Talk:John Zápolya

Hungarian name

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

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

John Zápolya → John Szapolyai – New name (actually Szapolyai János) is more common in Hungary while the current is less known. As he was a Hungarian king I think the article should be name according to his Hungarian name. 213.46.246.133 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the rule per WP:NAME is "most common name in English". It's irrelevant what the most common name in Hungary is; that name doesn't even use the same alphabet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zápolya is a Hungarian name just like Szapolyai. Letter á is missing from English so I don't really understand why you think that the name Zápolya is more English than the word Szapolyai. Anyway if the name Zápolya is so much more common in English you are right that the page should not be moved. 213.46.246.133 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zápolya vs Szapolyai

The actual real name is Szapolyai, it's not about language Zápolya is in hungarian as well, but the name of this dude was Szapolyai.

In hungarian sources are both names Zápolya and Szapolyai used. The hungarian wikipedia uses the name Szapolyai as reference. --ResetGomb 06:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

English name

We should use English name for him, John Zápolya (see An encyclopedia of battles by David Eggenberger).
Croatian historiography uses other name (Ivan Zapolja), Romanian, Austrian, Slovak etc. historiographies their respective names.
Since this is the Wikipedia in English, English name should be used.
Just like with e.g. Stephen Báthory (I don't see Istvan Bathory) or with Charles I of Hungary (I don't see Károly Róbert).
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zápolya is an alternative for Szapolyai it has nothing to do with English use note the "á" in Zápolya. "Á" is not an English characther so it's not about that. It is already mentioned in the artilce that he ruled as King John I of Hungary, when he became king. Hobartimus (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zapolja means in Slavic "behind the field" (za = behind, pole = field). Slovak historiography uses the name Zapolsky. There may be also another explanation for the name as "polsky" means Polish, which alerts us to his probable mixed Polish-German-Croat origin. His place of birth, the Spis Castle, should be written either in Latin or in Slovak or German, as the region was always inhabited by mixed Slavo-German population and Magyar was neither the lingua franca nor the official language of Hungary at the time.A black hole (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian was the official spoken language of Hungary and the court. Latin was only official written language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.118 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to John Zapolya

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no concensus after 20 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

---

János Szapolyai → John Zapolya — The proposed name is so often used (as opposed to the current name) that it is simply ridiculous not to use it. 477 English language books published after 1990 refer to him as John Zapolya. On the other hand, only 82 English language books published after 1990 refer to him as János Szapolyai. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

oppose First the name variant is Zápolya not Zapolya, so that's a spelling mistake to begin with in the suggestion. And yes that's a name variant of Szapolyai both are being noted in the article already in the first line. In my opinion, a rename would be just unnecessary and pointless one can pick one metric and find more use of one variant and find more use by another. Basicly it would create a lot of work for little to no gain. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't oppose John Zápolya either. If he is known as John Zapolya (no diacritic) in the English language literature, there is no spelling mistake; see Wikipedia:Diacritics. Zápolya is almost always spelled without the diacritic, but including it won't hurt anyone. A rename is more than neccessary because, as I have proven, the proposed name is significantly more common than the present name. No matter which "metric" you pick, you'll find that John Zapolya (or John Zápolya, whatever) is much more common. Moving the article would not create a lot of work; it's a simple procedure that's done regularly - just take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. And it's a big gain: saying that using the common name would not be a big gain is like saying that moving Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton would not be a big mistake. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note By the way, the article about his son is titled John II Sigismund Zápolya. Not only is the name of this article extremely rare, it is also inconsistent with other related articles such as the article about his aforementioned son. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a side question, what's the significance of using 1990 as a cutoff? Hobartimus (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to stress that modern books (not just the ones which may be considered outdated) refer to him as John Zapolya (or John Zápolya). You can count all the books ever published if you wish; the numbers (i.e. historians) still favour the proposed title. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

According the following results, 136 scholars who write in English refer to him as John Zapolya or John Zápolya, while only 37 of them refer to him as János Szapolyai. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative that was previously proposed is John of Hungary. I think all things considered most people who come to this article still expect to see János Szapolyai as that is the most known name. Still it is not a different name but more like an alternative spelling. "Sz" and Z are the same letter and the "i" added on the end of the word only means "from (s)Zapolya". Also high quality sources refer to him as Szapolyai, for example see The Concise History of Hungary, Cambridge University Press, page 82. Hobartimus (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have shown, the proposed name is the most common name (i.e. the most known name). It is much more common than János Szapolyai. I've presented lots of evidence to support this claim. Do you have any evidence that this is not the most common name for him? Anyway, John of Hungary would be ambigious. John I of Hungary would be unambigious and would comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions for monarchs. However, that name is very rarely used; only 17 English language books refer to him as "John I of Hungary" + 8 English language books that refer to him as "John I King of Hungary". However, almost all of these books mention him also as John Zapolya, that being the undisputably most common name for this person. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• move to John Zapolya. Simply, because it's the English name in historiography. I gave the explanations on this page [1]. This is Wikipedia in English, so we should name the article according to the English name. Just as the Pope John Paul II. Kubura (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify both Szapolyai and Zápolya are Hungarian names, both used in English so in this case there is no separate "English name" only two alternative spelling variants of the same Hungarian name. Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And we should use the spelling which is significantly more common among English language literature. That name is John Zapolya. You still haven't explained what makes János Szapolyai, the name so rarely used in English language literature, better than the name used by English speaking historians, which is John Zapolya. Surtsicna (talk)

oppose It sounds convincing enough what Hobartimus is saying about why the name János Szapolyai is better than the other ones.--Nmate (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another reason is that for years Szapolyai was the name of the article and all other articles referring to it won't have to be changed, creating less work when sticking with this one out of the 2 very similar spelling variations. Hobartimus (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nmate, exactly which Hobartimus' argument made you oppose this request? He has presented no evidence that the current name complies with Wikipedia:Common name. His arguments are not based on any Wikipedia policy. His arguments are only based on his own preferance.

So what if the name of this article was János Szapolyai for years? Are you trying to say that, if an article's title was against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for years, that should never be corrected? As a matter of fact, many articles (I dare say most) refer to him as John Zapolya and link to it (see this list) and many refer to him as John Zápolya and link to it (see these results). Thus, sticking with this bad title will create much more work when avoiding redirects than moving the article to its proper title: John Zapolya. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are a valid spelling alternative and both are used a considerable amount. I certainly won't be upset or anything if it gets moved to another spelling variant even if it's less common and less well known than the current according to my knowledge. Let's just wait out what others have to say so we can close this rfm and move on. Hobartimus (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, both are valid. But if both are valid, I don't understand why you oppose using a much more common name: John Zapolya. I believe the current title is his least known name in English language so the article can't possibly be moved to a less common name. It can only be moved to the most common name, which is the one I proposed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

oppose: I guess the debate has something in common with the debate over diacritics in names (a failed proposal). Just because many older English works use the version with no diacritics, Wikipedia can pick the original one with diacritics as both are widely used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate is totally unrelated to the diacritics issue. The problem is that the scholars use the name John and the last name Zapolya, that the article about his son is titled John II Sigismund Zápolya and that the current title violates WP:COMMONNAME. We are not talking about older English works in this case. I specifically listed English language books published after 1990. Those books can't be considered old. The current name is not widely used in English and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this while everyone keeps ignoring the numbers. 477 English language books published after 1990 refer to him as John Zapolya, while only 82 refer to him as János Szapolyai. Once again, I would not oppose having the article titled John Zápolya even though the proposed title is perfectly fine as well; what's important is to use the anglicized form of his name as usual (see Category:Hungarian monarchs) and to use the last name Zapolya/Zápolya. Will anyone give a real, decent reason for not abiding by WP:COMMONNAME and for being inconsistent? Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to shatter your argument but the naming according to the "usual" would be John I of Hungary a variation you are not even proposing. Hobartimus (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not shattering my argument. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is a guideline. A policy outranks a guideline, therefore John Zapolya/John Zápolya outranks John I of Hungary. Nevetheless, even John I of Hungary is much better than János Szapolyai. I'm sure people wonder how they got to János Szapolyai when searching for John Zapolya or clicking on an internal link (most of which link to John Zapolya and John Zápolya). Surtsicna (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to John Zápolya per nom. The nominator has presented some evidence for his/her case and there was no consensus for the current title in previous discussions. The burden of evidence should reflect this. — AjaxSmack 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to John Zápolya

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

János Szapolyai → John Zápolya — The former discussion has proved that the proposed name is superior to the present name as it is much more common, being the most common name. There were no valid arguments against the move to John Zapolya; two users just didn't like it and another one completely misunderstood why the move had been proposed (and didn't bother to respond when I clarified). There was no consensus to move the article to the present title in a previous discussion yet the article was moved, contrary to Wikipedia policy of using the most common name in English language literature. English language literature refers to this man as John Zápolya and so should we.

Statistics:

• 477 English language books published after 1990 refer to him as John Zápolya. On the other hand, only 82 English language books refer to János Szapolyai.
• 136 scholars who write in English refer to him as John Zápolya, while only 37 refer to him as János Szapolyai. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question: would you like to move this article to John Zápolya or to John Zapolya (i.e. Zapolya would be the same poll again)? The google search result you provided seems to be Zapolya. I support it per COMMONNAMES.--B@xter⁹ 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The user who most fervently opposed the previous move request claimed that Zapolya (as opposed to Zápolya) is incorrect and the others though that the only reason I proposed the move was to drop the diacritic. Both Zápolya and Zapolya are fine by me. Google Book Search makes no difference between letters with diacritics and letters without diacritics, so when you type in Zapolya, you get both Zapolya and Zápolya. My main goal is to replace János with John and Szapolyai with the more common version, which ever it may be. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thx. I did not know that googlesearch makes no difference. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 22:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ps.: 471 English language books refer to him as John Szapolyai.--B@xter⁹ 09:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all English language books. My numbers are the numbers of English language books published after 1990 (so that nobody can claim that the books are outdated). Therefore, the ratio between English language books published after 1990 that refer to John Zápolya and those that refer to John Szapolyai is 477  : 61. I would even be opened to John I of Hungary alternative, if John Zápolya fails. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

oh...indeed! Ok, I said nothing. Sorry!--B@xter⁹ 12:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per too soon since last nomination. Think about it if this frequency becomes the norm, you will try again in a few weeks and again and again until succeess then someone who disagrees with the move will try to move it back every few weeks until they succeed, so it's better to leave a reasonable time between each attempt. Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't even the same proposal. Now I've proposed moving the page to John Zápolya while in March I proposed moving the page to John Zapolya. Your first objection was that we shouldn't spell Zápolya without the diacritic; so now I included the diacritic. Are you saying that two months (precisely, 53 days) isn't a "reasonable time between each attempt"? I'm sure that, in your opinion, the reasonable time would be several years as you don't want the article to be moved. I respect that but I don't like the fact that you refuse to provide a reason for using a name that is rarely ever used in English language literature. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Why are we even discussing this so soon after there was no consensus for a move? Skinsmoke (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because

a) this isn't the same proposal (in March, I proposed to move the article to John Zapolya and now I propose to move the article to John Zápolya as a compromise, since Hobartimus opposed John Zapolya on the grounds of the missing diacritic)

b) there were no valid arguments against the move in the last discussion. So, instead of opposing just to oppose, why don't you tell us what makes the current name better than the proposed one? Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Kebeta (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: Not only is John Zápolya the most common name for this man, but the last name of his family is spelt Zápolya in all other articles. For example, the article about his son is titled John II Sigismund Zápolya and the article about his sister is titled Barbara Zápolya. The title of the article about John Zápolya should certainly be consistent with the title of the article about his son (John II Sigismund Zápolya. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Case made. Would also support John I of Hungary. I see no arguments for the present form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It is far too soon since last failed nomination and as a matter of procedure someone might immediately request a move back to the original title if this should pass. It would be an endless loop and we should break it. And as for matter of consistency if thats your argument obviously the sub or lesser articles should follow the main article (this one) so thats actually an argument for moving the sister which is a borderline notable article. Btw if you check that article of the sister you can see it refers to this person as János Szapolyai. That would be really inconsistent... Hobartimus (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have already made it quite clear that this proposal and the previous proposal are not the same. Why do you keep ignoring that? Now I proposed moving the page to John Zápolya while in March I proposed moving the page to John Zapolya. Your first objection was that we shouldn't spell Zápolya without the diacritic; so now I included the diacritic. Sub or lesser articles should not follow the "main article" if the title of the main article is completely useless to an English language speaker. Will you finally explain to us why János Szapolyai, a name so rarely used in English literature, is better than John Zápolya, the most common name? Please tell us why and please stop making useless arguments such as claiming that the article shouldn't be moved because moving an article is too much work for an administrator or that it shouldn't be moved because someone might request a move back. Do I even need to say how easy it is move an article and how important it is for an article to have a proper title, something this article does not have? Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, bear in mind that the outcome of a discussion is based (or should be based) on the quality of arguments, not on votes. We are still waiting to hear why the present title is better than the proposed one and why we should ignore the common name guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN. This combined with wider usage of Zápolya across Wikipedia should suffice since arguments against are pretty weak and most have been dispatched below. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against the move in the previous discussion

These were the arguments against the move in the previous discussion, when I proposed moving the article to John Zapolya (as opposed to the current proposal, which is John Zápolya):

• First the name variant is Zápolya not Zapolya, so that's a spelling mistake to begin with in the suggestion. (by Hobartimus). This is the first and the most serious objection. It no longer stands because I now propose moving the article to John Zápolya. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• In my opinion, a rename would be just unnecessary and pointless one can pick one metric and find more use of one variant and find more use by another. Basicly it would create a lot of work for little to no gain. (by Hobartimus) A rename is extremely neccessary; both William Jefferson Clinton and Bill Clinton are correct, yet we choose the use the most common name. We should do the same here. Besides, moving an article is hardly a lot of work. It's something that's done regularly in order to improve Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think all things considered most people who come to this article still expect to see János Szapolyai as that is the most known name. Still it is not a different name but more like an alternative spelling. "Sz" and Z are the same letter and the "i" added on the end of the word only means "from (s)Zapolya". (by Hobartimus) The first sentence is obviously incorrect as it is clear which name is more common; you simply can't ignore a fact. If John Zápolya and János Szapolyai are both entirely correct and John Zápolya is much more common, why should we choose to use the rare form? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Just to clarify both Szapolyai and Zápolya are Hungarian names, both used in English so in this case there is no separate "English name" only two alternative spelling variants of the same Hungarian name. (by Hobartimus) If John Zápolya and János Szapolyai are both entirely correct and John Zápolya is much more common, why should we choose to use the rare form? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Both titles are a valid spelling alternative and both are used a considerable amount. (by Hobartimus) If John Zápolya and János Szapolyai are both entirely correct and John Zápolya is much more common, why should we choose to use the rare form? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Also high quality sources refer to him as Szapolyai, for example see The Concise History of Hungary, Cambridge University Press, page 82. (by Hobartimus) Do I need to mention all the reliable sources that refer to him as John Zápolya? I will if you require it. For one, all the editions of The Encyclopædia britannica (which we most often use to determine the best title for an article) call him John Zápolya. Isn't that enough? If not, just tell me. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• It sounds convincing enough what Hobartimus is saying about why the name János Szapolyai is better than the other ones. (by Nmate) This is not even an argument, let alone a real argument. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I guess the debate has something in common with the debate over diacritics in names (a failed proposal). Just because many older English works use the version with no diacritics, Wikipedia can pick the original one with diacritics as both are widely used in English. (by Squash Racket) The proposal had nothing to do with diacritics in names. The works I linked to are not "older"; they were published after 1990! Anyway, the name I now proposed includes the diacritic so this argument no longer stands. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

place of birth

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

JOHN SZAPOLYAI HAVE the most hits on google books

https://www.google.hu/search?q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#q=%22john+Szapolyai%22&hl=hu&client=firefox-a&hs=UuV&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&channel=fflb&prmd=imvnsob&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=erg_UI2dNYzltQbUj4EI&ved=0CA4Q_AUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=a1420eec5370c5b7&biw=1280&bih=709

626 HITS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.118 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So, do you suggest changing the article name to "John Szapolyai"? Please note, special care should be taken when arguing based on search engine results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Szapolyai as "Slovak King"

First of all, dear Omen, I'm not nervous. Please provide another source which confirms this statement. This is the only book where I can find this information. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement is clear: he was called the "Slovak King" by his contemporaries - he was called..., it is nickname. This book is reliable source [2]. Your OR and personal opinions are not interesting or important. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing this source or Peter A. Toma's[3] or Dušan Kováč's[4] qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. --Omen1229 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but other Slovak works don't mention this information. The Toma-Kovac work does not contain references. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And? So write him email if you have any questions [5]. --Omen1229 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So, this is not a reliable source. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) I think the present sentence contradicts to WP:COPYVIO. (2) If his "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", at least one of them can be named, otherwise the sentence states nothing: his "contemporaries" might have also called him Jancsi, Jankó, Juliska, Szapi or sweetheart. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We have only 1 Google Books hit (the mentioned book above). [6] Where does that info come from? I would like to see a primary source about it. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in a certain sense Szapolyai WAS the king of Slovaks............just like all the other kings of the Kingdom of Hungary. However the mere mention of "Slovakia" in a territorial or political context before 1918 is quite anachronistic, as -simply said- not a single territory or region has ever been called "Slovakia" prior to 1918 (also please note: the fact that the Slovaks have/might've called the land they inhabited "land of the Slovaks" or "Slovakia" is of no relevance here, simply because it didn't denote an exact territory). As much as I respect Kováč's work and efforts, the statement in the book he co-authored is so extraordinary that it requires extraordinary evidence as well I'm afraid (I already heard about Máté Csák being mentioned in a similar context, but never about this one, and even those about Csák are dubious at best). Until you find some additional sources that can support this statement of yours (and let me remind you that sites in the likes of beo.sk, prop.sk, voltaire.netkosice.sk, sho.sk etc. are still not accepted as valid sources), please refrain from reinserting the statement. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is Kovac a respected historian with a record of professionalism and no history of nationalistic bias? Yes.
• Is that claim in a book authored by him? Yes.
• Is the book a reliable source? Hoover Institution Press, very much so.

Case closed, the info should stay. It should be phrased so it isn't over-validated (direct reference to the book) but due to reliability of the source, it should not be omitted. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, any information based on a reliable source could be added. However, as I mentioned above, Kovac's book contains weasel words instead of information in this respect: "his contemporaries" called him Slovak king. If this is a fact, than at least one of these contemporaries should be named. Therefore there is no "case closed". Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words apply to Wikipedia writing style, not to evaluation of the reliability of the source. The sentence can be rephrased to avoid it, doesn't change the fact that a reliable source mentions a label given to the person this article is about.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right if the reliable source contains relevant information. However, a statement that his contamporaries called him X, Y, or Z does not contain information. Should we add to all articles on living and dead persons that his contemporaries call(ed) him X, Y or Z? Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes.Wladthemlat (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not important. We could add that "X. Y. called him Z." if both X. Y. and "his being Z" relevant for any reason. Similarly, we could add that "everybody/majority/minority of his subjects/enemies/frieds/contemporaries called him Z" However, a statement that "there were people who called him Z" has no relevance, because "there were people who did not call him Z". We should forget this peace of pseudo-information. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Being "called something by one's contemporaries" is a turn of phrase, it does not mean "some, maybe just three, did, some did not" but rather "it was widely used/was known under the name". It's regularly used without specific attribution, see also [7] Wladthemlat (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that a vague statement ("he was also called the "Slovak King" by his contemporaries") which is based on a dubious (and also vague) hypothesis ("as most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory") should be avoided. (1) A king with a seat in Buda (now Budapest) could hardly take most of his political actions in "Slovak territory". For instance, he convoked Diets to Tokaj and Székesfehérvár (1526), to Buda (1527, 1530, 1532), to Kolozsvár/Cluj, Romania (1527), and to Nagyvárad/Oradea, Romania (1536): none of them was held in "Slovak territory" (I refer to pages 361-373 of Benda Kálmán et al (1982): Magyarország történeti kronológiája, II. kötet (1526-1848) [Historical Chronology of Hungary, Volume II (1526-1848); Akadémiai Kiadó; Budapest; ISBN 963-05-2660-3). I also refer to pages 57-59 of Július Bartl et al (2002): Slovak History: Chronology & Lexicon (Bolcházy-Carducci Publishers; Wauconda, Ill.; ISBN 0-86516-444-4). This book do not mention any political event connected to John I in "Slovak territory". This book refers to 3-4 military operations, but the above cited Historical Chronology of Hungary also refers to military operations by John I in the territories of present-day Hungary, Serbia and Romania). (2) A king whose political and military activities took place in the whole territory of his kingdom (including present day Hungary and Romania) could hardly be mentioned as a "Slovak king" by his contemporaries. Or at least one contemporary document should be mentioned in order to prove that the statement has some basis. Borsoka (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not try to invent new Wikipedia rules. Mention of contemporary documents is not required for secondary source to be credible, propose a new wording if you don't like the current one, but it's almost a direct quote from a RS. You and I can not judge the content of the sources, only their reliability. This one fits the bill.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not inventing new WP rules: vague sentences based on dubious statements are to be avoided. The cited source which qualifies as reliable source for WP purposes contradicts to at least two other reliable sources (one of them is a chronology written by Slovak historians of the history of present-day Slovakia). The source cited in the article states that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory", but the above cited two chronologies ignore these many actions of his. Furthermore at least one of them suggests that he did not hold a simple Diet in Slovak territory which is strange for a monarch with alleged political actions in that lands. Therefore this contradiction between reliable sources should be solved. Even so I am assume that the book cited is of high quality, therefore finding the document based on which its author's statement was made would not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

[8] He lost Budin, Ostrihom and Rab at one point, which would suggest he was in fact forced to Slovak territory from which he then mounted a counter-attack against Ferdinand. That is also what the original source claims, I worded it wrong indeed. The source claims that he lead battles against Ferdinand, most of them on Slovak territory, thus Slovak King. That makes more sense. Would you be content with wording "as most of his military actions against Ferdinand I. Habsburg took place on Slovak territory"? Wladthemlat (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wladthemlat, I am afraid that reliable sources contradict to your above assumption "King John was first pushed back to Transylvania, then sought refuge in Poland" in 1527 (László Kontler (1999): Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary; Atlantisz Publishing House; ISBN 963-9165-37-9); page 139). Moreover, the source you cited above does not write a single battle in Slovak territory: Raab (Győr), Gran (Esztergom), Buda (Budapest) and Tokay all are situated in present-day Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but they are close. That he lost Esztergom and Tokay means he was pushed further north, not that he stopped right before them. The Slovak territory would fit. "Sought refuge in Poland" confirms this - he was pushed even further north, then had to fight his way through Slovak territories, no contradiction there. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We talk about the 16th century. There was no such a thing as "Slovak territory". Even the word "Slovak" was not used widely at that time....I would say even if the phrase "Slovak king" has a source it belongs to the category of Undue weight.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Slovak territory, i.e. territory inhabited predominantly by Slovaks, of course did exist, the word was used as well. But you do have a point with undue weight.Wladthemlat (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

One things is if (i) there were areas/territories inhabited by Slovaks, and another is if (ii) they were called "Slovak territory". While (I guess) nobody denies statement (i), however, this does not imply statement (ii). I was also wondering whether we could find who where these contemporaries who called John Zápolya the "Slovak King", i.e., whether they were that relevant that this should be included in the article. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How else would you call it? Italian territories? It's just a description - territories populated by Slovaks i.e. Slovak territories. As mentioned earlier, 'called by contemporaries' is a turn of phrase meaning widespread use and demanding names of specific users is linguistically ridiculous. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I deny that this "territory inhabited predominantly by Slovaks". During the 16th century the Hungarian-Slav ethnic and linguistic border was located much farther north than the current one. Trencsén, Árva, Turóc, Zólyom and Liptó Counties were the area inhabited by Slovaks (beside Germans and Hungarians). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a territory inhabited mainly by Slovaks can be called a "Slovak territory" . However, I still maintain that (1) the basis of the statement, namely that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory", contradict to other reliable sources (including a chronology compelled by Slovak historians on the history of the territory of present-day Slovakia); (2) a statement which is only mentioned in one reliable source cannot be deemed as a widespread or notable one; (3) all the same, it is not impossible that the statement was not only based on a dubious hypotesis (namely that "most of his military and political actions took place within the Slovak territory"), but on actual documents from the 16th century. In the latter case, that specific document could be mentioned. Otherwise, the sentence remains as it is: a vague statement based on a dubious and not widely accepted hypotesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We (in the 21st century) can retrospectively call any territory in the history which were inhabited mainly by Slovaks "Slovak territory", even when we talk about the 15-16th centuries, I also agree with that. My problem was whether *then* (in the 15-16th centuries) they were called that way (since the source seems to indicate that). On the other hand, based on your argument about his Slavonian roots, this is not very relevant any more. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a territory inhabited mainly by Slovaks can be called a "Slovak territory" .

1) I addressed that above, the source does not word it like that, it was my unfortunate phrasing. The source only claims that most of his battles with Ferdinand took place on Slovak territories, which does not contradict other sources. 2) There are more sources for the name[9][10][11] Seems like it was a more of a derogatory name (not surprising) but it was indeed used and the source was correct. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is going to be a misunderstanding. The phrase "tot kiraly" refers to his Slavic ancestry (according to this source[12], though it is quite old, from 1904). It was a "cognomen". His family originated from village of Zapolya, Pozsega county, Slavonia. He was perhaps a Croat, a "tot", but what is sure that he was from Slavonia. Slavonia was called "Totorszag" (Totland) in the past. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the above sources. They clarify the situation. Szapolyai was from Slavonia (not from Slovakian territory), accordingly he was styled as "Slavon king" (in ancient Hungarian "tót" referred to all the Slavic inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary, including the ancestors of Slovaks and the inhabitants of Slavonia). His nickname was not connected to his military actions in the lands what now form Slovakia, but to his Slavonian origin (therefore to lands now belonging to Croatia). Accordingly, the translation of his nickname as "Slovakian king" instead of "Slavon king" is a misunderstanding of the sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"He was born in 1487 at Szepes Castle in Upper Hungary " Wladthemlat (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read them more carefully. First book you cited (Földrajzi értesítő) says: "although he himself was born at Szepes Castle in Upper Hungary, (...) his ancestors along the Sava in [Slavonia] inhabited by "Tóts"". Second book you cited (Demokrata) states: "even a king emerged from these "Tóts" departed from Slavonia ("Tót Land"): Zápolya (...) the "Tóth king"" (=Slavonian king). Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)