Talk:Maurice Benyovszky/Archive 1

Some thoughts

I appreciate the effort that went into writing this article; however, I wept as I read it. Could you please run the article through a spell checker and put a little more work into the grammar?

This article should be clearly de-slovakized. Benyovszky was a Hungarian noble who never thought that his ancestral land would be called Slovakia later in history. I am holding in my hand a letter he wrote to his father in perfect Hungarian. So it is highly doubtful that his first language was Slovak. [removed repeated vandalism, chauvinism and primitivism by Enigma] Enigma1 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the aricle should be "slovakized". Every noble spoke also Hungarian at that particular time. He was only Hungarian in the sense that he was from Hungary. And I am not interested in what you hold in your hands, because until now you have presented nothing but lies, fascist and highly primitive comments and permanent lies. You have been explained this 100 times already. And I wil continue to delete you, since this is no fascism forum. Juro 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are not interested in exact proofs just in your extremist Slovak nationalist propaganda, as I can see. So far you have not provided a shred of evidence that he was Slovak or that he even spoke the language (his Slavic ancestry was most likely Polish) 81.183.183.239 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Remember when India was British (and not independent)? Those people were not Indian citizens, because India did not exist, but would you call them British? Not really, as well as you cannot call Benovsky Hungarian. Of course, he could speak Hungarian, it was a must for any Slovak in a higher position to speak Hungarian. But could perfectly speak Polish and Russian, what is quite easy to learn for a Slovak, but very difficult (and pretty unusual) for a Hungarian.

grammar

Grammar and style of this article really need attention. The problem is that here and there it's written so badly that discerning what the writer meant appears to be beyond my imagination. Mostly though, it's not that bad. And one more thing: at least once the author made a mistake which exactly inverted the meaning - "fighting the French" and "fighting with the French" differ considerably. Zbihniew 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Slovak? Hungarian? Polish?

He is claimed by all three people as a national hero. He had a Polish name, was born in what is now Slovakia, and had a Hungarian mother, Róza Révay. Credit should always be given to where credit is due. So he was half Slav, and half Magyar. This should be enough to promote friendship and mutual pride and cooperation between these two peoples who have been at odds with each other over historical issues such as this. A fine example of this point would be the Slovaks and Hungarians getting together in 1975 and making a telivision mini-series on the life of this brilliant man both people can be proud of. But to state that he had no Hungarian roots in one of the above comments when in fact his mother was Hungarian is insane and not being objective!

I, as a Hungarian, will admit that just because someone lived in the Kingdon of Hungary it doesn't mean that he or she was in fact Hungarian. There have been many Hungarians throughout history though, who were not Hungarian ethnically. Yet through assimilation in what was a multi-ethnic country they considered themselves to be Hungarian. Many Hungarians will readily admit to this. Let me give a few examples to illustrate this point.

The famous pianist/composer Franz Liszt did not have a drop of Hungarian blood in his veins. He was born in Hungary in a region predominantly inhabited by Austrians which is now a part of Austria. His surname was originally spelled List which is a common German name. His father changed the spelling to the Hungarian Liszt becaust the letter 's' in Hungarian is pronounced like 'sh' in English. Adding a 'z' in Hungarian after the 's' would preserve the German pronunciation of the name. Without the 'z' the name would be pronounced as Lisht in Hungarian. He never spoke a word of Hungarian. He preferred French. He also spoke German (his native tongue), Italian, Russian, and English. But not Hungarian. And yet this man considered himself to be Hungarian which can be proven in letters he has written stating that he is Hungarian.

The famous "Beater of the Turks" János Hunyadi, was a Hungarian of Romanian descent. Some Hungarians cannot accept this because of animosity towards Romanians. Yet he is a national hero for both peoples. The Hungarian Székely writer, Elek Benedek, in a biography he wrote about the Hunyadi family, wrote that Hungarians should not doubt or be embarassed by this great man's Romanian origins. Being Hungarian myself, I agree with this and thus share with Romanians a common respect for this great hero of both our countries.

The famous Hungarian statesman Lajos Kossuth was of Slovak descent on his paternal side, and German descent on his maternal side. Yet he staunchly considered himself to be a Hungarian.

The greatest of all the Hungarian poets, Sándor Petőfi, likewise was not a Hungarian ethnically. He was of Slavic descent. His father was a Serb, and his mother was a Slovak. Yet he consedered himself to be Hungarian and even changed his Serbian surname Petrovich to the Hungarian Petőfi.

Ethnicity does matter because it is an invaluable part of not only one's history and culture, but most important, of one's identity. I as a Hungarian will admit that Benovsky (or Benyovszky) was a Slav (Polish or Slovak) on his father's side. But his mother was Hungarian. I will also admit as a Hungarian that Hunyadi was a Hungarianized Romanian, Liszt was really a German, and Kossuth was a Hungarianized Slovak/German. Any Hungarian who denies this is wrong. Luckily most do not. As I have stated, credit must go to where it is due. As a Hungarian, if he is Slovak, it doesn't bother me at all. But when someone denies Benyovszky his Hungarian ethnicity which is at least proven on his mother's side, then obviously I would get upset.

I am German on my father's side of the family, and mixed Hungarian/Slavic on my mother's side. I was also born in Italy. I do not feel or consider myself to be German, Slavic,or Italian. I am a Hungarian. What did Benyovszky consider himself to be? Read the bio by Mór Jókai if you can. It will provide some answers.

Also, the year of his birth is not disputed. According to Jókai's biography there is a birth certificate that gives his year of birth as 1746. Biographers outside Austria-Hungary mistakenly wrote his birth as being five years earlier. According to the same biography it mentions one sister and two brothers. The article mentioned two sisters till I changed it.

I have also taken the liberty of removing the statement form the article about Benyovszky's name being a Polish "myth". The name is of Polish origin, not Slovak. Such a statement needs a citation reference to prove otherwise. By denying his Polish descent would not be fair, nor objective. Cerdit given, where credit due.

It is sad that Jókai's bio is only available in Hungarian. It provides a wealth of info on this man. What makes it unique is that a relative of Benyovszky, Sándor Benyovsyky requested that it be written in Hungarian for a Hungarian audience unfamiliar with his life. Gyula 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He had no polish ancestors from 12 century and probably he had polish ancestors never. That he declared himself as polish, there no exist sources for its true. What I would like to say is that Slovaks were under Hungarians Citizenship. There were not Slovak nationality (officially) at that time. They were Hungarian citizens of Slavic origin. He has been cosmopolitan that very true. Thanks --Sibenicky (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

edits

I will admit this article was not composed by me but rather by someone who put a lot of work and effort into it. It is a fine article. Because this is wikipedia, I made ever so slight changes to the text in an attempt to correct minor misconceptions about Benyovszky. My reasons are explained in the comments above.

Because this is wikipedia, someone else has the right to make deletions of my corrections. BUT, if one does so, then please prove me wrong at least here in the discussion section.

I changed his ethnicity from Slovak to Slovak/Hungarian because his mother WAS Hungarian. It was changed back to Slovak, thus denying this man of his Hungarian roots.

I stated in the above comment, that according to Jókai's bio. he had one sister, not two. It was changed back to two with a one in parenthesis, followed by a question mark. Her name was Márta. If he had two sisters, give their names.

Someone also removed the two Hungarian language refferences in the bibliography on this man's life and exploits. Why? Do these sources somehow contradict what the article states about him? Does someone not want people to know these sources exist so they can check it themselves? I am aware these sources are not available in English, but they are sources never the less. And I have explained my reasons in the above comments for the changes I made based on those sources and by explaineing what is stated in those sources to an English speaking audience.

I'm not against nor am I bashing Slovaks. But it seems that someone (possibly) Slovak is against Hungarians. Which is fine. As long as you are objective in your arguments and can prove them. Gyula 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As one of those who take care of this article, I do not see anything controversial in your edits. I would like also to thank you for restoring the deleted sources. Cheers. Tankred 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tankred, Thank you for the comment. I have read many of your fine articles on Slovakia and its cities, towns, and castles. I take it you are perhaps Slovak? I took my first trip there a few years ago and visited Bratislava(Pozsony), Trencin(Trencsén), Beckov(Bolondóc), and Cachtice(Csejte). It was a fun trip. I am currently waiting for the Slovak-Hungarian TV movie Vivat Benyovszky! directed by Igor Ciel on DVD that I ordered from Hungary to arrive in the mail. Is this film available in Slovakia? If not, it should be. If so, I hope it promotes peace and friendship between the two countries. Regards Gyula 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear reader!

What was the problem with the edits of that pannonia guy? I checked them, they were correct. Is there any chanche to replace them? I am new on the wiki, and yes, I am hungarian, but I dont want to get into any truble, so I would like to ask this, (before I make any change on the article). Bye! Baxter9 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I made changes in the article? Is it Ok?Baxter9 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted that they were croatians, because there is no evidence for this. Réva was the name of the castle, "y" means in hungarian, that they are from Réva only, also according to hungarian sources they spoke in hungarian.

Name and nationality

As pointed out by other fellow-editors, clear references regarding undeniable Slovak ancestry (and Slovak self-identification) would be needed to clearly call him a "Slovak noble". As far as I know, mainstream Hungarian sources consider him a Hungarian, mainstream Slovak sources - as known from our Slovak fellow-editors - present him as a Slovak, and, of course, Polish sources mention him, as a Pole. Thus, unless clear evidence is presented, all three nationalities should be given equal footing and his name (since this is English Wikipedia) should be written in its internationally recognized or originally matriculated form. Árpád 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, the television serial "Vivát Benyovszky/Vivat Benovsky" should be mentioned under both titles since it is listed under its Hungarian title in www.imdb.com and thus, its identification would be easier for the reader. Árpád 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, if this guy was born 'Benyovszky Móritz Ágost' why is the article entitled 'Móric Beňovský'. Did he change his name later on? Or is it a common practice in Wikipedia to change people's names? It doesn't make much sense to me, the article should carry either his original name, or the english version of that name (since this is the english Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.239.39 (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Beňovský was a typical representative of the period of the Enlightenment, the development of transport and trade, and the exploration of unknown regions. He was:

• the first European sailor in the North Pacific region — he examined the western coast of Alaska between the mouth of the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, sailing along to Unimak Island (Aleutians). His voyage to Macao was the first known voyage from the northeast to the southeast shores of Asia.
• the first explorer of St. Lawrence Island.
• a significant explorer of Madagascar and first king of a unified Madagascar.
• the first Slovak author of a worldwide bestseller.
• the first Slovak to intervene in the development of many countries (Poland, USA, France, Austria, and Madagascar).

The first item listed under the "Importance" section reads: "the first European sailor in the North Pacific region". What about Vitus Bering? Pfly 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I infer you don't consider Semyon Dezhnyov and other Russian sailors to be European? What is your definition of Europe? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Bering was the first, just that Beňovský does not seem to be, as this article claims. Bering was just the first name that came to mind. Pfly 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article on this fascinating personality desperately needs cleanup. It is full of fatuous statements along the lines of "the independence of Poland from the Russian rule in the Ukraine" or "thanks to Benjamin Franklin's help, Beňovský's descendants kept the spirit of cosmopolitanism and can be found all across Europe". It's difficult to say how exactly old Franklin helped Benyowsky's descendants to "keep the spirit of cosmopolitanism" and to settle "all across Europe". Furthermore, I suggest the biography should be moved to the most common English spelling of the guy's name, which is certainly not "Beňovský". --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are more English hits for the Hungarian name at Google Books and the Slovak name only seems to appear in Slovak sources. Squash Racket (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Polish name has the most English hits, just looked up one of these describing him as a Hungarian nobleman though. Squash Racket (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there seems to be an accepted English version of his name: Maurice Benyovszky, Google Books hits for this name are almost exclusively in English. Squash Racket (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As hits for the Polish version of the name are too mixed (most of them are not English) while hits for Maurice Benyovszky seem to be almost exclusively English, this one seems to be the proper name in English, I moved the page. Squash Racket (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Move

This needs to be discussed first and sources need to be used to determine which name is most relevant in English. Autonomous moves and edits will just halt the process.--Svetovid (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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 article moved from Móric Beňovský to Maurice Benyovszky per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I was reacting to this one-year-old comment from above:

(...)Furthermore, I suggest the biography should be moved to the most common English spelling of the guy's name, which is certainly not "Beňovský". --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a research on Google Books and here's what I found:

• the current Slovak name is not used in English sources
• the Hungarian name Móric Benyovszky is used and even mentioned on the official website of the members of the Benyovszky family
• there are more English hits for the Polish name Maurycy Beniowski than the Hungarian one, but most of the hits are Polish
• there is a widely used English name, Maurice Benyovszky with almost exclusively English hits (the 2-3 non-English hits are in French) which seems to be the proper English name of this Hungarian count.

Squash Racket (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE. The subject clearly has an English name that is widely used — see also external links for the article. — AjaxSmack 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per evidence presented to establish English convention. Erudy (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UE and all above. gidonb (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (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.

,

The so-called "cleanup"

Regarding these changes:

• deletion of the English name is unacceptable: this is the English Wikipedia (he also has a reputation in the English-speaking the world ("King of Madagascar", also traveled to the US)
• after that the names will be listed in alphabetical order of the languages as usual (BTW he was a Hungarian count, only the Hungarian and the Polish names are used in English besides the English name)
• will restore what the reference actually says, a "cleanup" does not mean well-referenced information can be changed arbitrarily
• removed "citation needed" tags will be restored (no citation added)
• somehow the Hungarian names of two villages disappeared (while the Slovak names of old Hungarian counties remained), both will be restored according to the concensus.

Squash Racket (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I dont know if it was discussed, so I ask: is http://mek.oszk.hu/ a reliable source? It is non-English source and many of people could not understand it. --Wizzard (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Also, why an English source http://www.historyorb.com is not relevant. --Wizzard (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is reliable: online National Széchényi Library.Baxter9 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vrbové

His birthplace is a slovak village not in hungarian speaking territoty, he has a slav family name. not enough? --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Read article nationality, 2) he was a count not a peasant. The nobility in the kingdom of hungary was hungarian or had strong hungarian "association, affiliation and/or loyalty". 3) Read the article his name.Baxter9 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know article nationality well. The nobility of Habsburg Monarchy had a lot of local roots - slovak roots too. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record (because my contributions will be deleted like all contributions of Slovak users in this wikipedia): This person was a purely Slovak person with purely Slovak parents, born in a purely Slovak region and bearing a Slovak (or Polish) name. None of the sources (Hungarian or other) cited here proves the opposite, they simply say he was Hungarian in the sense "from the Kingdom of Hungary", which nobody denies. The Révay family was purely Slovak at that time (it is always possible that one member was say Magyar or German, but there is no reason to believe that). All nobles in the Kinkgdom were designated as "Hungarian", but that means nothing in terms of ethnicity. The only thing that makes him "Hungarian" is the fact that he was a proud citizen of his country....The fact that you use (modern - sic!) Hungarian spelling for the names cited here does not turn the bearers of those names into ethnic Hungarians. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.245.171 (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most English sources and the family themselves use the Hungarian spelling of the name, not the modern Slovak version.

I didn't remove the Slovak websites claiming his alleged partial Slovak ethnicity, but his nationality was Hungarian and in English sources he is referred to as a Hungarian count.

The Slovak language makes a distinction between pre-1918 Hungary and post-1918 Hungary, the English, the German, the French etc. languages do NOT. If English sources indicate a Hungarian of another ethnicity, they clearly point this out: a Hungarian of X ethnicity/origin. This is not a case like that. Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I summarize the facts for the record (and leave out your personal speculations and opinions): the Hungarian source used as source in the article does not make any claim about his ethnicity, it merely says that he was "Hungarian", which means that he was from the Kingdom of Hungary, which nobody denies. In other words, you are unable to provide at least a Hungarian source proving his alleged Hungarian ethnicity, but nevertheless you revert my edits. Consequently, you are openly deciving, playing a shell game and kidding all other editors and me and this has no consequences here and you simply revert. The same applies to edits concerning other "Hungarian" persons, which in fact were not Hungarian. Someone should start to collect your edits and acitivities here...As for the names, I summarize: You do not deny that the names written in modern Hungarian obviously technically cannot be correct, nevertheless you keep reverting by simply declaring that some sources use it (the truth is some sources use Hungarian other use Slovak spelling, but what matters here is the truth and not how someone writes something today)....Can you present a wikipedia rule enabling deception about sources or facts? I am sure all readers of this article will be happy to see them. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.245.171 (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most English sources and the family themselves use the Hungarian spelling of the name, not the modern Slovak version.

I didn't remove the Slovak websites claiming his alleged partial Slovak ethnicity, but his nationality was Hungarian and in English sources he is referred to as a Hungarian count.

The Slovak language makes a distinction between pre-1918 Hungary and post-1918 Hungary, the English, the German, the French etc. languages do NOT. If English sources indicate a Hungarian of another ethnicity, they clearly point this out: a Hungarian of X ethnicity/origin. This is not a case like that. Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

but pre-1918 was not since Battle at Vilagos Hungary not existant as a soveraign state, we can speak only about Habsburg monarchy and Habsburg monarchy was a multiethnicity state and we know, he was not hungarian, but slovak, are Hungarian so poor, that they need slovak heroes? --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment we could talk about the 1000-year old state and the 15-year old one and which culture is rich which one is not, but I just ask you to read WP:CIV and discuss the problems of the article here. Thank you.
I repeat: I haven't removed the weak Slovak sources (yet), but I won't treat these as reliable, neutral, English references. Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality dispute

Hi there, I was just wondering about the following points: 1) I think, given that this is an English Wikipedia, Benyovszky's name in the infobox should be given in its English form, Maurice, not the Slovak or Hungarian one 2) Given that he was born at the times of the Hungarian Kingdom, the Hungarian name for his town of birth, etc., should be given first, with its current name in parenthesis. However, due to the fact that English articles for these towns (e.g. Verbó) are redacted under their current name (e.g. Vrbové), I see it fitter to provide a wikilink directly to the main article, rather than provide a wikilink to the old version of the town's name, which then redirects it to the current version. Example:

• Verbó (Vrbové) instead of Verbó (Vrbové) -- both links redirect to Vrbové.

3) Due to the existence of historical sources claiming his nationality/ethnicity/provenience as Hungarian AND Slovak, both should be included in the article as equal, providing the proper sourcing. We are no historians to decide the issue and since historians themselves cannot agree, it seems to be the most objective thing to do, to provide space for both opinions. PeterRet (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind having his English name in the infobox, but if others insist that the Hungarian should be used, I don't mind either. (His family's website refers to him as "Benyovszky Móritz Ágost".) The Slovak name is not used outside of Slovakia.

The Slovak sources you use are unreliable. "Slovakopedia" was removed by an admin even from the external links section. I left in the amphilsoc.org source as it seems acceptable even though it was initiated and organized by a Slovak embassy which — let's say — might have influenced the outcome.

His nationality was Hungarian even if he had Slovak ancestry.

I don't see that many "Hungarian sources" in the article now. The "Hungarian Cultural Center New York" website is used to reference an exhibition. We may remove the "Hungarian–Madagascarian Friendship Association" website if you object to it, it won't change much. His Hungarian nationality is established by enough English language sources by English/American editors. Some weak Slovak websites just don't belong in the article, this is not a stub. Squash Racket (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of towns are funny

All the names of towns in this article are really crazy. I cannot understand why they are written in today's Hungarian and then today's Slovak. They are of Common Slavonic origin (e.g. Vrbové is from *v6rbá "willow") and they were officially latinized and germanized and above all misread (Werbau etc.). Who calls in an English article Venice "Velence" (Hungarian reading)??? It is either Venice or Venezia because it is in Italy. The former part of the Austrian Empire Milan is not called in an English article "Milánó" (Hungarian reading) but Milan or Milano. Etc. I would not prefer today's Hungarian reading. The question naturally arises, who is the author of the article. I bet you a million dollars that it is a Hungarian:-) and a chauvinist:-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.50.101 (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting examples: however, the town of Milan is called Mediolanum in articles dealing with the Roman Empire, also, Tevere is called Tiberis when dealing with Ancient Rome. In order to eliminate anachronistic terms (like Renaissance in Slovakia), the proper historical names should be used for each epoch. What's more, one should respect the person's national or ethnic background in naming geographic units related to his or her life. Thus, you cannot say that Immanual Kant was born in Kaliningrad without sounding ridiculous. The same way, when dealing with Hungarian history (i. e. history of the Kingdom of Hungary), the proper historic names of towns, regions, etc. should be used or at least, inserted to avoid anachronism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.101.88 (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the goals of the Slovak far-right extremist movement is to eliminate Hungarian names even from Hungarian books written in the Hungarian language. Unfortunately far-right extremism is fairly strong in Slovakia and 12% of total population or about 15% of Slovaks vote for SNS. What is SNS? Here is a description from wikipedia "The party ... is frequently described as ultra-nationalist, right-wing extremist and neo-fascist (because of its offensive and often racist statements about the Hungarians, the Roma, Jews and homosexuals). " Unfortunately this also means that 15% of Slovaks are willing to vote for far-right extremism and this ideology that most often materializes in hatred of Hungarians and others. Unfortunately far from excluding these ideas Robert Fico decided to embrace this party and include it in his government. So Hungarian names can be crazy for someone who is used to having a government with parties like SNS where SNS leader "Slota said that the country's ethnic Hungarian minority "are a cancer in the body of the Slovak nation." . The point is that because something is acceptable in Slovakia and in the Slovakian government is not necessarily acceptable in Wikipedia there are different standards. So for you it might be "crazy" to use Hungarian names for others it might be "crazy" that a far-right extremist party that advocates pure hatred is in the government of Slovakia. Hobartimus (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If this type of argumentation which you´re using in Wikipedia articles than I´m glad that I don´t participate in this communisty too much, or at least not at topics where you, chouvinist, like to go and start edit war. If you want to mention SNS and Jan Slota so much I suggest you to mention also your famous Magyar garda. At least, last time we had a paramilitary fascistic forces on this area, it was 1945 and Soviet troops were marching throught Belarus. And I´m still not talking about Viktor Orban, who is Jan Slota in Hungarian version (his famous citation is for example: "Košice was always Magyar city and it will be that way again"). Bytheway - Slota never said something like that. Your sources are lieing, nothing more - he is famous for many citations like: "There is only one thing that works on gypsies - big whip and small court." and such but this one is not one of them and I assure that you won´t, I repeat won´t, find this citation in one Slovak newspapers which are in state of war with nowday goverment (proofed once again during presidential elections). I don´t think that you´ll care, I saw few of your edits and contugratulations, you can shake hand with beeing like Slota, Duray or Vona, you´re on the same boat. And last thing ´cause I´m becoming sick of you and you´re comrads in arms: Circa 50 percent of Slovaks voted in national elections in 2006, so explain me how is possible that 15 percent of Slovaks (all of ´em) voted for SNS and yet, SNS got only 12 percent from 50 - thus 6 percent of all peoples in Slovakia. Can you explain this mystery for me? I don´t think so. EllsworthSK —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Personal attacks and hate speech is not well tolerated in Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you avoid using personal attacks in the future. You say Slota never said something like that but there are sources to the contrary and yet you call Der Spiegel liar. Meanwhile you brought no sources to back up any of your claims. But since you seem to know a lot about Slota let me ask you, IF he said "Hungarian minority are a cancer in the body of the Slovak nation." as the sources say, would you consider that to be a "fascistic" sentence? Would you consider the person who said it fascist? You used the word fascistic above that's why I'm asking. Even if he did not said it you quote another qoute from him, which seem to indicate that you consider Slota racist based on that qoute? Do you think it's OK to have politicians like that in the GOVERNMENT of a country? About vote percentages, 12 percent of all voters in Slovakia voted for SNS however Slovakia is a multiethnic country and not all voters are Slovaks, to get a percentage for Slovaks you need to remove the non-Slovak voters. If we look at only Slovaks voting the percentage will become slightly larger so 15% of Slovaks voted for SNS if you adjust the numbers correctly. You see "all voters" is a bigger category than "all Slovak voters". Of course some ppl do not vote but that's irrelevant to the discussion. It's not how vote %-s are calculated. Hobartimus (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone like you, who is calling undirectly Slovaks fascist, insulting whole country and nation is going to teach me about beeing rude? Have you no backbone? I guess not. But here we go - medias are often repeating that Ahmadinejad said the he wants to Israel to be wipe out from map of the world. Althought it is not truth, prooven dozen times - you can check it also here, on wikipedia, all world medias such as Times, Spiegel, Economists and so on are contiuely repeating that. I repeat - you won´t find no Slovak source for this, not one and if you´d say that it´s because Slovak medias are something like an allie to nowday rulliang coalition than I have no problem in providing sources which will reject that argument in the minute. Slovak medias - SME, Pravda, Nový Čas, Plus 7 dní and so on are in state of war with nowday coalition - coalition is trying to restrict their rights and they are making campaign against them in replacement. And if he would say that, and he didn´t, it wouldn´t be just fasciscital sentece, it would be chouvinistic and rascistical citation. And than, if you don´t know nothing about politicy of Slovakia, than don´t try to play smart one - Slota is rascist, at least against gypsies and for what we know he doesn´t like Magyar minority as well, althought I have to agree that huge part on that played also SMK and it´s current leaders like Duray and Csaky - but he is not in goverment. If he is, tell me, please, which possition does he occupie. His party is in rulling coalition, like once was Le Pens, Haiders or Orbans. And yes, it is ok - it´c called democracy. If you don´t like it, so be it but be sure there´s hell nothing you can do with that. What applies are the laws accepted by parliament and edicts accepted by goverment. If you want some serious discussion, and it doesn´t look that way till now, you should stop with the attacks which you started. I don´t know if you are moderator of wikipedia, while you want to ban me, but if you are, my disappointment in wikipedia just raised on another level. You are everything but objective, it is clearly that you are kicking for your side and don´t give a damn about other one like we can see on this page. For example, here in the same discussion, IP 195.168.245.171 several times repeated that sources which you are using are talking not about his (Benyovszky, Benovsky or whatever) nationality or ethnicity, but about his birthplace and it was ignored and his edits were reverted, althought he had the point. As I can see, the truth is not very popular here. What couts is how many editors can back up your statement, althought it may be false, and keep editing the article as we could see in every single article which contains disputies about Slovak-Hungarian interpretation of history. Than, for your note little bit down - you didn´t answer on my question. Excludin the fact that Serb, Slovak, Czech and Romanian peoples are making differences between pre 1918 Hungary and modern one, Finaldn was also till 1917 grand duch of Russian Empire and tzar was crowned also as Finnish king, Lands of Bohemia were unified by Premysl dynasty in late 9th century, yet since 30 years war till 1918 they were part of Habsburg monarchy and than we have Hungary, founded as kingdom in 1000, crushed by Turkish forces in 1526 since then part of an Austrian Empire, having no souvereignity over itself till 1867 when it become part of dualistic monarchy. There is 341 years old gap where KoH had no souvereignity over itself, if you can´t understand it than I´m really dissapointed. By your logic, Nitran principality was clearly only proto-Slovak state (as well as there wasn´t in 896 no Magyar nation, because there were no nation by our modern meaning till end of the 18th century, there wasn´t no Slovak nation, just a people of same ethnicity which lived on that territory and later their ancestors became Slovaks), thus Slovakia is 1300 years old. If you want to attack this statement, than you´ll have eventually attack yours as well, like it or not. Just to be clear, I´m just using your logic against you - I disagree with that statement as well as I disagree with that myth about Hungary beeing 1000 years old. And about that language section - there was only one Slavic language in whole central Europe in 9th century for Christ sake so how the hell could that be ancestor of Ukranian langauge and not Slovak? I understand Proglas pretty good, althought it is 1200 years old work (dunno if you could tell the same thing about writing of Magyar tribes from 9th century) so don´t try to tell me how Slovak language was invented by Štúr. And next time I suggest you to try to discuss about things which you know at least basics about, becase Slovak history and language clearly isn´t one of them. Have a good day. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing: read the article Gdańsk, and search for the word Danzig. Is it used? YES! Slovakia is 16 years old, Hungary is more than 1000.... there was no "Vrbové" in the past...Baxter9 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this one of your famous national legends. Just a one question - if Hungary is 1000 years old, how comes that till 1867 there was only Austrian Empire? Or let me ask this way - how old is Czech republic or Finland (Russian tzar was also Finnish king and Habsburgs were also kings of Bohemia, yet these units had no souvereignity over it´s territory)? I could pick next 100 examples but I think that you got the point. And if you didn´t, it wouldn´t make the difference one way or another.EllsworthSK

The explanation is quite simple: the Kingdom of Hungary was part of the Habsburg (and not the Austrian) Empire, i. e. Hungary was a Kingdom on its own even as being part of the Empire (the Habsburg emperors had to be crowned with the Holy Crown of St. Stephen before being considered as legitimate kings of Hungary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.101.88 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Hungary was founded in 896, so its quite a bit more than 1000 years. Do you deny this simple fact? Slovakia was founded in 1993 if you do not count the Fascist Slovakia, led by the war criminal Tiso, which also invaded Poland right there from the start. So if you do not count that nazi state that lived a few years then the date, 1993 is pretty clear in the case of Slovakia. Unfortunately racism is still very very strong in Slovakia and 15% of Slovaks happily vote for far-right extremism even today, the so called Slovak National Party led by Ján Slota.Hobartimus (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Names of countries are funny

According to the Slovak Wikipedia, he was born in Slovakia. :D LOL![1] [2]Baxter9 (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names

Ok, but this is not a Hungarian book but an English article. And the names are of Slavonic origin. This discussion is too long and terribly boring. Shortly: In 1746-1786, the official language of Hungary was Latin. In 1746-1786, Hungary was Austria. Btw., 1000 years of Hungary = 1000 - 300 (Ottoman Empire) - 200 (Austrian Empire), but the Hungarians still had been living there. The Slovaks have been living in the territory even longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.208.78 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All in all, the Carpathian Basin has a millennial Hungarian tradition, whereas Slovak tradition only goes back to a few decades. Slavic-sounding names can be well attributed to Polish origin, so there is no need to invent non-existent nations with anachronistic names. Plain and simple, the Slovak language was artificially created by Ludovit Stur in the 19th century, prior to that, there were no slovaks whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.186.222 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hail to the genius. If you really want to know, Slovak language in it´s versions is beeing used here since arrival of Slavic tribes in late 5th century and if you don´t know the differencce between create and codificate (bytheway, Štúr was second one which codified Slovak language, while first one was Bernolák - surpise, surprise) than I suggest you to not trying to be smartass in this kind of area. And about you bullshits of Slovak beeing Poles - I strongly suggest you to just go away and return when you´re knowledge of the history will be at least on the below-avarage level. Thank you and have a good day. EllsworthSK —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Please stop with the misinformation. 5th century Slavs have nothing to do with the Slovak language, Slavs in the area spoke a variation that is close to today's Ukranian language. It is known that Slovakization is a very strong policy today, but that's not a reason to try to Slovakize history. Hobartimus (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that today's Slovaks have precious little to do with the Great Moravian Empire (the Slavic residents of which had previously been assimilated by Hungarians), and the geographic location, religious traditions, language, culture of the latter leaves several issues open for debate (many consider that the Moravian Empire was originally located in the Southern Slavic territory along the Morava River). Anyhow, if today's Slovaks had anything to do with that state (and Cyrill and Method for that matter), they would probably still be orthodox and not Catholic and Protestant (owing to the Christianization and Reformation of Hungary). Although the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin, many if not most of the place names in the former Upper Hungary (Felvidék) are certifiable in their original Hungarian or Latinized Hungarian forms (like Pozsony - Posonium, Besztercebánya - Byzthercebany, Liptószentmiklós - Zentmiklos, Kassa - Cassa), the Slovak forms Bratislava, Banska Bystrica, Liptovsky Mikulas, Kosice are later inventions. As for Vrbové (Nyitraverbó), you should not forget that the literary language of medieval Slovaks was originally Czech (in fact the ancestors of many Slovaks are emigrants from the Czech lands after the Hussite wars and the Thirty-Year war) so the name could also be of Czech origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.101.88 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is absolutely improbable because e.g. "Vrbove" must be from Slovak "vrba"; Polish is "wierzba", Old-Polish even "wirzba"... (apart from the intention of your comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.11.48 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Tankred, Slovakia is only 14 years old. How do you dare to create 'heroes' of a non-existing country that time? This article is clearly only your natinalism-vandalism, not a Wikipedia article. Regards.

Definitelly it is not a Slovak version of Wikipedia. Bear it in mind when you create this article. Benowski was born in Hungary so, altough of Slovak origins, technically he was a Hungarian. Many Poles regard him as a Pole as well. In fact he was a citizen of the world. In such circumstancies it would be kind to limit nationalistic sentiments. I think that the article should be carefully re-edited. According accepted rules of Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, which means that articles should represent differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically. I decided to change parts of your contribution, which is unacceptably "slovakocentric". I removed the parts which does not introduce any important information but make artificial mess. Regards Von Fiszman

The changes you made are excellent, but one point is simply not through - technically he was not a Hungarian, he was a Hungarian only formally (if at all), because if he was a Hungarian, then this would imply that any Slovak,Croat,Romanian etc.(and especially any noble) was a Hungarian before 1918 only because he spoke Hungarian and did not "attack Budapest" all the time. He also had nothing to do with present-day Hungary - but he had a lot to do with present-day Austria (Maria Theresa etc). So if we use your logic, he was actually an Austrian and was born in Austria. Also,the original text explicitely says that he is considered a hero by the Madagscarians and the Poles, and it contains a lot of reference to his activities in the USA, although I could have written a lot more about Slovakia and leave e.g. the USA out, but I thought that this was important for an English Wikipedia. It also said that he was the first European etc. who explored ...and not the first Slovak or so. So -as I see it - your real problem is that the article does not claim that he is an important Hungarian or something like that. And ... if nationality is not 100% defined by the country where a person and his family was born, where he spent at least the first 18 years of his life, whose language was his mother language,where he was educated, where his home house - to which he came back whenever it was possible - was situated, and where his wife came with his daughters after his death and died, then I really do not know how else nationality can be defined. If you do not like this definition, then you do not like the term nationality. However, the above is how nationality is usually defined and used in encyclopedias to describe a person for the reader. And, of course, even if one says that someone has a nationality X, that does not mean that he cannot be a "citizen of the world", which Benovsky surely is. But, if you personally are a Hungarian or something like that, then of course you cannot be convinced and always keep in mind that I in turn think that you are unacceptably "hungarocenthric". And if I would have tried to really make a nationalistic article than it would surely have looked differently. Juro

1. I am not Hungarian, so I can not be "hungarocentric". 2. I never written that he was not Slovak. 3. As you know there was no political entity called Slovakia. Hungary was! Please, do not play the fool. Hungary (at least in theory) was a separate state. It was not a part of Holy Roman Empire (as Austria was). It is why I call him Hungarian. Formally, he was a Hungarian. 4. Read your previous version one time more. What can a Hungarian think about that? Try to imagine that someone could replace all mentions about his Slovak origins with mentions of his "Hungarian roots". I think that you should appreciate feelings of other readers and contributors. I hope it is not a battlefield. Regards, von Fiszman

1.O.K. maybe you get the problem if I say you this: Poland stopped to exist between 1795 and 1918 or so (the years do not matter here). Or take WWII in respect to Poland or France. How would you like it, if I would change all references to Poles from this time and say that they are Russians, Austrians or Germans depending on the official state where they were living at that time. Because that is exactly the same thing you have done in this article (although I kept your modification). And I could name you thousands of examples like this. In Europe's history, if someone is an inhabitant of a territory that is conquered by another then of course you usually cannot find its name on a map. Nevertheless, e.g. the term Poland is used in all contexts for present-day Poland in history, because Poland does not only mean the Republic/ Kinddom or so but also simply approximately the territory of present-day Poland inhabited by Poles. 2. I can only repeat the above argument. What you are saying is that all Slovaks, Ruthens, Austrians, Croats, Romanians in Hungary... are Hungarians before 1918. All of them will thank you and this is a dangerous precedent for an encyclopedia. Benovsky had no Hungarian roots (not at all, if then rathe Polish ones), the only thing that was Hungarian about him was that he was living on a territory annexed by Hungary. 3. The problem here is that in English it is not possible to distinguish between an adjective denominating the state and the ethnic group in the case of Hungary (as opposed to e.g. Slovene = usu. ethnic Slovene and Slovenian = usu.referring to the Slovenian state) and that if an English reads that Benovsky was a Slovak/Hungarian nobel he will think that he was an ethnic Hungarian (e.g. mother Slovak, father Hungarian or so), which is totally misleading. I mean you admit that he was a Hungarian formally, but the text of the article absolutely does/did not indicate this for a reader not knowing history. I have no reason to be against the Hungarians (in the contrary, I am even learning Hungarian at present).What I am trying to do is to be precise. 4. Have a look at most original historic maps between 1540 - 1867 and try to find out whether you see Austrian Monarchy or Hungary there. Also you would not find e.g. a Hungarian army during this time - that's why Benovsky entered the Austrian army. Also the "Hungarian" king was always sitting in Vienna and so on. And as to the Holy Roman empire - that is a completely different and purely formal problem.

In my humble opinion, references to ethnic origin should be taken with a grain of salt, especially in the case of persons who lived before the 19. century. As for Benyovszky (as it is known in my country), his mother was of Hungarian origin (from the noble family Révay), therefore, his Hungarian ancestry can be well established (besides his Polish or possible, Slovak one). The problem whether it is legitimate to refer to a Slovak nation for a historical period preceding the formation of the Slovak national consciousness or language would go beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, I think that the Slovakization of historical names (like Révay into Révaiová or Hönsch into Hönschová) should be corrected in an encyclopedia that values objectivity.

One of nowdays great extreme-chauvinist anachronism is the Slovakization of historical names. How identified Benyovszky himself? He didn't wrote or said anywhere and anytime about him, that he is a Slovak. That time this word not use in common, and only means Slavic origin (Czech, Polish etc.) peasants in Upper-Hungary. If you said to Benyovszky, that he is a Slovak, it vas a great outrage for him. That time the "nationality" based on nobility. Every noble (Hungarian called 'nemes', 'nemzetes' => the part of the Nation) in Hungary had got Hungarian 'national' identity that time (exept Croatians). The peasants called 'nemtelen' (people without nobility). Benyovszky wore the clothes of the Hungarian nobility, and did not wear the Slavic peasants' clothes of Upper-Hungary, who didn't identified that time themselves as a common 'Slovak' nation. It is a great anachronism. The nationalty, which based on the Enlightement's and the French Revolution's equality-ideology, and the Romantic nationalism, which basad on the language and the folklore were unkown in the Hungarian nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.207.106 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mi úgy utáljuk a szlovákokat, hogy semmit nem tudunk róluk. We hate Slovaks and know nothing about them. [3] --Nina.Charousek (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, but I think you will understand this:" DunaiD 2009.08.28. 21:56:39

Kóczián úr írásának sok jogos eleme van. Én is egyetértek azzal, hogy nagyon keveset tudunk a szlovákság múltjáról. Viszont az egész írásnak van egy olyan kicsengése, amelyből az következik, hogy mi tehetünk mindenről, még arról is, hogy a Köztársasági Elnökünkkel tapló módon viselkedtek." "kermi 2009.08.28. 22:13:47

Nem értem igazán a cikkíró logikáját. ha ismerem a történelmét valakinek, ha nem, akár még szerethetem is. De én nem tudok szeretni egy olyan csoportosulást, amelyik megjelenik reggel a házam előtt, és azt mondja, mától ez nem a te országod, mert nekünk adták a franciák, és innentől kezdve nem beszélhetsz, tanulhatsz magyarul, felejtsd el a helységneveidet, Kovácsné helyett csak Kovácsová lehet a feleséged, valamint innentől kezdve felejtsd el a a történelmed is, mert az neked nem jár. Ráadásul bűnös vagy egy olyan háborúért, amihez nem volt túl sok közöd, mert a nagyapádat is úgy rángattak bele, te meg meg se születtél akkor. És lefasisztáznak, miközben az ő vezetésüknél fasisztább már nem is igen kell. Ráadásul, ha megsértenek, debil móricka módjára hümmögnek, és nem értik mi is a te bajod, hiszen ők éppen csak leköptek. Nagy büdös lófaszt! Azt." slovnaft 2009.08.28. 22:19:33

@kermi:

Kiválóan látod. Csakhogy ők nem azt mondják, fejetsd el a történelmed, hanem hogy az a történelem az ÖVÉK! Érted? Fickón kívül mindenki aztg mondja, a szentkorona az övék, annak Pozsonyban a helye. Minden évben szilveszterkor egész pozsony koronázási lázban ég. Eljátszák Szent istván megkoronázását, korhú öltözetben. A várfalra pedig lézerrel rajzolják a koronát. Így tesznek a dicső hősi magyar (vagy éppen más nemzetgiségű) történelmi személyiségekkel, legutóbb II. Rákóczinak adtak szlovák nevet.""A szlovákok utálata pedig egy általánosítás és ráadásul alaptalan is.""Ami nagy bajuk lehet velünk az az hogy gyakorlatilag magyarként van ma nyilvántartva szinte minden SVK származású tudós, művész, egyéb ismert ember."--B@xter⁹ 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

moreover, some comments of the blogs are brilliant, but our optics in both directions are wrong which directly concerns this article too and we should be objective and neutral. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that after centuries (too bad) these nations will live in peace, together. (If there will be any humanity... :/)"Ha el tudnánk fogadni, hogy az őseik (vagy egy részük) őshonos, szorgalmasan dolgoztak nekünk/értünk évszázadokon keresztül, adót fizettek, írókat, tudósokat adtak a (közös) nemzetnek (nekünk), egy szóval értékes emberek (magyarok?, magyar-tótok?) voltak és ezért (testvérként) tiszteljük őket, elfogadjuk, hogy jogosan használják (közös) szimbólumainkat és történelmünket, és jogukban áll a felvidéken élni és szlováknak lenni, saját sorsukról dönteni, gyanítom megváltozna a hozzáállásuk is. Egyelőre nekem úgy tűnik, ezek mindegyikét tagadjuk. Ők koszos jobbágyok, akiket megtűrtünk ezer éven keresztül és hiába tartottuk el őket és védtük a vérünkel házaikat, hálátlanul ellopták a felvidéket. Amíg ez a vélemény, addig nem jövünk ebből ki sehogy."--B@xter⁹ 23:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

history dispute ideas

I believe this is not the first time someone goes reverting over and over something as trivi as the recent. Anyway, since neither people from Slovakia nor people from Hungary seem to be able to compromise or even talk here, I believe the article should or could benefit from:

1. Be edited strictly by non-interested parties (e.g. historians who don't give a damn about magyarization or slovakization).
   • This could be hard to ensure and maintain, but people from both parties tend to be pretty apparent/convergent after some time.
2. Semi-locked by admins to prevent anonym ips and newbies from removing stuff and then reverting and warring.
   • I do not see much improvement from newbies. All they do is overall removal of either Slovakia, Hungary or even Poland.
3. Include names, relations and references to all parties (excluding blatant spam/vandalism only).
   • This could ease the tension a little. Include all countries where Maurice resided.
     • Maurice was (to my understadning) born in both Slovakia/Hungary, traveled thru all Slovakia/Hungary/Poland.
     • I fail to understand, why he can not be seen as both Hungarian/Slovakian hero/nobleman.
     • I fail to understand, why he can not be important to both Hungarian/Slovakian history.
   • If any party disappears from the article, it can be considered POV and removed completely.

Feel free to comment, please. Galyley (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

cleanup of article

Maurice is not a writer or someone to be important to associate him with a nation or etnicithy, I think best way is to remove all that may cause a dispute and ask someone from Portal:History to rewrite section nationality in neutral and functional way. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Maurice is not a writer or someone to be important to associate him with a nation or etnicithy" LOL :D! So this means that from this time Nina.Charousek will decide what information can be added int the infoboxes? Or "who is important enough"? Please check other infoboxes like these: Richard Francis Burton (infobox nationality:English); Juan Sebastián Elcano (nationality +ethnicity added); Jacques Cartier (infobox: French); Francisco Pizarro (infobox: spanish). "ask someone from Portal:History to rewrite section nationality in neutral and functional way" LOL 2.0 :D Please read the reliable english references first. Thank you!--B@xter⁹ 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

it is a correct offer, nobody speak about forced decision, but one is clear: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If I wasnt clear I will repeat myself: Please read the RELIABLE, NEUTRAL ENGLISH SOURCES which say he was a Hungarian. You removed them from here, so you know what I am talking about.--B@xter⁹ 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed nothing, I was only ongoing in discussion and I repeated to you message. I can not look every 5 minute to changes of your discussion. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed nothing, Of course. :D It is very interesting that only the references and his nationality has been removed by you (the middle of the sentence) while the rest (the end of the sentence) not. What a lucky accident! This conversation was started by u, so please, be so kind and watch out. Thank you!--B@xter⁹ 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To your message at 12.37 I answered you at 12:58, wikipedia has to say it is editing conflict. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

sources 7 a 8 are not reliable and please remove them: 7: rokonai Lengyelországba menekültek 8:he was proud of his Slovak, Hungarian and Polish background, this is all possible, but no sure sources, that he is of Polish ancestry. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1) And what is the reason? What do you mean under "not reliable"? 2) If he was proud of his Polish ancestry, than he had polish ancestors, not? +there is a reliable source to prove it--B@xter⁹ 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

all your sorces are not reliable, because the "Natio Hungarica" referred only to the privileged noblemen (regardless of ethnicity), please give reliable sources, that Móric Beňovský was hungarian ethnicity and some his ancestors are Polish ancestry of polish ethnicity, it is fact, that some of his slovak ancestors fled to Poland. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the sources (+article) again. Thank you. (+Where is tha "Natio Hungarica" in the sources?) A hint for you: "was a Hungarian count with Hungarian and Polish ancestry."--B@xter⁹ 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point, Móric Beňovský was not Hungarian people, please give me one reliable source, that he was a Hungarian, he was without doubt a privileged nobleman of slovak ethnicity in Habsburg/Austrian monarchy, not more and not less. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You have your references. Above. It proves that he was a Hungarian (nationality) with Hungarian and Polish ancestors.--B@xter⁹ 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

no, all references say he was a nobleman in Austrian Monarchy, in part of today Slovakia without Hungarian people, no one reference, that he was Hungarian poeple/Hungarian ethnicity, you have Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. In for example a book Opening of Japan to find prove of his hungarian ethnicity is brash and clumsy. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As it was told you in the past when you started a familiar POV-pushing: "The Slovak language makes a distinction between pre-1918 Hungary and post-1918 Hungary, the English, the German, the French etc. languages do NOT. If English sources indicate a Hungarian of another ethnicity, they clearly point this out: a Hungarian of X ethnicity/origin." Just see article Joseph Petzval (Hungarian of German origin, see references). In this case: ALL RELIABLE ENGLISH REFERENCES say that Benyovszky (this is the correct name, the family uses this one) was a Hungarian explorer, soldier etc. of Hungarian and Polish background. Anithing else is your WP:OR. If you dont see the references you are blind. You forgot to read further "...Russian Naval Expeditions to Compel the Tokugawa Shogunate to Conclude Treaties and Open Ports to Their Ships..." Any idea now? (Just a question: Why is Sándor Petőfi marked as a Hungarian if he had slovak parents?--B@xter⁹ 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

you are at move, you said he was a Hungarian people Hungarian people, Hungarians (in Hungarian: magyarok) are an ethnic group. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian [1][2][3] count[4][5] with Hungarian[6][7] and Polish[7] ancestry" That is, what I said. As I remember I did not remove anithing from the article, I just answered to you, not? You have your reliable english sources and inline cititations. What kind of sources did you show?--B@xter⁹ 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

you added a lot of references, example reference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Benyovszky&action=historysubmit&diff=270873315&oldid=270656930 with Maurice and reference to Hungatian people, you have to remove it, if you do not follow rules, rules are simple and clear. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources. You can choose to ignore them at your own risk. Hobartimus (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said it before: you have your sources.--B@xter⁹ 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for the handsome face of Wladthemlat to appear on this talk page. His appearance would hardly be surprising here when following all Hungarian editors around on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For best results, please keep comments on the talkpage focused on the article content, not on other contributors. For example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Keeping things in the third-person can lead to more productive discussions. :) --Elonka 15:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of article - my summary of discussion

I would like to have a neutral and balanced article on Maurice, all statements based on serious and relevant references. On the today territory of Slovakia at time of Maurice was the percentage of etnic Hungarian/Hungarian people about 15. In pure Slovak regions, such as Vrbove was the proportion of Hungarian/Hungarian people, now and then something towards zero. All references here as proof, only say, that Maurice comes from the multi-ethnic Hungarian province of Austria/Hamburg Monarchy. They have no explanatory statement over his ethnical affiliation. Nevertheless, just this is said in current version. I'm not saying that he is not an ethnic Hungarian, because I'm not an expert. But I say clear: presentation of current references is forgery of history. Once again: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

I propose the article is renamed / moved to Maurice Benyowsky, as this is the spelling used most frequently by the english sources, both Benyowsky's contemporaries and modern ones. Compare [4] with [5] Wladthemlat (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as that wasn't his name. Hobartimus (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Any proof except your opinion? Wladthemlat (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them. from WP:ENGLISH Wladthemlat (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing else but a spelling variant that's no longer in use. No. The current long established title is and was perfectly fine. Btw a google search will easily confirm this, the swky variant has extremely small usage over the internet. . Hobartimus (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that simple google search comparison suffices. Compare [6] with [7] - the use is still very frequent, the only difference being, that the second variant is used predominantly by Hungarian sources, whereas the first one by English and international authors. The proper English use is therefore self-evident. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even your own links deny what you write above. First results in first link, list the follwing: Memoirs, Original publication date 1700s, Historický ústav SAV., Ústav orientalistiky, etc. The search seems polluted with the same 1700s work appearing multiple times. And of course still there is more results even with the search pollution to Benyovszky. However to be fair you should just copy the standard google search results here as well. It is also very telling which "sources" use the wsky spelling int the first result. Hobartimus (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The links prove the modern use of the specified spelling by international authors, and the fact, that the one used here is used predominantly by Hungarian ones.Wladthemlat (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Historický ústav SAV., Ústav orientalistiky, and "Slovakopedia"? The first hits in google and google books for sw spelling respectively? These are the "international authors"? Hobartimus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A little analysis, if I may. From the first 3 pages of the links above.

[8] Benyowsky spelling - source origin - count

• Slovak 2
• English 13
• Phillipino 1
• Portuguese 1
• Japanese 1
• French 1
• Nigerian 1

And that's excluding reprints of the original book

[9] Benyovszky spelling - source origin - count

• Hungarian 6
• English 5
• French 1

• Another Benyovszky (not M.A., de) as subject 2
• Author named Benyovszky (but not M.A., de) 8

I rest my case... Wladthemlat (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You counted the ones published "in General Books publication date: 2009 Original publication date: 1798 Original right? That's just silly. And it's in the list multiple times as a multiple republishing of the same 1798 text. Funny that your search wanted to search for material published after 1950 and it misses the target by 152 years. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I did mistakenly include 2 german/austrian books, which were reprints of an old play, I stand corrected. The table is updated, it hardly makes a difference though. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Maurice Benyovszky/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This opinion falls into that characterization pretty strongly. It seems to me that the form used in the title of the article ought to be the spelling of his name that the Count himself used and, with a number of original manuscripts by him out there, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what that is. Since none of those are online, however, some digging might be called for. There is, however, one possible clue which is online and that is in the 1790 English translation of Memoirs and travels of Mauritius Augustus, count de Benyowsky which is online at the Internet Archive. (What I'm about to say would, admittedly, be prohibited WP:OR if included in the text of an article, but it might be the start of some additional study.) Though that book uses "Benyowsky" in its title, there is a transcript of a letter from the Count on page XXIII, in which his name is spelled, not "Benyowsky", but "Benyorsky". That transcription — and who knows whether it was first hand or not — is made more significant by the author's taking the time to note on page 2 that the Polish spelling of the name was "Bieniowsky". These distinctions show that the translator/editor of that work was sensitive, at least to some extent, about the spelling of the name. I've helped to transcribe a number of original handwritten records from the late 18th and early 19th century in Poland and know that in the handwritten script used at the time, v's and r's can be hard to distinguish. It might well be, therefore, that the "Benyorsky" was actually "Benyovsky." If that is the case, once an original or reproduced manuscript has been examined, then that, not either "Benyovszky" or "Benyowsky", is what ought to be used, in my opinion. Until then, the status quo ought to be maintained and the current name retained since Wikipedia search currently suggests the right page regardless of which spelling is used. If that should change, then appropriate redirects should be created to do the same thing until the Count's own usage can be determined.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond. Wouldn't any use of the spelling used by the count himself if but not used by English-language sources constitute WP:OR by default? What you write here is interesting though, if he did spell himself Benyovsky, it is one argument more for his Slovak background.

But back to the point - I think we should use what majority of English language sources use, thats Benyowsky, Benyovszky is an obvious Hungarian variant which is perfectly fine on Hungarian wikipedia, but on English one it has no place. Internationally he was and still is known as Benyowsky, we should reflect it here. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar information really inaccurate

This man was never "king of Madagascar" and Andrianampoinimerina certainly never came into contact with him. The article seems to reflect a Euro-centric view that gives all the credit for civilization on Madagascar to a European adventurer. Benyovszky activities were evidently limited to a small community on the east coast where he essentially declared himself king (according to the first of the many sources provided at the bottom of this article itself!). He could never have been a legitimate "king of Madagascar" because the island was not united under a single ruler at the time and there is absolutely no evidence that this man ever managed to unite anyone. Incidentally the same source claims the reason France did not support his endeavors on the island was because he was a terrible despot and engaged in questionable business activities. The references provided need to be actually cited throughout the article to support the assertions made here; in fact, the entire thing needs to be re-examined and probably rewritten because it's riddled with inaccuracies and very one-sided. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Benyovszky had zero Slovak ancestry

funny what you talk about

Hey guys, look I really hate chauvinism, both the Hungarian and the Slovak and I don't understand why is it so important that what was his ethnicity, but one thing is sure: he didn't have any Slovak ancestries. Why? Slovaks were a mountain people of Kingdom of Hungary, without nobility. Both sides of Benyovszky were nobles, and nobles didn't mix with peasants. Do you understand it? The category on wikipedia that "Slovak nobility" is a joke. It never existed. If Pribina had been Slovak, Attila the Hun would be the first Hungarian king. But because none of them were Slovaks or Hungarians, just let's stay at the facts. Ok? Avi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.160 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeman_(nobleman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.86.57 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Useful sources

• This one is fairly balanced and detailed, although it doesn't make clear enough the regional limits of local Malagasy recognition of his leadership.
• This one makes it clear that there were other kingdoms on Madagascar totally unaffected by (and unaware of) Benyovsky's activities, thus he was never king of Madagascar.
• This summary of his memoirs provides more background about the circumstances of his being recognized as a king by a group of Malagasy on the northeast coast of the island.
• This one says exactly which people accepted him as their ruler!
• This source fills in further details in a fair way.
• here are his complete memoirs

All of the above draw primarily from the count's own account, which many writers critique as exaggerated and inaccurate. Other QUALITY source documents are needed to paint a balanced and complete picture of what happened in his life (much of which nobody could know but him!) Lemurbaby (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha! It looks like most of this article is plagiarized directly from the exhibit archive found here. What's worse is that an exhibit this Eurocentric and riddled with inaccuracies about Madagascar was actually approved and displayed by the American Philosophical Society. Shame on them for their lack of due diligence. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)