Talk:Michael the Brave

message: I will list sources here that states about the union of  the Romanian principalities (Transylvania, Moldova and Wallachia) under Michael the Brave (I will not include the 3 reference already present to the article in this list): ; page 22; ; ; ; page 47; ; ; . I hope this will clear some things about this conflict. Adrian (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is a great number of sources in Romanian, but I excluded them in this search.Adrian (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you have wasted (y)our time again. This proves nothing, but the fact the LATER Romanian histography consistently speak about union, although it never have been formed under Michael The Brave's rule (and these workes don't event present any contemporary evidence or like so). Any webpages now or books written during the communism or earlier won't decide anything. Present any contemporary evidence, document about union, then we can talk. It's really hilarous you don't even get the point so long time ago :) Better the read the lines Michael The Brave's seal: "IO MIHAILI UGROVLAHISCOI VOEVOD ARDILSCOI MOLD ZEMLI" This do no speak about union but the fact he was the Voivode of the three lands. (you think if you try the same nonsense 1000 times, once it will be accepted???)(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Since on the ANI board I was "taught" only citations count, common sense or good aim/faith don't even really important. Then Wikipedia will be the battleground of some groups and their lobby would decide what is presented...bleak prospects....the facts and evidence won't depend only citations and can't be validated with democratic form or someone's faith. There are facts you can prove or cannot prove...If really so, we should all consider if it has sense to try to make it a better encyclopedia, or it would be a site you can form other's knowledge and belief in a false way. According to the instuctions I've got, I have to begin my citation-commando...will begin soon, if I decide not to leave...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proves everything. All you do is express your personal opinion which has no importance on wikipedia (don`t think that my opinion counts either, opinions are opinions , facts are facts). Also if you inspect the sources I provided you will notice that sources are from foreign editors also. Ex:  -Robert Reid, Leif Pettersen. Please inspect some other pages and how are they edited. Also try to consult some other editors about this problem. Did you actually read WP:SOURCE? You could also consult [Burden of evidence]. PS: Also read [Wikipedia is not a democracy rule]. Adrian (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to repeat myself, this case my peronal opinion is irrelevant, but it's funny you say facts are facts, although you are the one who adding citations and propagating something you don't even consider to be true and if you'd had a good aim you would add CONTEMPORARY evidence supporting your desire. The sources you've given has NO value this case, and the author's nationality really don't important as well. The page is CONTRADICTIONAL since in the legacy section states: "The prince, who managed for a short time (1599–1600) to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modern Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the 19th century. Such an interpretation is completely lacking in the historiography of the 17th century chroniclers, and even in that of the Transylvanian School around 1800." ---> UNION wasn't made (however, union is a heavy thing, it has always documentary ->contemporary<- evidence). That's why it is a problem in the headline and elsewhere the article the union/join words are used, the worst is many sources re-affirm this false allegation. I have read the links you've given. However, Wikipedia don't declare itself democratic, but so long consense/compromise can lead us further or someone on a higher level has the right to remove anything, then it leads to all the same. Evidence/proof has no compromise. We should end this conversation. It is true, as a newby, I am not a professional on Wikipeadia's rules, but everyone who read our lines will understand WHAT is the problem. However, I know, you're just doing what the rules here allows you, you added your citations in a legal way, and as we learned truth not really counts here. All right. I don't see any importance to consult this case more anywhere, in the ANI board I have already told what I think. I will do the necessary modifications with a good aim, try to fulfill Wikipedia's rules. If this will be reverted, than everything is clear, as I said. Then I will ask everybody who don't like the truth, ask the admins to immediately ban me. Maybe the next generation will be interested on real evidence/sources with proof and not to make contradictional, misleading articles. Please spare any reaction repeating the same, I really want to close the conversation, no sense to continue, everyone can see and understand what's going on. Bye-Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

text: If this reference turns to be OK, it is still not enough since we have 12 references that states otherwise (also I could insert a lot more if I used the one in Romanian language also - as this reference is in Hungarian). Also I am reluctant to consider Árpád Kosztin as a reliable source. The most extreme case is that we could insert this data somewhere in the article in the form According to Árpád Kosztin, the principalities maintained distinct identities and did not form a single state - to include a all views about this subject. Adrian (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Adrian, as far as I'm concerned the mention of "personal union" is enough for the lead without having to specify that each principality kept its distinct identity. That much is clear from the body of the article. Would it work if we moved the Kosztin reference (which I am inclined to keep - he does get cited a lot, even if he gravitates toward very controversial subjects - but sadly I don't have access to his work from my current location) down into the body of the text somewhere (where it might be more useful) and just kept the current lead formulation that Mihai ruled the three principalities in a personal union? (Other editors might have other ideas but I think it would be fine that way.) Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. The lead remains as it is (latest revision by you). The Árpád Kosztin reference/data can be inserted somewhere in the article regardless of it`s problem to check it/translate on-line. I will insert it now, if something is wrong please let me know. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reactions all of you:
- personal union can be accepted, however the expression/designation was never used then and later for Michael The Brave's rule, but formally the criteria is satisfied: the states had the same ruler the period in question.
- the number of sources/citations are IRRELEVANT, if they cannot present or make reference on an evidence supporting their allegation, the LACK of contemporary evidence has as well no compromise (this a common problem with i.e. Anglo-Saxon sources, there is a totally different culture, as well in the life, in the legistlation system etc. they concentrating only mostly on precedences, sources and citations, but the real value of them are mostly ignored thus if you present plenty speaking about union or using the anachronistic designation, it is only the indicator how misleading information can be propagated and accepted. This is a common problem of the Indo-European history writing as well, since the 19th century almost they created a really new history, altered many interpretation in a romantic nationalistic way and sadly evidence were not really important, but the effort to propagate their theories and make any resistance or different view impossible or ridicoulus. "History is always written by the winners". Unfortunately, although among the real intelligentsia we would not make such kind of debates, but as I could see the type of "commercial" history and encyclopedia writing is the most common, but as well very dangerous! History can easily corrupted by nationalism and always has been an intellectual power, the one who controls it, will form nations, people way of thinking.
====Arpad Kosztin discussion====
- Árpád Kosztin was born in Bonchida/Bontida/Bonisbruck, Kolozs megye/Judetul Cluj, Romanian citizen as well (Arpad Costin - his name written like so in 1949, after denying to accept to change his given name to "Arcadiu"). He have good books, written at leat seven works about Romania, the most of them are about history. Some of their works are accessible in the U.S. and Canada (Matthias Corvinus Publishing, Hamilton Buffalo). His works are sensitive sometimes to those Romanians, who are against fair history writing, he was more times threatened by Romanian newspapers, perodicals, even once by a senator. Sometimes his works are hard to access, not even government or diplomatic libraries, because they are buyed up or stolen by the "other side" who try to hinder some facts and evidence, and any information pinpointing huge slips, falsities, etc. (i.e. the same is with J.F. Montgomery's: Hungary The Unwilling Sattelite, a real NPOV, good Anglo-Saxon work of the history of Hungary in WW2, but it's content would really harm today's harsh "propaganda". Fortunately this kind of "modern warfare" will never reach it's goal since "they" can only reduce accessing information, but never eliminate it forever. His books have a high quality, of course with valuable sources, citations (including as many Romanian sources as possible, Iorga, Balcescu, Pascu, etc.), the books are highly recommended to everybody to wants to see clear in the topic. Unfortunately, the Hungarian-Romanian relations are very sensitive, and Romanians can hardly accept anything from the other side, or even consider everything suspicious....As I said, the next generation have to solve this, and only concentrate to a valuable co-operation, where evidence should be the most important decisive factor between disputable events. Antagonism will never lead us to a good way, but we have to meet each other's culture/history unrevealed, even if it's not always a glorious myth. FINE(KIENGIR (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: We have a compromise and sources, please avoid writing this kind of lecture. Number of citations are crucial. When we have only one references on some matter(any matter at all) and it is problematic as Árpád Kosztin is, it may be considered as WP:OR or WP:FRINGE - more likely fringe in this case because for now, only he supports some controversial statements. As for the Árpád Kosztin, he may be fair to some people, as for the others he is considered as unreliable and  pro-Hungarian source. I had the misfortune to get by one of his works 1 and I should say no more - this is not a place for that. Because of that I inserted sources that are from non-Romanian and non-Hungarian authors. All in all, this matter is closed. Greetings Adrian (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is closed hopefully. There are also other references for this, not only he supports these things and before I even known his works, had already known the disputed things about. The citation was added because of wikipedia policy/ANI board asking and because this work seemed to be the most professional in this case. The number of sources are indicative, but not decisive (I won't add more, although I could, it's my own decision to demonstrate mass won't win over quality). I don't think the best designation would be that "he is considered unreliable", he is considered an enemy for those who are interested to keep fake myths, historical distortions/slips alive. Please tell me if you can find somebody prove him wrong (the persons who attacked him could not do that), and what kind of controversial statements you consider he supports (I don't know anything about that, the best is he citates/give source of contemporary foreign (!) documents (huge amount of Romanian) as a support!). About "pro-Hungarianism": his works are really balanced and NPOV, and he also admits his family name sounds Romanian (Costin). Greetings(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Just for you a little help: , or related to the topic where the things we debated about are also peresented, in Romanian:  Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this is not the right place to discuss Arpad Kosztin, but neutrality of this author is shown in this book 1. Also if you understand Romanian, . Or use google translate. In the mentioned book, he uses words like With singular cruelty, he butchered the inhabitants, particularly the Szekelys and the Saxon,  The guatd started in Bucharest. More than 50,000 people joined in as they paid homage to Mihai Viteazul (Vitez Mihaly) the voivode of the Southern Carpathian Region notorious for his terror - I repeat, only Arpad talk like this. The reliability of Arpad sources are more than questionable. He talks about some topics without any historical evidence and some people see that as the "truth" and daring writing, but some of us see just another pro-Hungarian author. Also his profile as an author is quite obscure too. He uses a pseudonym  - The only study in the West elaborating on this alternative hypothesis has been published by somebody writing under the pseudonym of André Du Nay - while he writes some books as Arpad Kosztin and André Du Nay . I could`t find anything about him except this . It is best to avoid his "facts" unless there is someone else that support that same claim. Adrian (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, we should continue further discussion on each other's talk page. Any sources are welcome from you, my philosophy to be always OPEN-MINDED, the more information you have, the more you can decipher true history. I don't care about the author's nationality, it's name or so what......I just care what he writes and how he proves it, what kind of objectivity it have and how is it corresponding with the evidence and facts (citations sources from the other side supporting the different opinion are one of the most interesting and useful things). However, about the changes claimed here we don't need Kosztin, since Romanian sources, author's also agreed, maybe I will insert them. The Daco-Roman theory, or the situation of the Romanians in Transilvania under Hungarian rule are much more sensitive questions, where totally opposing statements and views are. We have to reconcile the Hungarian-Romanian relations, but it needs a long and calm discussion and just concentrating on evidence. Maybe once all antagonism will disappear (however so long two humans exist...). I. E. Iorga or much more Pascu is well-known about his slips or unproved statements, or some really disgusting interpretations, but I won't discredit anybody, because evidence talk. I can understand some Romanians reading Kosztin would have bad feelings, but we have the same by lot of anti-Hungarian attitudes, but I think Kosztin's goal is not a baid aim, since his goal was to balance a little bit harsh "counter-propaganda", because Hungary don't even dare to even interpret it's own history to a truthful way till the communists left and as a country/nation designated by the Allies as "guilty" had a twice greater handicap. All in all, I think as well in Romania as every part of the world where intelligent people are the majority, the common sense and quality will win, and all the needed revisons/recensions will be born by sensitive questions. It won't be easy since in the past centuries politics,territorrial aims,conspirations,world wars, communism etc. have poisoned and brainwashed the two sides. We have to free ourselves of any kind of prejudications. That's my philosophy. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: - Árpád Kosztin was born in Bonchida/Bontida/Bonisbruck, Kolozs megye/Judetul Cluj, Romanian citizen as well (Arpad Costin - his name written like so in 1949, after denying to accept to change his given name to "Arcadiu"). He have good books, written at leat seven works about Romania, the most of them are about history. Some of their works are accessible in the U.S. and Canada (Matthias Corvinus Publishing, Hamilton Buffalo). His works are sensitive sometimes to those Romanians, who are against fair history writing, he was more times threatened by Romanian newspapers, perodicals, even once by a senator. Sometimes his works are hard to access, not even government or diplomatic libraries, because they are buyed up or stolen by the "other side" who try to hinder some facts and evidence, and any information pinpointing huge slips, falsities, etc. (i.e. the same is with J.F. Montgomery's: Hungary The Unwilling Sattelite, a real NPOV, good Anglo-Saxon work of the history of Hungary in WW2, but it's content would really harm today's harsh "propaganda". Fortunately this kind of "modern warfare" will never reach it's goal since "they" can only reduce accessing information, but never eliminate it forever. His books have a high quality, of course with valuable sources, citations (including as many Romanian sources as possible, Iorga, Balcescu, Pascu, etc.), the books are highly recommended to everybody to wants to see clear in the topic. Unfortunately, the Hungarian-Romanian relations are very sensitive, and Romanians can hardly accept anything from the other side, or even consider everything suspicious....As I said, the next generation have to solve this, and only concentrate to a valuable co-operation, where evidence should be the most important decisive factor between disputable events. Antagonism will never lead us to a good way, but we have to meet each other's culture/history unrevealed, even if it's not always a glorious myth. FINE(KIENGIR (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a compromise and sources, please avoid writing this kind of lecture. Number of citations are crucial. When we have only one references on some matter(any matter at all) and it is problematic as Árpád Kosztin is, it may be considered as WP:OR or WP:FRINGE - more likely fringe in this case because for now, only he supports some controversial statements. As for the Árpád Kosztin, he may be fair to some people, as for the others he is considered as unreliable and  pro-Hungarian source. I had the misfortune to get by one of his works 1 and I should say no more - this is not a place for that. Because of that I inserted sources that are from non-Romanian and non-Hungarian authors. All in all, this matter is closed. Greetings Adrian (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is closed hopefully. There are also other references for this, not only he supports these things and before I even known his works, had already known the disputed things about. The citation was added because of wikipedia policy/ANI board asking and because this work seemed to be the most professional in this case. The number of sources are indicative, but not decisive (I won't add more, although I could, it's my own decision to demonstrate mass won't win over quality). I don't think the best designation would be that "he is considered unreliable", he is considered an enemy for those who are interested to keep fake myths, historical distortions/slips alive. Please tell me if you can find somebody prove him wrong (the persons who attacked him could not do that), and what kind of controversial statements you consider he supports (I don't know anything about that, the best is he citates/give source of contemporary foreign (!) documents (huge amount of Romanian) as a support!). About "pro-Hungarianism": his works are really balanced and NPOV, and he also admits his family name sounds Romanian (Costin). Greetings(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Just for you a little help: , or related to the topic where the things we debated about are also peresented, in Romanian:  Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this is not the right place to discuss Arpad Kosztin, but neutrality of this author is shown in this book 1. Also if you understand Romanian, . Or use google translate. In the mentioned book, he uses words like With singular cruelty, he butchered the inhabitants, particularly the Szekelys and the Saxon,  The guatd started in Bucharest. More than 50,000 people joined in as they paid homage to Mihai Viteazul (Vitez Mihaly) the voivode of the Southern Carpathian Region notorious for his terror - I repeat, only Arpad talk like this. The reliability of Arpad sources are more than questionable. He talks about some topics without any historical evidence and some people see that as the "truth" and daring writing, but some of us see just another pro-Hungarian author. Also his profile as an author is quite obscure too. He uses a pseudonym  - The only study in the West elaborating on this alternative hypothesis has been published by somebody writing under the pseudonym of André Du Nay - while he writes some books as Arpad Kosztin and André Du Nay . I could`t find anything about him except this . It is best to avoid his "facts" unless there is someone else that support that same claim. Adrian (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, we should continue further discussion on each other's talk page. Any sources are welcome from you, my philosophy to be always OPEN-MINDED, the more information you have, the more you can decipher true history. I don't care about the author's nationality, it's name or so what......I just care what he writes and how he proves it, what kind of objectivity it have and how is it corresponding with the evidence and facts (citations sources from the other side supporting the different opinion are one of the most interesting and useful things). However, about the changes claimed here we don't need Kosztin, since Romanian sources, author's also agreed, maybe I will insert them. The Daco-Roman theory, or the situation of the Romanians in Transilvania under Hungarian rule are much more sensitive questions, where totally opposing statements and views are. We have to reconcile the Hungarian-Romanian relations, but it needs a long and calm discussion and just concentrating on evidence. Maybe once all antagonism will disappear (however so long two humans exist...). I. E. Iorga or much more Pascu is well-known about his slips or unproved statements, or some really disgusting interpretations, but I won't discredit anybody, because evidence talk. I can understand some Romanians reading Kosztin would have bad feelings, but we have the same by lot of anti-Hungarian attitudes, but I think Kosztin's goal is not a baid aim, since his goal was to balance a little bit harsh "counter-propaganda", because Hungary don't even dare to even interpret it's own history to a truthful way till the communists left and as a country/nation designated by the Allies as "guilty" had a twice greater handicap. All in all, I think as well in Romania as every part of the world where intelligent people are the majority, the common sense and quality will win, and all the needed revisons/recensions will be born by sensitive questions. It won't be easy since in the past centuries politics,territorrial aims,conspirations,world wars, communism etc. have poisoned and brainwashed the two sides. We have to free ourselves of any kind of prejudications. That's my philosophy. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Arpad Kosztin discussion

message: The personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, implications of conspiracy, etc. have got to stop NOW.  Wikipedia's core principles require editors to assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and focus their discussions on content rather than on personalities.  Assuming good faith includes not jumping to conclusions about other editors' supposedly being part of a conspiracy, or accusing other editors of meatpuppetry.  Avoiding personal attacks includes not writing about another person's comments in a snide, belittling manner.  If the thing one or the other of you are claiming are valid, your claims should stand on their own merits without any need for ad hominem arguments.  — Richwales (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, definitely! They have always standed on their own merits thus it's really amazing why such struggle needs in order make the necessary changes, this time it is very suspicious....the worst is if someone pretends them not be understood and identifing them as "personal opinions", meanwhile it cannot present counter-evidence, last but not least the so-called "claims" are well known among experts and can be verified easily, the MOST amazing is the Legacy section also RECOGNIZE and ADMIT one of the claims, though anywhere else in the article this is not emphasized and a later imaginary interpretation is advertized, not the fact. These are rather too much at once! This is the point when some editors "good faith" and intention are enquestioned! Unfortunately at the current state, for someone the "own merits"=facts are barely enough. Please do not surprise then. Consider if someone would advertize on Canada's page "Canada is a Central-European country" and you'd try to convince he/she that it is North-American.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good faith 

message: I discuss hereafter the correct translation from Slavonic to English of Michael the Brave's Seal inscription:
IO MIHAILI UGROVLAHISCOI VOEVOD ARDEALSCOI MOLD ZEMLI
The translation I propose is:
Io Michael Wallachian Voievode of Transylvanian and Moldavian Lands.
Explanations:
IO - is written with Greek characters (Iω), not with Cyrillic. It is a nobiliar particle, supposedly of Greek origin.
It is NOT the coloquial Romanian term 'io' (academic form 'eu') which stands for 'I' in English.
Mihaili - the last 'i' is a short 'i' (represented by a 'j' in Serbo-Croatian and other slavic languages).
Ugrovlahiscoi - terminated in 'scoi' - the Slavonic termination for a masculin adjective.
It could be translated literally 'Ungro-Wallachian' - thus 'Wallachian near Hungary'.
In Middle Ages the term Wallachia was used for 2 entities: Wallachia at the North of Danube (called Ungrovlahia) and 
another Wallachia at the South of Danube which refers to the teritories inhabited by the former Roman colonists in Balcans.
Ardealscoi - adjective from Ardeal (Romanian word for Transylvania)
Mold - abbreviated form from Moldavscoi, also as adjective
zemli - is a plural noun for 'Lands' (by the termination 'i')
N.B.: it is evident that the spaces between letters on the seal are larger in the beginning of the inscription and smaller at the end of text, so we may deduce that the maker of the seal did not estimated correctly the size and spaces between letters and was forced to abbreviate the last words.
The correct inscription would have been:
Io Mihaili ugrovlahiscoi voevod Ardealscoi i Moldavscoi zemli.
The Romanian historians are using a wrong translation by patriotic reasons, trying to emphasize the idea of Union between 3 coutries:
IO Michael, Voievode of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia Lands
The translation I proposed here shows the concept of personal union of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia under the person of Wallachian Voievode Michael and is in accordance with the historical facts.82.79.121.115 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal of Michael the Brave 

message: Arpad Kosztin neutrality and validity is problematic because of this this book 1. In Romanian, . With google translate in the mentioned book, he uses words like With singular cruelty, he butchered the inhabitants, particularly the Szekelys and the Saxon,  The guatd started in Bucharest. More than 50,000 people joined in as they paid homage to Mihai Viteazul (Vitez Mihaly) the voivode of the Southern Carpathian Region notorious for his terror . The reliability of Arpad sources are more than questionable. He talks about some topics without any historical evidence by some that can be as daring writing, but some of us see just another pro-Hungarian author. Also his profile as an author is quite obscure too. Any info about this author in unavailable. I could`t find anything about him except this . If anyone reintroduces this info, please insert some info about validity of this author. Adrian (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arpad Kosztin - no info about him 

message: The problem with the Boia on Xenopol was a simple misplaced page number (the quote is on page 133, not page 150.) I checked Boia's references and found the passage he was quoting in the Xenopol, and it is this one, from pages 399-400 in Volume 2 of (predictably) the Istoria românilor din Dacia-Traiană:
"Așa dar atîta de puțin se gîndea Mihaiu la unirea Romînilor, in cît nici nu concepea, după vremile de atunci, unificarea administrativă a țărilor romîne, ci numai întocmirea lor sub niște domni supuși și ascultători de el, după sistemul feodal, ce încă tot nu se desrădăcinase din mintea oamenilor. [...] In sfîrșit dovada cea mai înviderată că lui Mihaiu nici i-a trecut prin minte ideea unirei este împrejurarea că el nu eliberează, cînd pune mîna pe Ardeal, pe poporul romănesc din robia în care'l țineau nobilii acelei țări, ci din contra ie măsuri ca el să rămînă în aceaiași stare, garantînd nobililor păstrarea neomenoasei ei constituții. Apoi ce feliu de unire între Romîni vroia să realizeze Mihaiu Viteazul, dacă el lăsa în țara cea de căpitenie, 'în care doria să domnească el însuș,' poporația romănească fără drepturi, supusă în robia cea mai degrădătoare cătră niște popoare de alt neam și de alt sînge ca el?"
Excuse the typographical errors, I'm not using a Romanian keyboard and Xenopol's Romanian is not exactly my normal idiom. Hubacelgrand (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boia on Xenopol 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Michael the Brave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414013318/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Rumania to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Rumania
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Did he change the language in Moldova or who? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language. 

message: Out of curiosity, why is Michael's Hungarian name mentioned in the opening? The article doesn't seem to speak about any Hungarian ancestry of Michael. Is it because he ruled Transylvania, which had Hungarian as a legislation language? Lupishor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your latter argument could be a reason (btw. he could speak and understand in Hungarian), many historical figures had relevant names in foreign languages, notably (and they are unleashed presented in hisorical figures). Lajos Kossuth had a notable English name, though he was not English, but traveled in the Anglo-Saxon world. Matthias Corvinus also has presented the Czech name, but it is not bounded necessarily the reason he once assumed rule over Bohemia, as Sándor Petőfi has it's Serbian name, not beucase he would be of Serb ancestry or neither his birthplace then shared any territory that would belong today to Serbia, but it has been a popular belief he was of Serb origin. George Bariț's Hungarian name is mentioned, not nedcessarily because Transylvania was part of Hungary, he was notably known in the Hungarian political life on that name, like Ľudovít Štúr, who probably had zero drop of Hungarian blood, but he performed in the Hungarian parliament as Stur Lajos. Only one criteria is, notability, we may add a Papua New Guinean name, if it is notable/relevant in the subjects lifetime. "Vitéz Mihály" is a notable historical figure, significantly known by this name in Transylvania.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Kiengir. even I am hungarian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am so glad that you are Hungarian. We can continue the discussion in Hungarian. Mjert nem ertés ediet Kiengirvel?  we should welcome our compatriot. He is an expert of the "Szekely language". Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You can't admit that Szekely are different from Hungarians. Recognize this. Even the physical aspects, culture, language, habbits, what we eat... Magysze (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry, I do not understand your above message. Could you repeat it in literary Hungarian or in the Szekely dialect? Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: This is English Wikipedia. Sorry, I will not enter into discussion with you. Since you don't bring any argyments. Magysze (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I must say you are a liar: you are not Hungarian, you cannot speak Hungarian, you are unable to use "Szekely" script. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry 2 times. You are the person who don't even recognize Szekely people. You speak Hungarian but don't speak Szekely. You oppress Szekely people. Magysze (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not speak the "Szekely" dialect of Hungarian, but I can understand it without difficulty. I have never oppressed "Szekely" people. Yes, ethnic Hungarian noblemen (among them "Szekely" aristocrats) oppressed ethnic Hungarian serfs (including "Szekelys") in medieval Hungary. Why did you make false statements about your ethnicity? What is your purpose when editing WP? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: No wonder, the Hungarian editors now want all names to be in Hungarian? Why not you "erase" all what is about the Szekely? You want to wipe out the history of Szekely ? The Szekely people György Dózsa???Magysze (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember you stated above you are Hungarian. If I were you, I would voluntarily leave WP. Otherwise, you will be banned from it. Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Being Szekely I wish you good luck. That's much more than Hungarian. Proud to be Szekely and not Hungarian. These 2 things have less and less in common. Good luck in leaving. Magysze (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was you who stated you were Hungarian. Why did you state that twice? Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I am half Hungarian half Szekely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: In this case, we can continue in Hungarian: mjert gondolád hodi Kiengir tévede? Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, no, nooooooo, Borsoka I just know checked what you've been through....so many pages, precious time wasted....we have a heavy overload of trolls these times stealing precious time from editors, I hope when the pandemic will be over, people try to use their time more efficiently...Oh my God, WP would need a serious reform regarding auto and/or extended confirmed user right criteria.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, you probably did not live in the 16th century and the adjacent ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lupishor. Lupishor do you support Szekely people as different from Hungarians? Magysze (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if you did not understand well the above argumentation, and you thought it would would have connection to what you have ever heard, then better read it again.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you claimed that "my latter argument could be a reason", doesn't this mean we should also add his Latin name, since it was an administrative language of Transylvania, and also his German one, since German was widespread and partially official there? Lupishor (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if they are added.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But too many names would make the opening look bad; I'd propose we make a "Name" section, like I did on the articles of Transylvanian cities that had 4-5 names in the opening. People agreed with that idea. Lupishor (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this. One thing are cities and another are historical figures. I see it pointless to mention the German or Latin names for Michael. Also, etymology sections are unusual on biography articles. I don't remember having seen one yet. I think we should let it as it is now. Having the Hungarian name of Michael can serve as a "compromise" for having Romanian names on articles about Hungarian figures (such as Matthias Corvinus). Super Ψ Dro 22:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about a "compromise"; this kind of makes the discussion sound political, which isn't my aim. Michael's situation can't be compared to Corvinus' one, since for Corvinus, the Romanian name (along with all the other foreign names listed there) is historically important. From what I've heard, Corvinus may even have been of Romanian origin, but I think that's debated. Back to Michael, maybe you're right when you say a "Name" section shouldn't be added. I'd instead propose to add a note-tag in the opening, which covers the German, Hungarian and Latin names. KIENGIR was also fine with adding those two other names. Lupishor (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael had lots of interactions with Hungarians, specially Székelys, although you are right with Corvinus' Romanian name being more relevant than the Hungarian one here. I still don't fully agree with including the German and Latin names. Michael and the Transylvanian Germans didn't have much to do with each other, at least from what I know, and is there a historical Latin name for him that we could add? I suppose the name from Latin Wikipedia isn't too reliable. Also take in account that (as far as I know) no other article of a Romanian historical figure has such kind of notes. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:MOS, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses". Since he is closely associated with Romania, I think we should refer only to the Romanian name(s). 77wonders (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry, the correct link is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Foreign_language. 77wonders (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Well, there are many articles, like cities, which use multiple foreign names. But that's, of course, only the case if the city is strongly associated with multiple countries/languages. I believe that in this case, the rule from the page you linked can/should be used, since Michael is strongly associated with Romania and doesn't have any connection to Hungary apart from contact with Transylvanian Hungarians and possibly having been able to speak Hungarian (at least according to KIENGIR – I haven't found any source claiming this, although I haven't done a lot of research, admittedly). Let's see what others think – I also don't think the Hungarian name is necessary in the opening. Lupishor (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to strive for it getting removed, but I'd also prefer it. Super Ψ Dro 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are already three users in favor of this, I will wait a bit longer to see if someone presents any new kind of argument. I am completely fine with the Hungarian name being in the opening as long as there is a good reason behind it. But so far, nobody has presented any good reason. Lupishor (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The fresh account failed the subject of the sentence, "Romania" is not a "non-English language" etc., btw. the reasons were told, and as well was demonstrated with other examples.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't fail the subject; since Michael is closely associated to Romania, he's obviously also associated with the Romanian language. That's why most sources about him are Romanian and he's mostly referred to as Mihai Viteazu. The fact that he spoke Hungarian isn't an argument; Vlad the Impaler was also fluent in Turkish and was often on Ottoman territory, yet his Turkish name isn't written in the article. Unless some proper arguments are given, the change will be made, as most people have agreed. Lupishor (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the cited policy is clear and what you'd assume as obvious, it is again another thing. My arguments were not based on what language he spoke - just side by mentioned - you should abandon this kind of cherrypicking approach. First you want to remove names, after add, after again remove, at least I did not let anyone to remove e.g. Slovak or Romanian names from Hungarian historical persons, but it does not matter, anyway your last sentence just reaffirms you still did not understand appropriately what means consensus building.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry, no, the opposite is true, I was explaining it to others, including you because you don't understand it as well appropriately. I would not address e.g. 3 people's opinion the reason you asserted, they've made their own considerations. It still seems you did not actually grasp all the reasons, despite the great variety of examples. "And whether you tried or not to remove foreign names from pages...doesn't have to do with this" -> this is well what I said, why did you repeat this? Then as well I could say if a name is not present now somewhere, would not be an argument as well. Would you remove the Hungarian names also from Ladislaus the Posthumous, Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Louis II of Hungary?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

text: delete Hungarian word. Magysze (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: KIENGIR, those articles that you've linked are clearly about people who did have to do something with Hungary and are associated with the country and its language, unlike Michael. They can't be compared to the situation in this article; obviously the Hungarian name does belong to articles about Hungarian kings or whatever. But Michael was not only not Hungarian; he also fought against the Hungarians. Like I said, there are many names that can be added here, if you really want the Hungarian one to be in; but they haven't been added, since they're unnecessary. As stated above, compare it to the Vlad the Impaler article. And I'm not cherry-picking, that's just common sense. Lupishor (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Lupishor, the persons I mentioned were not Hungarian (and likely did not even speak the language). They were just ruler of a Hungarian state, and yes, hence had something to with Hungary. Michael as well became a ruler of a Hungarian state.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Of what Hungarian state? Maybe you wanted to say Szekely state. Which is another story my friend. Magysze (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Not true. But I do hope you get blocked for false allegations. Magysze (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: KIENGIR, I didn't say those persons were Hungarian. But obviously their Hungarian name does belong to their articles if they literally ruled over Hungary. Michael didn't rule over Hungary, but over Transylvania (and was a de facto ruler). And I guess we can't say that Transylvania was a Hungarian state when Michael ruled over it, since it obviously wasn't under the control of Hungary anymore, even if Michael was just a de facto ruler. I think these two arguments make it clear enough that the articles you linked are completely different situations. Lupishor (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Michael ruled the Principality of Transylvania as lieutenant of the king of Hungary, Rudolph. 2. When Michael ruled the principality, it encompassed territories that are part of present-day Hungary (for instance, Debrecen). 3. A significant part of the principality's population spoke Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: These are appropriate notability arguments for having an article about him in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but I don't see how such alternative names are relevant for the English-speaking reader. I finally found the relevand policy about biographies: MOS:NICKCRUFT. Here it is correctly pointed out that foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand and it is recommended to avoid them. Look also at the Matthias Corvinus article, that was refered above, its first sentence is so difficult to read because of the 5 (!!!) alternative names. 77wonders (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Lupishor, I again did not say you said, but in addition to what Borsoka said, the Principality of Transylvania has been a Hungarian state even by having king of the Habsburg House, as they had only right through the Hungarian Crown, which included it and were the Lands of the Hungarian Crown, and this did not change on Michael's rule (I see you named me in an other edit log, well, I don't have the Bucharest article on my watchlist, I frankly don't know what's going on there, if you'd curious about "some reason"). 77wonders, the current alignment does not violate NICKCRUFT, since the Hungarian name appear in reliable sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not contest that the Hungarian name appears in reliable Magyar sources. I just don't understand why this piece of information is useful for English readers. 77wonders (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, any rulers of any Hungarian state formation are associated with a Hungarian name, like this is usual for anyland-anyruler states. So your approach should not be interpreted solely on this article, it may raise general concerns.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEADLANG: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". So we should include at most one foreign name, namely the Romanian name. However MOS:NICKCRUFT recommendeds avoiding all foreign names. Someone suggested at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clarification to use in such cases an explanatory footnote for the names part. 77wonders (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEADLANG is not restrictive, but permissive, and the Hungarian name was not there just to show etymology. Since I am 99,99% certain whom I speaking with, let me not to incite some other policies, which would lead outside the topic, but would be valid...mind this.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to this solution. Whether or not the Hungarian name can be in the lead is a matter of discussion, but how can the Romanian name under which the vast majority of Romanian people know him not be in the lead? I think this new version is worse. I propose we leave it as how it was before this discussion started. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 17 February Turgidson (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion articles like Catherine the Great that don't have non-English names in the lead look cleaner. But seemingly there is no consensus for this change at this moment. 77wonders (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I am late to this discussion (perhaps for the better!), but, even though I've heard many, many times of Mihai Viteazul sometimes between the 16th and the 20th century (:)), I've never heard of him referred to as Vitéz Mihály, even by Hungarian-speaking (or Székely-speaking?) people, and I've never seen this spelling in written sources, either. This sounds like a stretch to me, especially because it is so prominently displayed in the first sentence of the lede. Turgidson (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: While at it, if we are to list the translations into other languages under which Mihai Bravu was known, why stop at Hungarian, and not also add , , , , , , and ? Where does one draw the line? Turgidson (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding more names have been arisen already, I have no problem with it, I think almost all aspects we discussed (it's irrelevant if you heard from Hungarian-speaking people, though they would call him like that, Székely-speaking people does not exist :-) ). I think line is drawn in the end by consensus, however notability among other things - we discussed - are important.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

text: There is some sense for keeping the Hungarian name. As said before, Michael the Brave had several interactions with the Székelys. As far as I know, they were allies until a certain moment. But why should the Serbian name be added? I don't think that's a suitable solution. It's an entirely pointless name to add. What conexion did he have to Serbia and the Serbs with the exception of Starina Novak? Super Ψ Dro 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On it.wiki they go with Michele il Coraggioso (Mihai Viteazul/Mihai Bravu, Vitez Mihaly, Michał Waleczny) [I guess they have at least as good a  claim to a connection there, through the dastardly Giorgio Basta (just kidding!)], whereas at pl.wiki they keep it simple and go with the minimalist Michał Waleczny (Mihai Viteazul); other wikis have variations on this theme. I myself would prefer the simplicity of the Polish solution, and have only the standard Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazu(l)/Mihai Bravu), which is already a bit longer than what they have, but for some good reasons. Keep in mind the tried and true Occam's razor principle: "entities should not be multiplied without necessity". Turgidson (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I've searched on Google "Vitéz Mihály" and I'm getting mostly results of Mihály Csokonai. Is "Vitéz Mihály" really a common Hungarian name for him? Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, perhaps you're right on that the Hungarian name is not that relevant... Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just about Michael's interactions with Székelys. Michael also was the Governor of Transylvania, which was a Hungarian Crown Land. However, by this rule we should add the Hungarian name in the Suleiman the Magnificent article (!!!), because he ruled over Ottoman Hungary. 77wonders (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Csokonai Vitéz Mihály" is the most common and known name for him. The Suleiman the Magnificent example fails, he was not elected by anybody, did not represent anybody in the behalf of Lands of the Hungarian Crown, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: It fails, since the one who phrased the sentence made a false equivalence. It has nothing to do the rest you stated, since I told my opinion about this example particularly.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian name? 

message: In biographies of historical personalities, should the lead section contain multiple foreign language equivalent names? 77wonders (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Michael did not rule Moldavia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania, that is a well known fact. 77wonders (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are right. Michael ruled Wallachia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

text: * I see the fact that "he ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population and a part of the principality are now in Hungary" only as a notability argument for having an article about him in hu.wiki. I think on en.wiki we should talk about the frequency of the name in English-language sources. The Romanian name of Matthias Corvinus is used in quite many English sources, especially in works of Romanian authors. At Matthias Corvinus we have 5 non-English names in the lead, we should probably keep only the Hu name, like on Britannica - the rest could be moved in a separate section. 77wonders (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

text: In my opinion a general consensus is preferable, because it would prevent nationalistic disputes between editors on different articles. 77wonders (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *If we accept that maximum one foreign (non-English) name is mentioned in all articles as a rule, this could be a good compromise. Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose in all cases, there might be some people belonging to an ethnic minority from a country with another ethnicity as majority (for example, an Arab in Israel, in that case we should add both Arab and Hebrew names). I doubt that we should focus in this discussion on establishing a format for all Wikipedia articles. This issue can depend in every article and should be discussed individually if it's necessary.  Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I perhaps do not understand your above remark. Do you argue that Michael's Hungarian name should clearly be listed, because he seized Transylvania with the support of a Hungarian-speaking group, ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population in Transylvania on behalf of the king of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said before, in my opinion I would prefer it to be removed, but I am not going to strive for that change because I recognize that it makes sense to keep the name. Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  In the case of Arab Israelis, I suppose the Hebrew and Arab names are transcriptions of the English name into the Hebrew and and Arabic alphabet. Since English Wikipedia is dedicated to English readers, what's the point of having a name in an alphabet they normally don't know? On Britannica, Yasser Arafat 's name is not written at all in Arabic characters, which seems right to me. Anyway, we have the interlanguage links in the the left sidebar of the page, so the name in all languages are very easily accessible with a single click. 77wonders (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important that people's names are known in their native language, so from my point of view, they should be added. Interlanguage links are not always accessible, there are times when the Wikipedia of the person's native language does not have a page. Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it may be important to learn the native name of someone. Or in the case of the Arab Israelis mentioned above, to discover how their native name looks like, because the overwhelming majority of the readers won't be able to read words written in other alphabets. 77wonders (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on foreign names in the lead section