This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael the Brave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Michael the Brave was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 9, 2018. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Does anyone at all find this treatment just a little one-sided? From the mention of the "three Romanian principalities" (which is understandable enough) we can sense a bit of pro-Romanian bias; after all, Transylvania was traditionally ruled by Hungarians after about the 10th century. My real problem is with this line: "The accomplishment of Mihai Viteazul was made possible by the unity of kin and language of all the Romanians, by awakening national consciousness and its assertion throughout the entire Romanian space." Leaving aside the fact that it sounds suspiciously like Nicolae Stoicescu, there is very little evidence for any "Romanian national consciousness" in Mihai's time. Perhaps we should ask ourselves: How many "nations" had a "national consciousness" in 1598? (See, for example, Sugár Péter, etc.) The Transylvanian social structure was very complicated and there is a good case for categorizing it based not on ethnicity or nationality, but on social function. There is ample support for the view that a good deal of the peasantry rebelled to support Mihai's invasion, but the view that this was exclusively ethnically based is outdated (with all due and sincere respect to the great Nicolae Iorga). Any invader is bound to promise the peasants better treatment; indeed, it is sad to think that the Transylvanian peasantry believed this, given the anti-peasant, pro-serfdom social measures Mihai was taking in Wallachia at the same time.
While Hungarians and Romanians may never fully agree on whether Mihai was an unwelcome conqueror or a "liberator," perhaps the Hungarian side should be at least mentioned in the article. After all, some Hungarian historians (Mende Tibor, Sinor Dénes, et al) cite Mihai as a particularly cruel ruler, even on par with the odious Basta. His interventions in Transylvanian affairs - if you don't buy the "16th-century unity of the Romanian people" line - only hurt a country already plagued by civil war, famine and plague.
The "unified state" was also not quite as centralized as it would seem in this article. Mihai imported boyars from Wallachia to sit on the Transylvanian Diet, true, and exported Székely military advisors to help in the Wallachian army, but there were very few institutions that covered both Transylvania and Wallachia (perhaps someone else can say what the case was in Moldavia) and the primary "glue" in the arrangement was Mihai himself.
I think we can all respect Transylvania's varied history more, and appreciate the truly great qualities in her history's most significant personalities, if we continue to try to offer balanced pictures of controversial figures like Mihai. Any thoughts?
- From an independent, but admittedly pro-Hungarian, observer
I agree - this article contains elements of Ceausescu-era propaganda which really don't belong here. Scott Moore 09:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Propagada? You Hungarians can't seem to understand that transylvania always was and always will be rightfully romanias'. Going all the way back to dacia (romanian ancestor people). We should also consider that over 80% of transylvania is Romanian at that time almost 70% of people were romanian. Mihai Vitazul was not a tyrant. He could not have united the romanian principalities without the help of the farmers (fact) living in them that loved and supported him. How dare these people asume that Mihai was a cruel ruler, maybe for the Hungarians who despise the thought that they were beaten by a country and army almost half their size.
You Hungarians don't get it that Transylavania is a land inhabited by 83% romanians and only 10% hungarians. So how dare you say that this land is yours. transylvania was taken from romanians by tricks from your kings. They invaded our land,our land, when we were less prepared. And,to be honest, you are the newest people in europe. You come from a mongolian race, which cames from Asia. So how dare you say that Transylvania is yours?! You don't know a thing about the struggles in our history. it seems that hungarians are intoxicated with propaganda about who is the ruler of transylvania, not romanians. we got our land back with sweat and blood when michael united the 3 countries (yes,three countries,because we were surrounded by 3 empires: russian, austrian and ottoman,so therefore a unity could not be made) and we gained it back in WW1, when your cowardly troops retreated from the romanian troops. And don't make me write here other proofs, because it is not necessary.
- early of the 16th century the proportion of Olahs in Transilvania was about approx. 40%, this increased to the proportion mentioned in the article, showing us this period the Hungarian-Szekler-Saxon people had the most losses in the conflicts, and the proportion was declined much more intense as Michael The Brave settled Bulgarians and Olahs from Wallachia to the depopulated regions
- Michael The Brave ruled Transilvania first time 31. October 1599-18. September 1600 as a Habsburg vassal, as the resident of Kaiser Rudolf. Second time his reign lasted 3. August 1601 - 19. August 1601, after the deal with Basta. History (international, local, etc.) don't know Michael The Brave ever mentioned or made and allegation he joined all "Romanians", or created a unified state, to say nothing of how could it be done without the permission of the Habsburgs.
- The 4 day, 11 month rule, as a resident Habsburg vassal makes impossible such ,,unification"
- The are NO documents that the the three Voivodeships were joined, or would be in any case this creation (semi)-independent in any form or legal way, recognised by anybody, as well there are no name of this fantasy-creation, not even a ceremony that would prove any kind off attempt joining the three lands, or i.e. what it's official language would be.
- under his rule ha made his contributions to the Diet of Trasilvania in Hungarian, written in Hungarian, and the Diet made their warrants in Hungarian
- He made his correspondence with the Saxons as well in Hungarian
- He negotiated with the deputies of Rudolf as well in Hungarian (fact, Michael The Brave could speak well Hungarian)
- State records, benefactions and grants were written in Hungarian and he signed them in Latin
- He haven't even issued any kind of charter or warrant in Romanian
Finally, we can only state the truth: Michael The Brave was at the same time, simultaneously the leader of the three Voivodeships, not more, and never joined them or made any attempt to make it. Regarding this article (and many others in wikipedia), there are inofficially mentioned or with some citations stated that he made an union, these are ultimately false and misleading, should be corrected. As I could see as well in this article, the seal also proves the truths: "Michael Voivode of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia Land". This is the fact! ( KIENGIR ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
Please listen and understand the following, before you make unfortunate modifications:
- The article also ADMITS that "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 modem 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." --> Thus, speaking about or identifying the happenings as an UNION is FALSE, is an IMAGINARY act later by some Romanians who used is as a propaganda/desired wish/reinterpretations or call it anyway you want, but IT NEVER HAPPENED! This is a common problem, since almost all of the citations used by the Romanian history writing or anyone are from these works, but the most IMPORTANT is: these citated works just stating something that they CAN'T PROVE, furthermore, other historcial facts PROVE it never happened!
-Please use your brain, and that's what I can advise everybody who reverts any edit correcting this FATAL mistake.
- Wikipedia should present only FACTS, not biassed or misleading information/propaganada/willful deception
THUS->
- Every statement about UNION/JOIN is LIE, only you can citate or mention that centuries later some Romanian authors announced and reinterpretated it, but it does not mean anything and have nothing to withe facts, because it was only a symbolic act, you CAN'T change history by protochronistic machinations.
- Many times there was an emperor/ruler/leader/king who leaded/owned/had the crown of more states/countries, but it would not mean these states/countries were joined
FINALLY:
- So long anybody can't show/prove or citate (in this case, valid citation can be accepted if the author proved his allegation) an union, sorry...Wikipedia is not about what never happened, it's about what happened...
- Before anybody would try find something, I have to disappoint them: in this question, there's a consensus all over the world, the facts I listed can be researched and well known among the real intelligentsia, and NOT even debated by any serious Romanian historians, or like so. Unfortunately, however de facto and de jure the three voivodeships had never been united under Michael The Brave's rule, de facto only the later Romanian imaginary interpretation is identified mostly. It is time to correct this mistake! No misunderstood, don't take it as an offence. Facts are facts! Greetings!( KIENGIR ( talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
I will try to explain the problem again, as simple and to the point as possible. Your contribution to this article and talk page is wrong for several reason:
Bare in mind that removing valid references from an article is considered an act of nonconstructive editing that will probably result in some sort of sanctions if continued. All this links with WP (ex: WP:SOURCE) are wikipedia rules that all wikipedians respect. Try to edit wikipedia some more, to see how it`s mechanism works... I myself was blocked several times in the beggining because I also did`t understood some things. I hope this explains everything. If you have any questions regarding this problem, don`t hesitate to ask, but please, try to talk about the subject only. Greetings. Adrian ( talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Relative discussion about this problem also happened here with another user discussion. I know I said at-least 3 times but before making more nonconstructive edits again I wish to inform you again that if continued you are violating the WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. If continued you may be blocked. You violated several times the WP:NPA (constant personal attacks), but that is separate from this article discussion. Adrian ( talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: Don't worry, till Sunday I won't make any attemt to edit. Consult with the Romanian intelligenstia or so what, hopefully they are interested in a fair encyclopedia. ( KIENGIR ( talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
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): [1]; page 22; [2]; [3]; [4]; page 47; [5]; [6]; [7]. I hope this will clear some things about this conflict. Adrian ( talk) 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
About latest edit [9], I agree with the formulation of a personal union but with the second addition which is contradictory(according to the meaning of the word union) I do not, especially since we don`t have a single source that support this opinion, however 9 sources +3 from the article that support a simple union formulation (without this additions). However I have accepted them (also the removal of the word Romanian, even if almost all sources use that formulation). Mihai Viteazul was famous for uniting the Romanian principalities to form a single state for the first time, saying it like this in the lead is inaccurate and unsupported by any historical data (references). I will just remove that part and hope this solves everything. I accepted some changes in a spirit of compromise - even if they do not reflect the data from the sources, but this is just pushing it since it is not supported by any historical data nor references. As for the citation needed at the word union we can insert any of the references from the talk page. Adrian ( talk) 06:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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))
"...it is said that the Wallach/Romanian (Michael) is very powerful and that his plans grow along his victories in battle" Henric al IV-lea, rege al Frantei (1593-1616)
"... un barbat vestit si ales prin nastere, cat si prin statura lui mandra. De asemenea era vrednic de lauda cea mai mare prin virtutile cele mai alese, prin marea sa evlavie catre Dumnezeu, prin iubirea de tara, prin bunavointa fata de cei deopotriva cu el, in sfarsit fata de toti, prin dreptate, adevar, statornicie, marinimie si deprinderea altor virtuti de acest fel. Pe langa acestea, era drag tuturor celor buni pentru darurile inalte ale sufletului lui nobil cu adevarat, pornit chiar prin fire sa savarseasca ispravi grele, ca si prin cuvantul sau, care, de cate ori era nevoie si chiar fara pregatire dinainte, ii iesea din gura bland si intelept." Baltazar Walter Silezianul, "Scurta si adevarata descriere a faptelor savarsite de Io Mihai, Domnul Tarii Romanesti", aparuta la Gorlitz, 1599
"Este un lucru demn de cea mai mare consideratie si de glorie eterna, intrucat ceea ce nu au putut realiza atat de multi imparati, regi si principi a izbutit un Mihai, cel mai neinsemnat si mai sarac dintre duci, anume sa invinga ostile marelui Sultan." Edward Barton, agent englez la Istanbul, 7 noiembrie 1595
"Nu pot sa nu va comunic ca din zi in zi creste teama atat in pieptul cat si in sufletul fiecaruia din cauza marii valori pe care o demonstreaza in aceste parti ale Europei acest nou Alexandru (cel Mare), caruia ii spune Mihai Voievodu." Misionarul franciscan la Constantinopol Eustachio Fantena, 17 octombrie 1958
The term "brave" is not the best translation for Romanian term "viteaz". "Brave" is good, but it has a somewhat mild nuance. His (Michael's) deeds can of course be described as of a "brave" ruler but the fame wasn't come more from his bravery than it was from the fact that he was feared, at the end feared by all! The term "stalwart" is closer to "viteaz" than the term "brave", in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That is the point as I said in the discussion before and in the discussion up. Verifiability is the most important thing. Sources talk, not us. Wikipedia is not here for expressing our personal opinions but for representing the facts and inducing then into articles. Yes, please, present any source that states that the term viteaz is from Hungarian language. Talking like this without any valid reference cannot be considered a serious discussion. Adrian ( talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Arpad Kosztin neutrality and validity is problematic because of this this book 1. In Romanian, [16]. 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 [17]. If anyone reintroduces this info, please insert some info about validity of this author. Adrian ( talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Michael the Brave. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Did he change the language in Moldova or who? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Michael, byname Michael the Brave, Romanian Mihai Viteazul, original name Mihai Basarab, (born 1558—died Aug. 19, 1601, Torda, Walachia), Romanian national hero, prince of Walachia, who briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule.
[...]
During the 19th century, Michael acquired the reputation among Romanian nationalists as the pioneer of national unity.
— Encyclopedia Britannica
Michael was not seen only by 19th-century nationalists as a pioneer of Romanian unity. 19th-century nationalists are just the first ones that emphasized the event. The personal union is still an acknowledged fact, presented in the first paragraph of the Britannica article. 86.120.150.49 ( talk) 22:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
cand faci prea multa reclama unui produs acesta devine suspect, that is too much advertising makes your product look suspicious. The propagandists beg questions like: "Did Romanians at the end of the 16th century have a highly developed national consciousness?", "Were they nation für sich rather than nation an sich?". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@ KIENGIR: I don't object to stating facts as facts. I think that the mention sins by omission: it should be mentioned that it was a fleeting personal union. It really wasn't a game changer until 19th-century nationalists saw in Michael the hero of their own cause. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Distrugerea oricărei națiuni nu necesită bombe atomice sau rachete balistice intercontinentale. Trebuie doar scăzută calitatea învătământului și permisiunea fraudei la examenele studenților. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
Please stop this off-topic conversation. About the last sentence of KIENGIR's first comment: I'm from Transylvania and I've never heard the name "Vitéz Mihály", to be honest. Lupishor ( talk) 23:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If afraid that "you probably did not live in the 16th century" is not the kind of argument you use on Wikipedia. You should mention some reliable sources if you want to support your argument. Lupishor ( talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read WP:MOS and haven't been able to find said quote or anything else like that. Are you sure you haven't made it up or confused it for a quote from another article? I've also noticed that this is the first ever edit you make on Wikipedia. Lupishor ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The "consensus building" thing has already been explained to you on other talk pages as well. As you can clearly see, there are 3 people in favor of the change, since the name doesn't have a reason to be there. There are many names that could be added, including the Serbian one, since Serbian forces (including Starina Novak) fought alongside Michael. But they aren't here. And whether you tried or not to remove foreign names from pages of Hungarian historical personalities doesn't have to do with this. I wouldn't have anything against removing those names as long as there is no reason for them to be in the article. Lupishor ( talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that KIENGIR and Borsoka's points aren't true, but this still doesn't mean that Michael is closely associated with either Hungary or the Hungarian language. There is no reason behind having the Hungarian name in the lead. Like I said, it should either be removed or added in a note-tag along with other foreign names. Lupishor ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for having been missing for so long here. Like Turgidson has said, there are obviously multiple foreign names that could be added; there's no reason to only have the Hungarian one out of them all. Therefore, seeing as there are no other foreign names, it should be removed. The fact that Michael was the (de facto) ruler of a "Hungarian state" for one year doesn't make the Hungarian name more important for the English-speaking reader. I've never heard the form Vitéz Mihály either.
I'd suggest we either remove the Hungarian name completely or make a note tag for it and other foreign names, like the Serbian one. This would make the lead sentence look "cleaner" and easier to read. Lupishor ( talk) 21:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Super Dro. About your above question: It's not only about Starina Novak, but also about his Serbian troops who fought on Michael's side Also, Michael the Brave appears in Serbian historiography. Yes, Michael had interactions with Székelys, they were allied, but he also fought against the Hungarians. If we add the Hungarian name because of Michael's interaction/alliance with the Székelys, we could use the same argument to add the Serbian name – but both are pretty much pointless here. Cheers! Lupishor ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Those arguments don't mean that the Suleiman the Magnificent example fails. There's no rule stating that the inclusion of a foreign name is based on your above arguments. Several arguments can also be used for not including the Hungarian name on Michael's page. Lupishor ( talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No exception here exists for non-English ones. Next:Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.
I.e., this is left to editorial discretion. The positive example provided (with two "foreign" names in it that might plausibly appear in English-language sources) is:Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.
The negative example provided (with too many names, including ones en.wikipedia users are not likely to encounter and search for) is:Use: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227) was the founder of the Mongol Empire.
Also:Avoid: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan ( Mongolian: Чингис хаан, romanized: Çingis hán; Chinese: 成吉思汗; pinyin: Chéngjísī Hán; Wade–Giles: Ch'eng2-chi2-szu1 Han4; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227), born Temüjin (Тэмүжин Temüjin; traditional Chinese: 鐵木真; simplified Chinese: 铁木真; pinyin: Tiěmùzhēn; Wade–Giles: T'ieh3-mu4-chen1), was the founder of the Mongol Empire.
With regard to MoS matters "reliable sources" means English-language ones, since this is English Wikipedia and we don't take English-writing style cues from non-English material. So, an alternative name that can only be found in Hungarian sources, or a spelling that can only be found in a single English source, or only in unreliable ones like webboards, should not be included. NB: I wrote most of that guideline, so I know what it means. :-)Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject.
As for a case like this, a ruler of a multi-lingual territory, it is pretty normal for us to include their name(s) in the major subject languages, but only as they appear in modern versions of them, and only if they're still in enough use that users of en.wikipedia are occasionally likely to run into them. For example, Julius Caesar ruled over many lands with dozens if not hundreds of languages, but we do not give renditions of his name in Gaulish, Ancient Egyptian, Old Brythonic, Koine Greek, Old Macdeonian, etc. We might also preserve an old-language name if it is frequently used in reliable (albeit specialized) sources; an example is at Brian Boru, where we give his Modern Irish name, because it is frequent even in English-language sources published in Ireland, and we also give his Middle Irish (native language) name and patronymic, because this appears in manuscript materials that've been the subject of various English-language analytical publications, so some readers are likely to also encounter that version. (The article also gave his name in Old Irish, but I removed that as nonsense WP:OR, because he post-dates the Old Irish period.)
Finally, some arguments I see above, like whether someone was elected or not, appear to have no relevance to the question. None of this has anything to do with what name was used by which group back when for how long and for what reasons; the only consideration is whether including a name is an actual service to readers or just confusing visual noise, like in the bad Genghis Khan example (which was pulled from an actual old version of that article). Charlemagne is a good example; we include his Modern French name because he ruled over much of what is now France, and his French name is common in sources, even in English ones; we include his alternative English name because it is common enough (mostly in 19th-century and earlier material) that some readers will search for it; and we include his Latin name because it shows up commonly in more scholarly material. We do not include his name in Frankish and Lombardic (his native languages) because they're dead languages and those names are not likely to be anyone's en.WP search terms. We do not include in name in ancient Gaulish for the same reason, despite him ruling over many of the Gauls who survived various earlier depopulation attempts by the Romans. We do not give his name in Old or Modern Breton, despite Brittany being one of his vassal states, and Modern Breton having a name for him in their history schoolbooks; English-speakers are not likely to ever encounter his Breton name. And so on.
It's only about reader needs and expectations. It has nothing to do with "fair" representation of historical populations, assumptions about what the preference of the person would have been if we could go back in time and ask, provability of some name existing in some other language but not a name English-speakers will likely be looking for, modern-day nationalistic "claims" to historical figures as cultural heritage, or any other such extraneous concerns. Depending on the nature of the material, it may well be encyclopedic to get into other names in the main body of the article instead of in the lead, e.g. when writing about specific territories and peoples, or when discussing the figure's appearance in medieval manuscript materials.
PS: That sentence in MOS:LEAD that seems to suggest it is only permissible to have a single non-English name in the lead sentence, ever, is obviously incorrect; I'm drafting a proposed replacement already.
Hope this helps. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
In biographies of historical personalities, should the lead section contain multiple foreign language equivalent names? 77wonders ( talk) 09:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Legacy" section, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael the Brave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Michael the Brave was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 9, 2018. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Does anyone at all find this treatment just a little one-sided? From the mention of the "three Romanian principalities" (which is understandable enough) we can sense a bit of pro-Romanian bias; after all, Transylvania was traditionally ruled by Hungarians after about the 10th century. My real problem is with this line: "The accomplishment of Mihai Viteazul was made possible by the unity of kin and language of all the Romanians, by awakening national consciousness and its assertion throughout the entire Romanian space." Leaving aside the fact that it sounds suspiciously like Nicolae Stoicescu, there is very little evidence for any "Romanian national consciousness" in Mihai's time. Perhaps we should ask ourselves: How many "nations" had a "national consciousness" in 1598? (See, for example, Sugár Péter, etc.) The Transylvanian social structure was very complicated and there is a good case for categorizing it based not on ethnicity or nationality, but on social function. There is ample support for the view that a good deal of the peasantry rebelled to support Mihai's invasion, but the view that this was exclusively ethnically based is outdated (with all due and sincere respect to the great Nicolae Iorga). Any invader is bound to promise the peasants better treatment; indeed, it is sad to think that the Transylvanian peasantry believed this, given the anti-peasant, pro-serfdom social measures Mihai was taking in Wallachia at the same time.
While Hungarians and Romanians may never fully agree on whether Mihai was an unwelcome conqueror or a "liberator," perhaps the Hungarian side should be at least mentioned in the article. After all, some Hungarian historians (Mende Tibor, Sinor Dénes, et al) cite Mihai as a particularly cruel ruler, even on par with the odious Basta. His interventions in Transylvanian affairs - if you don't buy the "16th-century unity of the Romanian people" line - only hurt a country already plagued by civil war, famine and plague.
The "unified state" was also not quite as centralized as it would seem in this article. Mihai imported boyars from Wallachia to sit on the Transylvanian Diet, true, and exported Székely military advisors to help in the Wallachian army, but there were very few institutions that covered both Transylvania and Wallachia (perhaps someone else can say what the case was in Moldavia) and the primary "glue" in the arrangement was Mihai himself.
I think we can all respect Transylvania's varied history more, and appreciate the truly great qualities in her history's most significant personalities, if we continue to try to offer balanced pictures of controversial figures like Mihai. Any thoughts?
- From an independent, but admittedly pro-Hungarian, observer
I agree - this article contains elements of Ceausescu-era propaganda which really don't belong here. Scott Moore 09:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Propagada? You Hungarians can't seem to understand that transylvania always was and always will be rightfully romanias'. Going all the way back to dacia (romanian ancestor people). We should also consider that over 80% of transylvania is Romanian at that time almost 70% of people were romanian. Mihai Vitazul was not a tyrant. He could not have united the romanian principalities without the help of the farmers (fact) living in them that loved and supported him. How dare these people asume that Mihai was a cruel ruler, maybe for the Hungarians who despise the thought that they were beaten by a country and army almost half their size.
You Hungarians don't get it that Transylavania is a land inhabited by 83% romanians and only 10% hungarians. So how dare you say that this land is yours. transylvania was taken from romanians by tricks from your kings. They invaded our land,our land, when we were less prepared. And,to be honest, you are the newest people in europe. You come from a mongolian race, which cames from Asia. So how dare you say that Transylvania is yours?! You don't know a thing about the struggles in our history. it seems that hungarians are intoxicated with propaganda about who is the ruler of transylvania, not romanians. we got our land back with sweat and blood when michael united the 3 countries (yes,three countries,because we were surrounded by 3 empires: russian, austrian and ottoman,so therefore a unity could not be made) and we gained it back in WW1, when your cowardly troops retreated from the romanian troops. And don't make me write here other proofs, because it is not necessary.
- early of the 16th century the proportion of Olahs in Transilvania was about approx. 40%, this increased to the proportion mentioned in the article, showing us this period the Hungarian-Szekler-Saxon people had the most losses in the conflicts, and the proportion was declined much more intense as Michael The Brave settled Bulgarians and Olahs from Wallachia to the depopulated regions
- Michael The Brave ruled Transilvania first time 31. October 1599-18. September 1600 as a Habsburg vassal, as the resident of Kaiser Rudolf. Second time his reign lasted 3. August 1601 - 19. August 1601, after the deal with Basta. History (international, local, etc.) don't know Michael The Brave ever mentioned or made and allegation he joined all "Romanians", or created a unified state, to say nothing of how could it be done without the permission of the Habsburgs.
- The 4 day, 11 month rule, as a resident Habsburg vassal makes impossible such ,,unification"
- The are NO documents that the the three Voivodeships were joined, or would be in any case this creation (semi)-independent in any form or legal way, recognised by anybody, as well there are no name of this fantasy-creation, not even a ceremony that would prove any kind off attempt joining the three lands, or i.e. what it's official language would be.
- under his rule ha made his contributions to the Diet of Trasilvania in Hungarian, written in Hungarian, and the Diet made their warrants in Hungarian
- He made his correspondence with the Saxons as well in Hungarian
- He negotiated with the deputies of Rudolf as well in Hungarian (fact, Michael The Brave could speak well Hungarian)
- State records, benefactions and grants were written in Hungarian and he signed them in Latin
- He haven't even issued any kind of charter or warrant in Romanian
Finally, we can only state the truth: Michael The Brave was at the same time, simultaneously the leader of the three Voivodeships, not more, and never joined them or made any attempt to make it. Regarding this article (and many others in wikipedia), there are inofficially mentioned or with some citations stated that he made an union, these are ultimately false and misleading, should be corrected. As I could see as well in this article, the seal also proves the truths: "Michael Voivode of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia Land". This is the fact! ( KIENGIR ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
Please listen and understand the following, before you make unfortunate modifications:
- The article also ADMITS that "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 modem 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." --> Thus, speaking about or identifying the happenings as an UNION is FALSE, is an IMAGINARY act later by some Romanians who used is as a propaganda/desired wish/reinterpretations or call it anyway you want, but IT NEVER HAPPENED! This is a common problem, since almost all of the citations used by the Romanian history writing or anyone are from these works, but the most IMPORTANT is: these citated works just stating something that they CAN'T PROVE, furthermore, other historcial facts PROVE it never happened!
-Please use your brain, and that's what I can advise everybody who reverts any edit correcting this FATAL mistake.
- Wikipedia should present only FACTS, not biassed or misleading information/propaganada/willful deception
THUS->
- Every statement about UNION/JOIN is LIE, only you can citate or mention that centuries later some Romanian authors announced and reinterpretated it, but it does not mean anything and have nothing to withe facts, because it was only a symbolic act, you CAN'T change history by protochronistic machinations.
- Many times there was an emperor/ruler/leader/king who leaded/owned/had the crown of more states/countries, but it would not mean these states/countries were joined
FINALLY:
- So long anybody can't show/prove or citate (in this case, valid citation can be accepted if the author proved his allegation) an union, sorry...Wikipedia is not about what never happened, it's about what happened...
- Before anybody would try find something, I have to disappoint them: in this question, there's a consensus all over the world, the facts I listed can be researched and well known among the real intelligentsia, and NOT even debated by any serious Romanian historians, or like so. Unfortunately, however de facto and de jure the three voivodeships had never been united under Michael The Brave's rule, de facto only the later Romanian imaginary interpretation is identified mostly. It is time to correct this mistake! No misunderstood, don't take it as an offence. Facts are facts! Greetings!( KIENGIR ( talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
I will try to explain the problem again, as simple and to the point as possible. Your contribution to this article and talk page is wrong for several reason:
Bare in mind that removing valid references from an article is considered an act of nonconstructive editing that will probably result in some sort of sanctions if continued. All this links with WP (ex: WP:SOURCE) are wikipedia rules that all wikipedians respect. Try to edit wikipedia some more, to see how it`s mechanism works... I myself was blocked several times in the beggining because I also did`t understood some things. I hope this explains everything. If you have any questions regarding this problem, don`t hesitate to ask, but please, try to talk about the subject only. Greetings. Adrian ( talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Relative discussion about this problem also happened here with another user discussion. I know I said at-least 3 times but before making more nonconstructive edits again I wish to inform you again that if continued you are violating the WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. If continued you may be blocked. You violated several times the WP:NPA (constant personal attacks), but that is separate from this article discussion. Adrian ( talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: Don't worry, till Sunday I won't make any attemt to edit. Consult with the Romanian intelligenstia or so what, hopefully they are interested in a fair encyclopedia. ( KIENGIR ( talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
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): [1]; page 22; [2]; [3]; [4]; page 47; [5]; [6]; [7]. I hope this will clear some things about this conflict. Adrian ( talk) 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
About latest edit [9], I agree with the formulation of a personal union but with the second addition which is contradictory(according to the meaning of the word union) I do not, especially since we don`t have a single source that support this opinion, however 9 sources +3 from the article that support a simple union formulation (without this additions). However I have accepted them (also the removal of the word Romanian, even if almost all sources use that formulation). Mihai Viteazul was famous for uniting the Romanian principalities to form a single state for the first time, saying it like this in the lead is inaccurate and unsupported by any historical data (references). I will just remove that part and hope this solves everything. I accepted some changes in a spirit of compromise - even if they do not reflect the data from the sources, but this is just pushing it since it is not supported by any historical data nor references. As for the citation needed at the word union we can insert any of the references from the talk page. Adrian ( talk) 06:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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))
"...it is said that the Wallach/Romanian (Michael) is very powerful and that his plans grow along his victories in battle" Henric al IV-lea, rege al Frantei (1593-1616)
"... un barbat vestit si ales prin nastere, cat si prin statura lui mandra. De asemenea era vrednic de lauda cea mai mare prin virtutile cele mai alese, prin marea sa evlavie catre Dumnezeu, prin iubirea de tara, prin bunavointa fata de cei deopotriva cu el, in sfarsit fata de toti, prin dreptate, adevar, statornicie, marinimie si deprinderea altor virtuti de acest fel. Pe langa acestea, era drag tuturor celor buni pentru darurile inalte ale sufletului lui nobil cu adevarat, pornit chiar prin fire sa savarseasca ispravi grele, ca si prin cuvantul sau, care, de cate ori era nevoie si chiar fara pregatire dinainte, ii iesea din gura bland si intelept." Baltazar Walter Silezianul, "Scurta si adevarata descriere a faptelor savarsite de Io Mihai, Domnul Tarii Romanesti", aparuta la Gorlitz, 1599
"Este un lucru demn de cea mai mare consideratie si de glorie eterna, intrucat ceea ce nu au putut realiza atat de multi imparati, regi si principi a izbutit un Mihai, cel mai neinsemnat si mai sarac dintre duci, anume sa invinga ostile marelui Sultan." Edward Barton, agent englez la Istanbul, 7 noiembrie 1595
"Nu pot sa nu va comunic ca din zi in zi creste teama atat in pieptul cat si in sufletul fiecaruia din cauza marii valori pe care o demonstreaza in aceste parti ale Europei acest nou Alexandru (cel Mare), caruia ii spune Mihai Voievodu." Misionarul franciscan la Constantinopol Eustachio Fantena, 17 octombrie 1958
The term "brave" is not the best translation for Romanian term "viteaz". "Brave" is good, but it has a somewhat mild nuance. His (Michael's) deeds can of course be described as of a "brave" ruler but the fame wasn't come more from his bravery than it was from the fact that he was feared, at the end feared by all! The term "stalwart" is closer to "viteaz" than the term "brave", in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That is the point as I said in the discussion before and in the discussion up. Verifiability is the most important thing. Sources talk, not us. Wikipedia is not here for expressing our personal opinions but for representing the facts and inducing then into articles. Yes, please, present any source that states that the term viteaz is from Hungarian language. Talking like this without any valid reference cannot be considered a serious discussion. Adrian ( talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Arpad Kosztin neutrality and validity is problematic because of this this book 1. In Romanian, [16]. 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 [17]. If anyone reintroduces this info, please insert some info about validity of this author. Adrian ( talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Michael the Brave. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Did he change the language in Moldova or who? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Michael, byname Michael the Brave, Romanian Mihai Viteazul, original name Mihai Basarab, (born 1558—died Aug. 19, 1601, Torda, Walachia), Romanian national hero, prince of Walachia, who briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule.
[...]
During the 19th century, Michael acquired the reputation among Romanian nationalists as the pioneer of national unity.
— Encyclopedia Britannica
Michael was not seen only by 19th-century nationalists as a pioneer of Romanian unity. 19th-century nationalists are just the first ones that emphasized the event. The personal union is still an acknowledged fact, presented in the first paragraph of the Britannica article. 86.120.150.49 ( talk) 22:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
cand faci prea multa reclama unui produs acesta devine suspect, that is too much advertising makes your product look suspicious. The propagandists beg questions like: "Did Romanians at the end of the 16th century have a highly developed national consciousness?", "Were they nation für sich rather than nation an sich?". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@ KIENGIR: I don't object to stating facts as facts. I think that the mention sins by omission: it should be mentioned that it was a fleeting personal union. It really wasn't a game changer until 19th-century nationalists saw in Michael the hero of their own cause. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Distrugerea oricărei națiuni nu necesită bombe atomice sau rachete balistice intercontinentale. Trebuie doar scăzută calitatea învătământului și permisiunea fraudei la examenele studenților. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
Please stop this off-topic conversation. About the last sentence of KIENGIR's first comment: I'm from Transylvania and I've never heard the name "Vitéz Mihály", to be honest. Lupishor ( talk) 23:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If afraid that "you probably did not live in the 16th century" is not the kind of argument you use on Wikipedia. You should mention some reliable sources if you want to support your argument. Lupishor ( talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read WP:MOS and haven't been able to find said quote or anything else like that. Are you sure you haven't made it up or confused it for a quote from another article? I've also noticed that this is the first ever edit you make on Wikipedia. Lupishor ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The "consensus building" thing has already been explained to you on other talk pages as well. As you can clearly see, there are 3 people in favor of the change, since the name doesn't have a reason to be there. There are many names that could be added, including the Serbian one, since Serbian forces (including Starina Novak) fought alongside Michael. But they aren't here. And whether you tried or not to remove foreign names from pages of Hungarian historical personalities doesn't have to do with this. I wouldn't have anything against removing those names as long as there is no reason for them to be in the article. Lupishor ( talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that KIENGIR and Borsoka's points aren't true, but this still doesn't mean that Michael is closely associated with either Hungary or the Hungarian language. There is no reason behind having the Hungarian name in the lead. Like I said, it should either be removed or added in a note-tag along with other foreign names. Lupishor ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for having been missing for so long here. Like Turgidson has said, there are obviously multiple foreign names that could be added; there's no reason to only have the Hungarian one out of them all. Therefore, seeing as there are no other foreign names, it should be removed. The fact that Michael was the (de facto) ruler of a "Hungarian state" for one year doesn't make the Hungarian name more important for the English-speaking reader. I've never heard the form Vitéz Mihály either.
I'd suggest we either remove the Hungarian name completely or make a note tag for it and other foreign names, like the Serbian one. This would make the lead sentence look "cleaner" and easier to read. Lupishor ( talk) 21:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Super Dro. About your above question: It's not only about Starina Novak, but also about his Serbian troops who fought on Michael's side Also, Michael the Brave appears in Serbian historiography. Yes, Michael had interactions with Székelys, they were allied, but he also fought against the Hungarians. If we add the Hungarian name because of Michael's interaction/alliance with the Székelys, we could use the same argument to add the Serbian name – but both are pretty much pointless here. Cheers! Lupishor ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Those arguments don't mean that the Suleiman the Magnificent example fails. There's no rule stating that the inclusion of a foreign name is based on your above arguments. Several arguments can also be used for not including the Hungarian name on Michael's page. Lupishor ( talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No exception here exists for non-English ones. Next:Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.
I.e., this is left to editorial discretion. The positive example provided (with two "foreign" names in it that might plausibly appear in English-language sources) is:Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.
The negative example provided (with too many names, including ones en.wikipedia users are not likely to encounter and search for) is:Use: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227) was the founder of the Mongol Empire.
Also:Avoid: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan ( Mongolian: Чингис хаан, romanized: Çingis hán; Chinese: 成吉思汗; pinyin: Chéngjísī Hán; Wade–Giles: Ch'eng2-chi2-szu1 Han4; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227), born Temüjin (Тэмүжин Temüjin; traditional Chinese: 鐵木真; simplified Chinese: 铁木真; pinyin: Tiěmùzhēn; Wade–Giles: T'ieh3-mu4-chen1), was the founder of the Mongol Empire.
With regard to MoS matters "reliable sources" means English-language ones, since this is English Wikipedia and we don't take English-writing style cues from non-English material. So, an alternative name that can only be found in Hungarian sources, or a spelling that can only be found in a single English source, or only in unreliable ones like webboards, should not be included. NB: I wrote most of that guideline, so I know what it means. :-)Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject.
As for a case like this, a ruler of a multi-lingual territory, it is pretty normal for us to include their name(s) in the major subject languages, but only as they appear in modern versions of them, and only if they're still in enough use that users of en.wikipedia are occasionally likely to run into them. For example, Julius Caesar ruled over many lands with dozens if not hundreds of languages, but we do not give renditions of his name in Gaulish, Ancient Egyptian, Old Brythonic, Koine Greek, Old Macdeonian, etc. We might also preserve an old-language name if it is frequently used in reliable (albeit specialized) sources; an example is at Brian Boru, where we give his Modern Irish name, because it is frequent even in English-language sources published in Ireland, and we also give his Middle Irish (native language) name and patronymic, because this appears in manuscript materials that've been the subject of various English-language analytical publications, so some readers are likely to also encounter that version. (The article also gave his name in Old Irish, but I removed that as nonsense WP:OR, because he post-dates the Old Irish period.)
Finally, some arguments I see above, like whether someone was elected or not, appear to have no relevance to the question. None of this has anything to do with what name was used by which group back when for how long and for what reasons; the only consideration is whether including a name is an actual service to readers or just confusing visual noise, like in the bad Genghis Khan example (which was pulled from an actual old version of that article). Charlemagne is a good example; we include his Modern French name because he ruled over much of what is now France, and his French name is common in sources, even in English ones; we include his alternative English name because it is common enough (mostly in 19th-century and earlier material) that some readers will search for it; and we include his Latin name because it shows up commonly in more scholarly material. We do not include his name in Frankish and Lombardic (his native languages) because they're dead languages and those names are not likely to be anyone's en.WP search terms. We do not include in name in ancient Gaulish for the same reason, despite him ruling over many of the Gauls who survived various earlier depopulation attempts by the Romans. We do not give his name in Old or Modern Breton, despite Brittany being one of his vassal states, and Modern Breton having a name for him in their history schoolbooks; English-speakers are not likely to ever encounter his Breton name. And so on.
It's only about reader needs and expectations. It has nothing to do with "fair" representation of historical populations, assumptions about what the preference of the person would have been if we could go back in time and ask, provability of some name existing in some other language but not a name English-speakers will likely be looking for, modern-day nationalistic "claims" to historical figures as cultural heritage, or any other such extraneous concerns. Depending on the nature of the material, it may well be encyclopedic to get into other names in the main body of the article instead of in the lead, e.g. when writing about specific territories and peoples, or when discussing the figure's appearance in medieval manuscript materials.
PS: That sentence in MOS:LEAD that seems to suggest it is only permissible to have a single non-English name in the lead sentence, ever, is obviously incorrect; I'm drafting a proposed replacement already.
Hope this helps. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
In biographies of historical personalities, should the lead section contain multiple foreign language equivalent names? 77wonders ( talk) 09:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Legacy" section, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)