Talk:John Zápolya

message: I've seen the results of the poll on the move. I'm more interested in how his name is represented when the alternate names are represented. Does NAME apply to those in regard to name order? A Hungarian would indeed render it Szapolyai János. Artrenadys 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarian name

message: no consensus. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the rule per WP:NAME is "most common name in English". It's irrelevant what the most common name in Hungary is; that name doesn't even use the same alphabet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zápolya is a Hungarian name just like Szapolyai. Letter á is missing from English so I don't really understand why you think that the name Zápolya is more English than the word Szapolyai. Anyway if the name Zápolya is so much more common in English you are right that the page should not be moved. 213.46.246.133 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The actual real name is Szapolyai, it's not about language Zápolya is in hungarian as well, but the name of this dude was Szapolyai.
In hungarian sources are both names Zápolya and Szapolyai used. The hungarian wikipedia uses the name Szapolyai as reference. --ResetGomb 06:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zápolya vs Szapolyai 

message: We should use English name for him, John Zápolya (see An encyclopedia of battles by David Eggenberger).
Croatian historiography uses other name (Ivan Zapolja), Romanian, Austrian, Slovak etc. historiographies their respective names.
Since this is the Wikipedia in English, English name should be used. 
Just like with e.g. Stephen Báthory (I don't see Istvan Bathory) or with Charles I of Hungary (I don't see Károly Róbert).
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Zápolya is an alternative for Szapolyai it has nothing to do with English use note the "á" in Zápolya. "Á" is not an English characther so it's not about that. It is already mentioned in the artilce that he ruled as King John I of Hungary, when he became king. Hobartimus (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name 

message: Zápolya was born at Castle of Szepes. It was a Hungarian castle in the 16th century. The Hungarian form of the name is the proper one in this case.Hungarian region/ county of Szepes/ Castle of Szepes, Germ. ZipsFakirbakir (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  place of birth 

message: https://www.google.hu/search?q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&hl=hu&client=firefox-a&hs=UuV&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&channel=fflb&prmd=imvnsob&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=erg_UI2dNYzltQbUj4EI&ved=0CA4Q_AUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=a1420eec5370c5b7&biw=1280&bih=709
626 HITS!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.118 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you suggest changing the article name to "John Szapolyai"? Please note, special care should be taken when arguing based on search engine results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: JOHN SZAPOLYAI HAVE the most hits on google books

message: First of all, dear Omen, I'm not nervous. Please provide another source which confirms this statement. This is the only book where I can find this information. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is clear: he was called the "Slovak King" by his contemporaries - he was called..., it is nickname. This book is reliable source . Your OR and personal opinions are not interesting or important. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing this source or Peter A. Toma's or Dušan Kováč's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. --Omen1229 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but other Slovak works don't mention this information. The Toma-Kovac work does not contain references. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And? So write him email if you have any questions . --Omen1229 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this is not a reliable source. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: (1) I think the present sentence contradicts to WP:COPYVIO. (2) If his "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", at least one of them can be named, otherwise the sentence states nothing: his "contemporaries" might have also called him Jancsi, Jankó, Juliska, Szapi or sweetheart. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We have only 1 Google Books hit (the mentioned book above).  Where does that info come from? I would like to see a primary source about it. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Case closed, the info should stay. It should be phrased so it isn't over-validated (direct reference to the book) but due to reliability of the source, it should not be omitted.  Wladthemlat (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, any information based on a reliable source could be added. However, as I mentioned above, Kovac's book contains weasel words instead of information in this respect: "his contemporaries" called him Slovak king. If this is a fact, than at least one of these contemporaries should be named. Therefore there is no "case closed". Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel words apply to Wikipedia writing style, not to evaluation of the reliability of the source. The sentence can be rephrased to avoid it, doesn't change the fact that a reliable source mentions a label given to the person this article is about.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right if the reliable source contains relevant information. However, a statement that his contamporaries called him X, Y, or Z does not contain information. Should we add to all articles on living and dead persons that his contemporaries call(ed) him X, Y or Z? Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.Wladthemlat (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not important. We could add that "X. Y. called him Z." if both X. Y. and "his being Z" relevant for any reason. Similarly, we could add that "everybody/majority/minority of his subjects/enemies/frieds/contemporaries called him Z" However, a statement that "there were people who called him Z" has no relevance, because "there were people who did not call him Z". We should forget this peace of pseudo-information. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Being "called something by one's contemporaries" is a turn of phrase, it does not mean "some, maybe just three, did, some did not" but rather "it was widely used/was known under the name". It's regularly used without specific attribution, see also  Wladthemlat (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I still maintain that a vague statement ("he was also called the "Slovak King" by his contemporaries") which is based on a dubious (and also vague) hypothesis ("as most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory") should be avoided. (1) A king with a seat in Buda (now Budapest) could hardly take most of his political actions in "Slovak territory". For instance, he convoked Diets to Tokaj and Székesfehérvár (1526), to Buda (1527, 1530, 1532), to Kolozsvár/Cluj, Romania (1527), and to Nagyvárad/Oradea, Romania (1536): none of them was held in "Slovak territory" (I refer to pages 361-373 of Benda Kálmán et al (1982): Magyarország történeti kronológiája, II. kötet (1526-1848) [Historical Chronology of Hungary, Volume II (1526-1848); Akadémiai Kiadó; Budapest; ). I also refer to pages 57-59 of Július Bartl et al (2002): Slovak History: Chronology & Lexicon (Bolcházy-Carducci Publishers; Wauconda, Ill.; ). This book do not mention any political event connected to John I in "Slovak territory". This book refers to 3-4 military operations, but the above cited Historical Chronology of Hungary also refers to military operations by John I in the territories of present-day Hungary, Serbia and Romania). (2) A king whose political and military activities took place in the whole territory of his kingdom (including present day Hungary and Romania) could hardly be mentioned as a "Slovak king" by his contemporaries. Or at least one contemporary document should be mentioned in order to prove that the statement has some basis. Borsoka (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Please do not try to invent new Wikipedia rules. Mention of contemporary documents is not required for secondary source to be credible, propose a new wording if you don't like the current one, but it's almost a direct quote from a RS. You and I can not judge the content of the sources, only their reliability. This one fits the bill.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am not inventing new WP rules: vague sentences based on dubious statements are to be avoided. The cited source which qualifies as reliable source for WP purposes contradicts to at least two other reliable sources (one of them is a chronology written by Slovak historians of the history of present-day Slovakia). The source cited in the article states that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory", but the above cited two chronologies ignore these many actions of his. Furthermore at least one of them suggests that he did not hold a simple Diet in Slovak territory which is strange for a monarch with alleged political actions in that lands. Therefore this contradiction between reliable sources should be solved. Even so I am assume that the book cited is of high quality, therefore finding the document based on which its author's statement was made would not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  He lost Budin, Ostrihom and Rab at one point, which would suggest he was in fact forced to Slovak territory from which he then mounted a counter-attack against Ferdinand. That is also what the original source claims, I worded it wrong indeed. The source claims that he lead battles against Ferdinand, most of them on Slovak territory, thus Slovak King. That makes more sense. Would you be content with wording "as most of his military actions against Ferdinand I. Habsburg took place on Slovak territory"? Wladthemlat (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Wladthemlat, I am afraid that reliable sources contradict to your above assumption "King John was first pushed back to Transylvania, then sought refuge in Poland" in 1527 (László Kontler (1999): Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary; Atlantisz Publishing House; ); page 139). Moreover, the source you cited above does not write a single battle in Slovak territory: Raab (Győr), Gran (Esztergom), Buda (Budapest) and Tokay all are situated in present-day Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but they are close. That he lost Esztergom and Tokay means he was pushed further north, not that he stopped right before them. The Slovak territory would fit. "Sought refuge in Poland" confirms this - he was pushed even further north, then had to fight his way through Slovak territories, no contradiction there. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Slovak territory, i.e. territory inhabited predominantly by Slovaks, of course did exist, the word was used as well. But you do have a point with undue weight.Wladthemlat (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One things is if (i) there were areas/territories inhabited by Slovaks, and another is if (ii) they were called "Slovak territory". While (I guess) nobody denies statement (i), however, this does not imply statement (ii). I was also wondering whether we could find who where these contemporaries who called John Zápolya the "Slovak King", i.e., whether they were that relevant that this should be included in the article. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How else would you call it? Italian territories? It's just a description - territories populated by Slovaks i.e. Slovak territories.  As mentioned earlier, 'called by contemporaries' is a turn of phrase meaning widespread use and demanding names of specific users is linguistically ridiculous. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I deny that this "territory inhabited predominantly by Slovaks". During the 16th century the Hungarian-Slav ethnic and linguistic border was located much farther north than the current one. Trencsén, Árva, Turóc, Zólyom and Liptó Counties were the area inhabited by Slovaks (beside Germans and Hungarians). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a territory inhabited mainly by Slovaks can be called a "Slovak territory" . However, I still maintain that (1) the basis of the statement, namely that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory", contradict to other reliable sources (including a chronology compelled by Slovak historians on the history of the territory of present-day Slovakia); (2) a statement which is only mentioned in one reliable source cannot be deemed as a widespread or notable one; (3) all the same, it is not impossible that the statement was not only based on a dubious hypotesis (namely that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory"), but on actual documents from the 16th century. In the latter case, that specific document could be mentioned. Otherwise, the sentence remains as it is: a vague statement based on a dubious and not widely accepted hypotesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We (in the 21st century) can retrospectively call any territory in the history which were inhabited mainly by Slovaks  "Slovak territory", even when we talk about the 15-16th centuries, I also agree with that. My problem was whether *then* (in the 15-16th centuries) they were called that way (since the source seems to indicate that). On the other hand, based on your argument about his Slavonian roots, this is not very relevant any more. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I addressed that above, the source does not word it like that, it was my unfortunate phrasing. The source only claims that most of his battles with Ferdinand took place on Slovak territories, which does not contradict other sources. 2) There are more sources for the name Seems like it was a more of a derogatory name (not surprising) but it was indeed used and the source was correct. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the above sources. They clarify the situation. Szapolyai was from Slavonia (not from Slovakian territory), accordingly he was styled as "Slavon king" (in ancient Hungarian "tót" referred to all the Slavic inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary, including the ancestors of Slovaks and the inhabitants of Slavonia). His nickname was not connected to his military actions in the lands what now form Slovakia, but to his Slavonian origin (therefore to lands now belonging to Croatia). Accordingly, the translation of his nickname as "Slovakian king" instead of "Slavon king" is a misunderstanding of the sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "He was born in 1487 at Szepes Castle in Upper Hungary " Wladthemlat (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read them more carefully. First book you cited (Földrajzi értesítő) says: "although he himself was born at Szepes Castle in Upper Hungary, (...) his ancestors along the Sava in [Slavonia] inhabited by "Tóts"". Second book you cited (Demokrata) states: "even a king emerged from these "Tóts" departed from Slavonia ("Tót Land"): Zápolya (...) the "Tóth king"" (=Slavonian king). Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Szapolyai as "Slovak King"