A fact from Michael of Hungary appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that almost all kings of Hungary after 1046 descended from Michael, the second son of Grand Prince Taksony?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
According to Györffy (István király és műve, 1983), Michael's original name might have been Béla, as consequently from a place name in the territory of the former Duchy, and because the Béla name seemingly used from scratch in the 11th century. I don't know that Györffy's English publication mentions this theory, however, I think, it would be appropriate to put this data to the article. Hungarian Wiki also contains this information with reliable sources. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. As far as I remember, the English version does not refer to this info. Otherwise, this is a nice example of Györffy's working method. I suspect that Saint Stephen might have been called Székesfehérvár by his aunts, because he built a basilica there and he must have had aunts... . A Slovak historian could later add that Michael was Slovak, because his pagan name was of Slavic origin - Beliy (Yes, I know, that Béla might have been derrived from a Turkic word, but it is pure Hungarian chauvinism and nationalism and ...ism.) Glossa glossarum glossas :):):)] Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Györffy's method (conclusions from place names) is dubious, however, he was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest historians of medieval Hungary. He only produced theories: he always added "maybe", "might have been", "perhaps", "probably" phrases. However Michael's murder seem to be mere fiction by Slovak "historians". --Norden1990 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may repeat myself, but I am convinced that Györffy was our 20th-century Anonymus. His innovative theories have been throughfully utilized by our dear friends to the north and southeast. Yes, I agree with you that the murder is a mere fiction by Slovak historians, but this fiction was published by Cambridge University Press (obviously without any previous donation). Furthermore, the memory of Géza's cruelty and of his many murders were recorded by contemporary sources. (Based on the same reports and some place names, Györffy created long internal conflicts with players never mentioned in contemporary sources. Is this fiction or is this science? :) :)) Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we necessarily need for this infobox (I don't think so), I would like to note that, according to Slovak historians, Stephen was the duke of Nyitra after 995, as you also wrote in the article of Stephen I of Hungary.--Norden1990 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fixed (I hope). Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
