Talk:Michael the Brave

Hungarian name?

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)

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))

I don't agree with Kiengir. even I am hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: I am so glad that you are Hungarian. We can continue the discussion in Hungarian. Mjert nem ertés ediet Kiengirvel? @Kiengir: we should welcome our compatriot. He is an expert of the "Szekely language". Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Magysze: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But it was you who stated you were Hungarian. Why did you state that twice? Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

In this case, we can continue in Hungarian: mjert gondolád hodi Kiengir tévede? Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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))

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)

Yes, you probably did not live in the 16th century and the adjacent ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC))

I agree with Lupishor. Lupishor do you support Szekely people as different from Hungarians? Magysze (talk) 16:51, 8 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)

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))

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)

I don't mind if they are added.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, the correct link is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Foreign_language. 77wonders (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

delete Hungarian word. Magysze (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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))

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) This comment was made by the sock of banned user Hortobagy. Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true. But I do hope you get blocked for false allegations. Magysze (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

KIENGIR 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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Michał Waleczny, Михај Храбри, Михайло Хоробрий, Михай Храбрый, Michele il Coraggioso, Michel Ier le Brave, and Miguel el Valiente? Where does one draw the line? Turgidson (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, perhaps you're right on that the Hungarian name is not that relevant... Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

"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))

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)

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))

• "MOS:NICKCRUFT recommends avoiding all foreign names" is not a correct statement, so a line of argument proceeding from that is faulty. Here's the relevant material:

  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.

  No exception here exists for non-English ones. Next:

  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.

  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:

  Use: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227) was the founder of the Mongol Empire.

  The negative example provided (with too many names, including ones en.wikipedia users are not likely to encounter and search for) is:

  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.

  Also:

  Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject.

  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. :-)

  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)

Request for comment on foreign names in the lead section

In biographies of historical personalities, should the lead section contain multiple foreign language equivalent names? 77wonders (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• One foreign language name yes, of course, if the figure comes/came from a non-English speaking country, it is necessary to say their native name. Multiple foreign names depends on the context and the interaction or impact that the figure had on other countries/peoples. Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends on the individual case, which, here, is a "no". Since Michael is only closely associated with Romania and no other country, I see no point in complicating the lead sentence with unnecessary foreign names, such as the Hungarian one which is currently in. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends on the individual case. For someone like, say, John Hunyadi, it very much makes sense to give all three relevant names (in Hungarian, Serbian, and Romanian), since he had strong connections to each of those peoples and to the countries that existed there at the time; and likewise for his son, Matthias Corvinus. But for someone like Michael the Brave, who is only closely associated with Romania and no other country (as Lupishor says), Occam's razor says there should be only one foreign name, to wit, his native name (and variants thereof, if relevant, which is the case here). Turgidson (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the above posters that in this case the Hungarian name is largely superfluous, but it doesn't really bother me. I guess you could make a convoluted case for his Hungarian name to be included since he briefly ruled Transylvania, during its Hungarian era. But again, I don't think the presence of the Hungarian name in the lede makes the articles worse in any way, so I don't think it's really an issue. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have no problem with any names added, any arguments may be read in the above discussion, however per that, it may be concluded which names are fairly relevant to the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
• I have no problem with any names added. Michael ruled Wallachia and Moldavia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania from 1595. He seized Transylvania with the assistance of the Hungarian-speaking Székelys and ruled it on behalf of the king of Hungary. He ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population and a part of the principality are now in Hungary. No difference between Michael's Hungarian name and Matthias Corvinus's Romanian name. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• You are right. Michael ruled Wallachia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• It depends on the individual case, which, here, is a "no". Since Michael is only closely associated with Romania and no other country. If there is evidence of a strong relationship between Michael and another nation in literature and legends, then yes, that is relevant. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• One foreign language name is enough, per MOS:NICKCRUFT and MOS:LEADLANG. 77wonders (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends per above. Should be a local consensus. Lean "no" in this situation. ~ HAL333 01:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Super Dromaeosaurus 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)

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)

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)

• One foreign language name, in addition to the name in English is enough, per MOS:NICKCRUFT and MOS:LEADLANG, in case the subject's past merits the double appellation, e.g. born in one country and then becoming citizen of another. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Michael the Brave

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above 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.