# Talk:Matthias Corvinus

Because this was his name, the latin Corvinus name is a German nickname what English historians simply copied. Hungarian historians use the Matthias/Mátyás Hunyadi name. Corvinus can remain in the beginning of the lead, and Matthias Corvinus can get a redirect to Matthias Hunyadi in the searcher. I don't care how many search results have the Corvinus, it was never his official name, and mostly it was used in Germany after his death... MAybe Matthias have never heard that.--Cumberstone (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:Name: we use the English form most widely used in reliable sources published in English. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Borsoka. In English Wikipedia we use the name by which someone is most commonly known in English, irrespective of how they are known in their own language. LynwoodF (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You forget that it has a high chance that the king have never heard that "Corvinus" nick name. Why is it important how many search results does the Corvinus nickname has, when it is nothing more than a later German created nickname?--Cumberstone (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR: we cannot edit WP based on our assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It is wholly irrelevant whether a person ever knew a nickname by which they are now known. LynwoodF (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
User Borsoka claimed falsely that "wo editors explicitly opposed this changes on the Talk page." which was not true, because this discussion on this talk page was not about the lead of the article, but about the TITLE of the article. Why can't we write the official "Matthias I" name or his real family name: Matthias Hunyadi in the lead? Can you explain that with rational arguments?--Cumberstone (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR: we do not edit article based on our assumptions, but based on academic sources. You want to challange the English forms of his name, so you can only refer to reliable sources published in English. Borsoka (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Take an English Google Books search and you can find tons of books which contain Matthias I or Matthias Hunyadi names too. So it is not a real excuse regarding to the lead section of the article. --Cumberstone (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this discussion ticleabout the name of the article, or is it about including additional information regarding his name in the lead? North8000 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Originally this discussion was about the Title of the article, than User Borsoka arbitrarily (see: The Straw man fallacy) claimed in the note of  the editorial history of the article that the topic was about the lead of the article. He still can't really explain why can't the real family name of the person (born as Matthias Hunyadi) fit/appear in the first line of the lead...--Cumberstone (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not too sure how many people involved in this discussion are native speakers of English, but I can tell you that I am and that in English this personage is most commonly referred to as Matthias Corvinus. Therefore, this name should be used for the title of the article and also at the start of the article. I have tended to agree with Borsoka in previous discussions about this article and I certainly do in this case. LynwoodF (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
However User Borsoka claimed falselly that the voting about the title (the name of the article) was about the lead of the article, and reverted my edit in the first line of the lead. It was a false claim and a false revert. And he could not explain why we cant mention in the first line the real name of that person too? Can't the "Matthias Hunyadi" fit in the first line of the lead? Yes it can.--Cumberstone (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is there, immediately after the two names used in English. LynwoodF (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't found it.--Cumberstone (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Read it again and again. Or use the "search" function for Hunyadi. Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Again: There is no the real English form of his full name "Matthias Hunyadi" in the lead section.--Cumberstone (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you verify that "Matthias Hunyadi" is the real English form of his full name? Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I can confirm that we do not commonly use his family name and that we normally use his byname. However, the article immediately acknowledges that in Hungarian the family name is commonly used. LynwoodF (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abune Mathias which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Does the monastery described here have a name? If so, could you post it at: Pauline monastery? Thanks! --evrik (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Viator slovenicus: we are not here to present all facts that we regard as important. As soon as you present a source verifying that the fact that Cillei and Garay were cousins is important in the article's context according to a single modern historian, I will not revert your edit. Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Daniela Dvorakova, in the passage quoted in the article, discusses Ladislas of Garai's political alliances with the Celje family, explaining the specifics of their family connections; she also goes at great length, in the whole book, to show the centrality of this relation to both houses (the Garai coat-of-arms is even on the back cover of the book, together with the Celje coat-of-arms, and the image of Sigismund of Barbara: a very clear visual representation of this thesis). Peter Štih, in his introduction to the memoirs of Helene Kottanner in Slovene (Peter Štih, "Ulrik II. Celjski in Ladislav Posmrtni ali Celjski grofje v ringu visoke politike" /Ulrich II. of Cilli and Ladislas the Posthumous/, in Peter Štih and Igor Grdina, eds., Spomini Helene Kottanner, Ljubljana 1999, pp. 15-45) also starts with explaining Ulrich's family relations to various Hungarian-Croatian magnate families (Frankopans, Garais, of course the ruling Luxembourgs) before proceeding to analyze the various phases of their political relations. Obviously, in Medieval politics, family relations are not trivia, but part of the power politics. In order to grasp the repercussions of Ulrich's murder, and the course of action taken by the barons of the realm, it is more than meaningful, in my view, to state, even if just passe as we have done now, their relations to the deceased.Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
In order to make the point more clear, and avoid the impression that's the mention is trivial, we can add "Ulrich's cousin and ally" (a reference to the Ujlaki-Garai-Cilli League, to which there are plenty of references and which was active at the moment of Ulrich's murder).Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
1. You have not referred to a single source emphasizing only this relationship in the context. For instance, Kubinyi (2008) emphasizes that Garai was both Ulrich's cousin and Ladislaus Hunyadi's father-in-law (page 27). We can assume that a fact is relevant, but we cannot edit articles based on our own assumptions. 2. Yes, family ties have always been important. For instance, cousins, brothers could wage war against each other for inheritance. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Maria Garai and Ladislaus ever married, actually. Anyhow, your argument actually speaks in the favor of reinserting the mention! Namely, that it is relevant to mention the family relations in order to have a clearer picture.Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I would support adding a double qualification "cousin and ally", a hyperlink to the Garai-Cilli-Ujlaki League added once we have an article on that. Don't you think that would present the reader a more comprehensive picture, with the added benefit that it really doesn't take up any space. We are talking about one of two adjectives that mention undisputed facts, and clarify power and other relations. Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your message above. I referred to a work mentioning family relationships in the article's context: Garai was both Ulrich's cousin and Ladislaus' father-in-law. You are pushing your agenda, because you "don't think Maria Garai and Ladislaus ever married". This is what we call original research. I emphasize I do not know whether Maria Garai and Ladislaus actually married, but we cannot edit articles based on our assumption on the relevance of facts. Borsoka (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Show me some bona fide, will you? :) Obviously, I meant that I don't think there's a consensus among historians that they ever married; but it's not on me to argue for or against it, since it was you who brought it up (though I'm not actually sure wheather you want to include it or not). What I am saying is that there is consensus that they were cousins and allies. How strongly those two things went hand in hand, is attested by the graph through which Balint Homan draw the Garai-Cillei liga: http://dka.oszk.hu/020600/020624/03_014_nagykep.jpg: for him, a graphic presentation of the alliance was tantamount to the presentation of their family relations. Dvorakova, when discussing Ladislas's strategic alliance with the Cillei, also lays out in detail his family connections to them. You are perfectly right in saying that this might not have been the case: I am providing sources that say it was. They were cousins - fact. These family connection was part of a strategic alliance - fact (as attested by the sources quoted). Where is the original research? Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
As soon as you can prove the relevance of the info in the article's context, I will accept any edit. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I did prove it. I've shown references to historians who, in their discussion of Ladislas Garai's relation to the Cillis, mention in detail his family connection to them. On the other hand, I would still like to hear your arguments why do you think this fact, the veracity of which is undisputed, should be omitted. I think it's far more sensible to resolve the issue here instead of engaging in a revert war over a small addition. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Could you just plainly explain what seems to be the problem because I honestly don't understand. After all, we all have the same goal, making the article beetter and more informative. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Borsoka!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthias_Corvinus&oldid=prev&diff=1158120724
Could you tell me what wrong with this content sourced by historians regarding Matthias' court historians? I think it is relevant about him how wanted describe himself. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Borsoka I see, because I quoted a complete sentence from Noel Malcom in the source? Right? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Although he is known by the name ‘Matthias Corvinus’, his infobox should be standardised to fall in line with the articles of other Hungarian monarchs, such as, John Zápolya and John Sigismund Zápolya. Thus, I am changing the infobox title to ‘Matthias I’.

EricusTheScribe (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in his case, the infobox does merit the incorporation of his epithet, since he is so commonly known as Matthias Corvinus. Nonetheless, I have changed the start of the article to feature his actual regnal name more prominently.
I will revert his infobox name to 'Matthias Corvinus' promptly. EricusTheScribe (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)