due t the fact that only few higher educated medieval clergymen could speak latin.--Rabenwappen (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Könyörgöm

Sorry, but I think this is for editors who can understand the Hungarian language. Miért olyan fontos, hogy az öregapja kun volt vagy besenyő vagy hottentotta? Ráadásul ezt semmi nem bizonyítja, ugyanis (a nyilvánvalóan másnapos, vagy egyéb bódító szer hatása alatt álló) történészeink érvelése a következő: (1) Hunyadi (VALÓSZÍNŰLEG) havasalföldi eredetű családból származik (2) Havasalföldön sok olyan bojár volt, akinek (VALÓSZÍNŰLEG) kun eredetű a neve (3) A kun eredetű név (VALÓSZÍNŰLEG) kun eredetet sugall (4) A valószínűleg havasalföldi származású Hunyadi őseinek lehet, hogy kun neve volt, ezért előfordulhat, hogy kun eredetű a család. Szerintetek, ezek szerint, Báthory Istvánnál hangsúlyozni kellene, hogy egy elmagyarosodott német családból származó lengyel király? Az ő családjának nemzetsége (Gut-Keled nem) esetében ugyanis az összes magyar krónika kijelenti, hogy német eredetű. Esetleg Nagy Lajosnál mondhatnánk, hogy egy eredetileg frank eredetű, de elfranciásodott család Dél-Olaszországban letelepedett ágából származó magyar uralkodó, akinek felmenői között volt egy csomó szláv, görög, kun, sőt még angolszász, skandináv és még ki tudja mi, csak magyar nem nagyon. Egyszerűen nevetséges. Ha nagyon ragaszkodunk ezekhez a marhaságokhoz, akkor írjuk le a családjáról szóló cikkben, ott mégsem olyan vérciki. Vagy mondjuk azt, hogy XY magyar történész azt állítja, hogy kun eredetű. Elnézést az éles hangnemért, de egyszerűen felmegy az agyvizem attól, hogy az egyik legnagyobb nemzeti hősünkről szóló cikknek a lényege, hogy lehet, hogy kun volt. Van valaki, aki tényleg azt gondolja, hogy ez fontosabb, mint amit az összes kortárs állított róla? Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha megnézed a laptörténetet, a részemről sem volt szó többről; a Family szekcióban említést tettem arról, hogy vannak olyan elméletek, amelyek szerint ő havasalföldi kun (és nem román) családból származott. Szerintem egy sort igenis megér ez a dolog, a megfelelő forrásokkal ellátva (ha megnézed, akadémiai forrásokról van szó, többek között Glatz művéről). Az mind szép, amit írtál, de amíg a bevezetőben az van kihangsúlyozva, hogy Hunyadi román származású, addig nem hiszem, hogy ez az egy sor annyira zavaró tényező lehetne. Ugyanúgy meg lehet(ne) említeni azt a teóriát, amely Hunyadiról, mint Zsigmond fattyú fiáról szól, és amiről több korabeli forrás is beszámol. Tehát, amíg a Family bekezdésben lett megemlítve ez a kun-teória, addig, szerintem, semmilyen probléma nem áll fenn. Mert nem úgy kezdődik a cikk, hogy John Hunyadi was leading Hungarian military and political figure of Cumanian-origin from Wallachia... --Norden1990 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Egyetertek Norden1990-el. A kedves sockpuppet master editorok meg a csillagokat is lehazudnak az egrol, csak nehogy valami turpissag kideruljon, vagy egyaltalan megemlitodjon dedelgetett roman hosukrol. Egy fel mondatot megerdemelne az info az "origin" sectionban hiszen szakavatott MTA torteneszek irnak[18] errol az elmeletrol ha reszegek voltak, ha nem (beleertve Glatzot is). Ki tudna jobb infoval szolgalni ha nem a magyar tortenesztarsadalom egy magyar tortenelmi szemelyrol? Tobb akademiai forras foglalkozik ezzel a kerdessel. Ez egy lehetseges hipotezis, nem fringe theory. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hát, ha ez ennyire fontos, csináljátok. Szerintem végtelenül gáz, a magyar történettudomány egyik "leg-K-európaibb" fejezete, amely csak a dáko-román kontinuitáshoz és az északi szomszédok egyre gyarapodó történelméhez hasonlítható. Glatz Ferencről pedig nem szívesen nyilvánítok véleményt: olvassátok el bármely História mellékleteként megjelent tanulmányait, amelyben végtelenül előremutató gondolatait bármiről ki tudta fejteni. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nem kötelező egyetérteni vele, de, azt hiszem, az MTA egykori elnökeként ő mégiscsak releváns forrás. Az az egy sor nem hiszem, hogy felborította a cikk egyensúlyát, a román származásról így is meglehetősen sok szó esik, mindenki megelégedésére. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Részemről, mint említettem, rendben. Igen, Glatz Ferenc az MTA elnöke volt valaha. Ez sok mindent elárul a 90es évek elejéről. :)Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Borsóka, önjelölt caesar-ka. Ez pont olyanoknak szól mint te, akik nem a tárgyilagosságot követik , hanem a bukott szadesz politikáját: http://mno.hu/grund/film-keszul-ban-mor-nagy-sikeru-hunyadi-sorozatabol-1170531 Gondolkozzember (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)