Talk:Maurice Benyovszky

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 [1] with [2] 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 [3] with [4] - 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.

[5] 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

[6] 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 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)

== 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)

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)

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.

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)