Talk:György Dózsa

Turks as saviors

I would delete this line: posing to some degree as saviors of an oppressed peasantry

No peasant thought of turks as saviors at this time thus turks took a lot of peasant prisoners and killed many of them in every campaign. Even in 1526 peasants tried to oppose them at Pilismarót (an army of 25.000 peasants): http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohácsi_csataRungandras (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Moved to page George Dozsa as this is the name used in English-language sources. Scott Moore 14:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to György Dózsa because he did not have any U.S. or other English-language relationships which would support this usage (compare John von Neumann, Edward Teller etc.), because he is not widely known in the English-speaking world, and because Hungarian people are usually treated in Wikipedia with their original names (except for the above cases), see Category:Hungarian people for examples. --Adam78 23:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"But his halfnaked, ill-armed ploughboys were at last overmatched by the mailclad chivalry of the nobles"

Is that supposed to be mailclad cavalry?

---

"No measures had been taken to supply these voluntary crusaders with food or clothing;" By whom? How does this information fit in with what follows? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Names in foreign languages

He was a Hungarian hero, a Hungarian national with no foreign ethnicity, so I don't see the point in adding any foreign names. Squash Racket (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Then let it be like you want if that makes you happy. But these anti-Romanian edits won't bring you back Transylvania (Iaaasi (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

It certainly takes huge cahones to create a hate page against Hungarians as a user page and then accuse somebody else of being anti-x, when there is no history of such during years of editing. You however have one theme during your short(?) time here at least now you are open about it. Hobartimus (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I second Hobartimus' comment, and I strongly recommend a formal sockpuppet investigation on Iaaasi, whose behavior closely matches that of banned editor Bonaparte. That is if the user page, or his many disruptive edits, or his inflammatory allegations (one of them stated just above), is not enough to see him out the door.

But to the issue at hand: Dózsa is, for better or worse, objectively part of Romanian history. This, I must urge editors to consider, is not it itself proof of nationalism on the Romanian part: for political reasons, Dózsa was well integrated into Romanian nomenclature (streets named Gheorghe Doja used to be spread throughout Romania, not just Transylvania); this was, by all counts, a stupid thing of obsessive proportions - but it happened, it has become a topic, it is relevant. At this point, removing it (like the other pointless exercise of removing references to precise geographical areas or citizenship wherever the Hungarian ethnicity is involved) is more a proof of nationalism than the alternative. It translates into "it's in x nationality's patrimony, all mentions of it being somehow connected with y must be killed", which is almost always a blind argument, and frankly amounts to territorial pissing. The least we have of that, the better. Please, let's be rational and "utilitarian" before being sentimental - nobody is helped by a political statement, not even the person who pushes it into the text one way or another. Dahn (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And, gentlemen, we're not raising the level of discussions if we have to refer to "proof" about who was and who was not a "hero" of which culture. Two wrongs do not make a right, and no romantic mythology is better than the one after. Dahn (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to add foreign names to a Hungarian leader just because he had foreign nationals in his army. MOST Hungarian kings/army leaders did. When there's more connection (ethnicity, nationality, or some specific, notable deed in connection with the given people) I have nothing against it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems everyone supports my POV about G.Dozsa, but I am still the one accused of hatred against Hungarians (Iaaasi (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

This "accusation" is obviously baseless. Dahn supported your POV, Hobartimus did not. Squash Racket (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Audi alteram partem obviously has nothing to do with your long string of insults and your explicit aggressiveness, nor does it touch the simple fact that you may very well be a sockpuppet for a banned user. Your user page is an affront, an incitement to ethnic hatred and an ungrammatical one while at it. It aims to ridicule Hungarians, but it only manages to make a mockery of Romanians with such a primitive mindset. Considering that every now and then every subject that is "split" between Romania and Hungary gets to be treated as a front line (something all competent editors are by now truly sickened with), such attitudes as yours are exceptionally disruptive, and greatly handicap this project as a whole. These are all issues to be evaluated by the administrators of this project. Now, shall I be the one to start the procedure, or will someone else do me the favor of cooling things here with this long-awaited vacancy? Dahn (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To Squash Racket: your reply above is a good example of the over so often scenario where Hungarians and Romanians are reduced to talking loud and past each other. While a reply to my own post, it comments on an argument I have never made, and do not endorse (or indicated having done so). Now, it's ultimately irrelevant if the name is present in the lead in the format Iaaasi added. But a decent article would at least have to indicate somewhere in the text that this Romanian variation has become, through a process that is questionable but nevertheless historical, a common version of Dózsa's name - I couldn't care less if he had Romanians in his army, and nor did I see any explicit historical proof that this is non-speculative. I am discussing format and providing the reader with basic info: in this case, given that landmarks named Gheorghe Doja probably outnumber the Dózsa Györgys, there is a practical reason for not leaving the issue unaddressed, though, again, not necessarily in that format choice (but why not in that format choice?). Ignoring this simple fact, or insisting on implying that it is in itself proof of Romanian cultural imperialism, is not in any way helpful to the discussion. Dahn (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There could be a sentence in a 'legacy section' or similar explaining his significance if any such as, "In country X where he is known under the name Y he is lauded as a great military leader who was ahead of his time in military tactics" just made up that example right now dont' know if there is a specific thing or the sentence needs to be written differently. Hobartimus (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say the same, Hobartimus was quicker: in a "Legacy" section it may be mentioned that "his Romanianized name was used by Communist Romania to name streets with some underlying political motivation" or something similar IF there's a reliable reference for this.

But do I see it as a legitimate name alternative that belongs in the lead? No. (I emphasized that in my earlier answer, because the debate erupted over that issue.) Squash Racket (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the connection is a little deeper than Communist propaganda. For example, the doctoral thesis of historian Sever Secula was entitled "Românii în revoluţia lui Gheorghe Doja" ("The Romanians during the Revolution of Gheorghe Doja"). This was published at the University of Bucharest in 1895 - over half a century before the Communist regime took power in Romania. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree quite strongly with User:Dahn. There's no point in arguing what is "Right" or "Wrong" or which of your countries has some legitimate claim to this man--let's please be somewhat more practical here. He's entered Romanian culture one way or another and the article will be incomplete if it does not mention that fact. Florestanová (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Then repeat: in a "Legacy" section it may be mentioned that "his Romanianized name was used by Communist Romania to name streets, landmarks with some underlying political motivation" or something similar IF there's a reliable reference for this. Squash Racket (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to coach the reader into what he is to assume, might as well add "but they were all wrong to do it" to that proposal. I'm proposing a fact v. opinion issue: we all can presumably agree it was an exaggeration (I know I do), but let's not edit the text on the basis of that. Fact: Gheorghe Doja has become an effective alternative spelling of the man's name. Opinion: this was done on the basis of ideological demands (an opinion that, I do believe, can be sourced with some looking into Romanian sources - our historians are not all as primitive as not to be able to identify 20th century fiction). The most objectionable part, I believe, is the speculation drawn from that opinion: the phrase proposed by Squash Racket above basically coaches the reader into believing that every instance of Gheorghe Doja the reader may find is automatically soiled by some intent that may or may not be valid.

Btw, to the measure where there was "some political motivation", I think Transylvanian Hungarians will generally consider this a case of "count your blessings": as far as I can discern, Doja's "cult" began in a period when Romania, although communist (*which is never a blessing) was also quite inclusive - meaning that the idea was not to "Romanianize" Hungarian patrimony, but rather to create a single patrimony of inclusive symbols (preferably "working class" ones). This was the time when Romania had a Magyar Autonomous Region, when the Jiu Valley and other industrial projects were effectively (if tragically) turning into centers for a new hybrid culture that absorbed many Hungarian families and gave them a "Marxist-Leninist" ethos (before being reprogrammed to turn them "Romanians"), and not least of all the period when Hungarians and Romanians were for the first time truly motivated to look each other in the face (either because they were carpooled into the communist party, or because they had to join each other in actively opposing the communist party). So yes, it was probably a fabrication, at least in one of its avatars, but you'd be missing the mark by much if you were to associate it with a display of nationalism. All of this is, as we stand, my original research (I could substantiate it with some quotes, but it would be pointless here); for now at least, please don't judge the article on the basis of it, just as long as you allow me to note that there is a need for understanding the comlexity of a situation before stating a claim, any claim.

Incidentally, I don't think the current edit warring is getting us anywhere, which is why I'm refraining from editing, or even reading what the article says, at the moment. Dahn (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I say the name was Romanianized, or was he mentioned by that name by anyone in his time? I also said we should insert the text or something similar IF there's a reliable reference for this. You see this as coaching the reader? I think I was pretty flexible on how to formulate it, only asked for a reference.

I don't think nationalism is heavily involved here as he was viewed as a working class hero by the Communists, but facts do matter. Romania had a national communist system. Why didn't they simply use the Hungarian name?

I also have a suspicion on why Romanian Communists used György Dózsa as an early quasi-Socialist(?) hero to name landmarks, but without reliable references I don't even want to begin with the analysis. Just to avoid confusion and further false accusations. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but given that his name in contemporary written sources (most? all?) appears to be Georgius Zekel - something else the article doesn't bother to mention -, and since Hungarian phonology was recorded in many fluctuating ways even in Hungarian sources (still emergent in his lifetime), wasn't his name also "Magyarized"? For sure it was a less modern process, but the article commonly gives modern (largely speculative) renditions as the universal norm, and even ambiguously mentions that his name was György Székely "in some sources" (glossing over the fact that this spelling is unlikely to have occurred in contemporary sources). What's more, English sources appear to have familiarized themselves with Georgius Zekel before they even heard of György Dózsa - see here. I'm not building the case that we should change the article name, let along adopt a Romanian spelling, but, if the reconstruction in Romanian is not accepted for being "a stretch", then much of the same works for the Hungarian one.

As for the rest: not that it matters (and in any case I've clarified more below), but it's about time that people who comment on national communism in Romania realize that Romanian communism did not begin with Ceauşescu. In case it is not clear already from my reference to the Magyar Autonomous Region: I was talking about that period of Romanian communism between 1948 and ca. 1960/1966, when Romanian communism did not espouse a nationalist ideology. And if you want to speculate about why they didn't use the Hungarian name, it's probably because of more "innocent" reasons: the name itself was already in use on the Romanian side, as in other, many, cases where the Hungarian original is approximated into a Romanian version (Gheorghe Rákóczi I, Francisc David, Elisabeta Báthory etc. - none of whom are claimed to be Romanian). Adaptations of this kind surface in literate cultures, and ours, for all its faults, is a literate culture... In this case, for reasons I have sought to make clear (and with which others have agreed), the adaption is especially relevant: much like the Hungarian version is relevant for Michael the Brave (and a Latin and a German would be welcomed there too, I'd wager). Dahn (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And, since we're on the subject: does anyone else note the irony that we're discussing the legitimacy of modern reconstructions when it comes to the man's name, but we lead the article with a portrait by a very talented but communist (ahem) and expressionist (that is, not preoccupied with historical objectivity) artist who died some 400 years after Dózsa? And this when more or less reliable drawings of Dózsa's face can be cropped from the many graphic works circulating in that day and age. Dahn (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You really want to mix in the difference between Old Hungarian and modern Hungarian spelling? (Yes, the name György comes via the Latin "Georgius" — originally Greek Gregorios — as you very well know.) We don't even care about spelling issues as English sources naturally tend to use "György Dózsa". The question is whether we need foreign versions and which ones.

While we're at it: if there would be "Elisabeta Báthory" squares, streets etc. in Romania, would that justify the Romanian version in the lead of that article? Squash Racket (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I believe you've understood my point, despite pretending not to: if you're going to invoke "it's not attested" as an argument, you invite in the question "but what is attested?" In doing that, you either forfeit your original argument or carve a slippery slope for all naming issues.

To answer the question: yes, if that were the case. Just specifying an alternative name in the lead (though, again, not necessarily in the lead) does not imply that the subject is either "[insert culture]-ized", nor that it is "confiscated". Let's get over that.

And allow me to note: Whether in the lead or not, the article introduces the Romanian name in the most absurd form possible. As we stand now, it comes out of nowhere, eith no context, not even a mention that it constitutes the Romanian version, and assumes that the reader understands what he or she is looking at. This is just one of the countless format/consistency/style/flow issues that this article proudly displays (although I promised myself not to read it as is, for this very reason). But let's not focus on fixing those actual, essential, glaring problems. No, let's spend our next few years, during which this article will rot into a trench war, telling each other how one display of nationalism is better and more legitimate then the other, digressing about how Romanians/Hungarians don't understand what Transylvania is all about, producing our respective tragicomedies in front of whatever well-intentioned third party happens to wander into the discussion, and theorizing about the hidden motivation of our professional historians while making sure we quote propaganda outlets to prove our elaborate points. After all, that's what usually happens with any such article, so why not here as well? Dahn (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian name should probably redirect to the disambiguation page, not here.

I think you've understood my point, despite pretending not to: the name of the article is out of question (no explanation needed). Old Hungarian used the Latin original of the name, but it's still an old Hungarian version. We may add "György Székely" bolded if in old texts "Georgius Zekel" appeared. The attempt to treat Old Hungarian as a foreign version like the Romanian one isn't serious I guess. Squash Racket (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, SR, you have absolutely no point: if you invoke "orthodoxy" in dealing with sourcing, and if you claim that a modern reconstruction should not be mentioned in the lead (and should redirect elsewhere!) while suggesting that we should ignore all names as they appear in sources from the man's lifetime (which may still be found in English sources, including some which use these versions exclusively), you are simply contradicting yourself. In fact, the claim that Georgius is a "Hungarian name" is simply ridiculous. And, pray tell, what precedent, consensus or even logical argument does this extreme position of yours even adhere to, when: a) I've quoted guidelines which explicitly state that prominent mention of alternative names is encouraged; b) editors of several nationalities have argued in favor of inclusiveness; c) your elaborate claims about how the name would imply or be understood as an attempt to make Dózsa a Romanian rely on an unsubstantiated, distorted, manichean view of recent Romanian history. The mistake I'm making here appears to be that I'm taking your arguments at face value, bothering to take them seriously and replying to all their assumption, not as the monosyllabic, circular and encased clichés they actually are. Dahn (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The name "Georgius Zekel" IS Old Hungarian with Georgius being the Latin original (with Latin being the language used in documents, texts) of György and Zekel the Old Hungarian version of Székely (or what else?). I don't see what's your problem with that. There are many Hungarian forenames of foreign origin.

All I'm saying is based on the many lead sections I've seen so far on WP I see adding this name isn't quite justified. But fact is the majority of editors commenting here supported it. Squash Racket (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me squeeze in another quick comment for now, as I note my point about "Georgius" was misunderstood. What I am saying and have said is that the form "Georgius Zekel" is not a Hungarian-language name: it is the New Latin rendition of a Hungarian-language name, present only in sources which use New Latin and those English or French ones directly derived from/referring to these. Those sources are, I believe, the bulk, if not indeed the totality, of accounts of Dózsa's life written in and around the time of his death. At this moment, it appears to me that "György Székely" was reconstructed from this version used in primary, New Latin, sources. That is obviously a reasonable reconstruction, but it is still a reconstruction, a speculation approximated from a language Dózsa did not speak (New Latin) and back into Hungarian - not that it adds much (because no sane person would in this day and age be advocating moving this article's name to anything else than it already is), but, in the context of what I was saying, it does mean that there is a risk to removing one reconstruction while endorsing the other. Sure, all these New Latin-to-Hungarian approximations are all more reasonable and legitimate than "Gheorghe Doja", but we would tie ourselves in knots if we were to reject one for being speculative while claiming that the other one is not.

That was the argument I was presented with, that is what I was answering to. The ultimate origin of the name "György"/"Gheorghe"/"George"/"Georgius" (Greek, I do believe) is not up for discussion, not did I contest that "Georgius" is anything but the rendition of his Hungarian name. It just happens not to be his Hungarian name, which is known to us only through more modern renditions. Nuance.

That said, I would see a real informative value to also mentioning in the lead that the New Latin variant is widespread. I would squeeze in a "New Latin: Georgius Zekel" between "György Székely" and "Romanian: Gheorghe Doja". This instead of the vague footnote that simply messes up the format and adds nothing on its own.

Btw, does anybody know what the renditions of "Dózsa" were in Old Hungarian or New Latin? Dahn (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something or you completely ignored the name "Zekel"? (Old Hungarian for Székely.)

I tried to look this up, György doesn't seem to be a modern rendition (though it has even older forms like Györk, Györe), but as documents used the official language at the time Latin, the Latin version of his name is mentioned in those. Regardless of that, many names came into Hungarian via Greek, Latin etc. Why is that still such a shock? Don't you see that "Zekel" is what really matters here?

So you would put into the lead every name's old version too? Squash Racket (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael the Brave did rule Transylvanian Hungarians for a couple of months, Dózsa didn't rule Romanians. Although I'd probably just remove the Hungarian version of his name. Just imagine adding all kings'/emperors' names in the lead in all languages their subjects spoke. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Dózsa did not really rule anything. And I have no problem imagining adding the monarchs' names in the respective articles: it would be absurd to it in the lead, but the style guidelines clearly mention that, in cases where there is a variation in spelling/language that takes up too much, the recommended way to address that is in a special section on "Names", immediately after the lead section. This is consistently applied, and you will find it is present in some articles about royalty. In this scenario, only the name most used in English would appear in the lead - all alternatives would follow in the section I mentioned. With just one version in Romanian and a couple in Hungarian, it is unlikely this article would need to resort to that elaborate solution. Mutatis mutandis, this is the case with Michael. So, your point? Dahn (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my point. Squash Racket (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't see how that is either a point or a statement. The only scenario in which I can see that logic working is if you're imagining I'm making the entire argument above from some hidden frustration, after having seen the Hungarian name in the Michael article. Let me reassure you, I'm not. For various reasons (informative, not symbolic ones), the Hungarian version is relevant in that article, even though it is not as relevant as the "Doja" version here (no landmarks were named with that version of Michael's name, unless I'm wrong). I do not endorse that edit of yours, nor do I believe it constructive. If we can add more, in cases where adding more is a logical choice, let's go with inclusiveness. The alternative, the only alternative such edits propose, is apartheid - it may "please" nationalist POVs on both sides, but it is in the long run a study on how national ubersensitivity can sabotage the informative side of this project. We are not here to build national monuments and correct perceived historical wrongs: we are here to record reality. Dahn (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You assume too much once again. Michael the Brave wasn't Hungarian in any way, and his rule over Hungarians/Germans/Serbs etc. was short-lived. English sources don't refer to him by that name and hits mostly point to Mihály Csokonai Vitéz, a Hungarian poet. Squash Racket (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: where o where is it suggested, in any way, that a person's alternative name as provided by wikipedia has to reflect that's person's nationality? (With monarchs, the very "nationality" argument would have to be absurd.) You might wanna take your time researching this. In fact, when it comes to alternative names, the guidelines in question don't even mention that the alternatives would have to occur in English sources. This claim you're making here about English sources is, may I remind everyone, in perfect contradiction to your suggestion above, where you dismiss an alternative names that is present in English sources. The basic tagline here, no matter how I try to read the above, is: Squash Racket does not want a name to feature in the article, and he will go lengths (circular lengths) to impose this sectarian view over guidelines, precedents and other users' interpretation of common sense. He will however agree on this with a user who otherwise proudly stated that all Hungarians are thieves - that's how apartheid works. Dahn (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Read my comment above, I see that the majority of editors supports adding it. The English hits usually refer to "Street G. Doja" or were written by Romanians etc. We could add many names to many articles based on that.

Here's my question: as ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned in the lead AT ALL, will that raise or reduce overall confusion for a random reader? Squash Racket (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting new information Dahn, thanks for shedding some light on the background of it. It's easy to see how the story has certain elements (peasant army = working class ppl versus the aristocracy) appealing in some situations. Hobartimus (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

@SR: A quick visit to Google Earth settles that particular question. Since Dózsa is clearly ethnically Hungarian, from an era which predates nationalism, a spartacus-figure whose notoriety has very little to do with nationalism or his ethnicity, his importance elevated by the communist party in two countries, his name appears on very many streets, squares, institutes, etc. in both Hungary and Romania in both languages. Someone researching "Gheorghe Doja" should probably see the name explicitly included in the lead (as on huwiki), not simply be redirected. This is an issue which splits reasonable editors and I believe the way forward, for nothing more than practical reasons, is to default to the inclusive, i.e. to include the Romanian name, and move on.István (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that. To mention this interesting fact is OK in the "Legacy" section, but we don't include modern versions of names in the lead without explanation like they were legitimate alternatives. If ethnicity/nationality/specific role or deed in connection with the given people from that time supports it, only then we should mention the name (without comment) in the lead.

I definitely don't want to falsely "coach the reader" into believing that the Romanianized version is from that time, because I don't think that's true. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Squash, I believe you are still reasoning from "what should be" while others, myself included, are only trying to reflect "what is." By your logic, to take a slightly absurd example, we should excise all mentions of the name "Jesus Christ" from the Wikipedia and replace them with "Yeshua ben Yosif ha-Nozri," since after all, "Jesus" is a modern and translated variant and had no relevance in the year A.D. 33. Leave aside your historical biases and interpretations and just look at what exists in the world today, what is relevant in the world today in our modern languages and nations. Florestanová (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is the English version of the name, in this article György Dózsa is.

Whether to include foreign names (and which ones) IS a matter of debate.

If you share with us which country you came from, I can probably identify some sensitive issues ("historical biases and interpretations") of your place. Squash Racket (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Squash, I'm American-born and American-raised, not that it's any of your business or has the slightest relevance here. My ancestry is a big unhelpful stew, Irish and English on one side and Slovak-Polish-Hungarian on the other. Maybe a bit of Italian in there somewhere. Florestanová (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't share more info than you're comfortable with, I only asked for country. What I wanted to say is this: most editors have their own sensitive issues while editing WP, and at the same time many ridicule stances in topics that are less important to them. Squash Racket (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so when I mash my finger, what am I to say?  ;-) Speaking of "what should be" - there should be an infobox explaining the name(s) and origin - this would short-circuit about 60% of CE/EE edit warring. Still, nobody's biases need to come into play - the issue may be settled by consensus. I assert, on the evidence of the high number of geographic names bearing "Gheorghe Doja", that it should appear in the lead, clarifying to the reader (who's research is often starting with it) that this is the Romanized version of Dózsa György, a Hungarian leader of a peasants' revolt... etc. Unlike other languages in which the subject does not hold greater than a modicum of status, its clear that in the Romanian he does. István (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more insight I was able to dig up so far on the general issue - feel free to use it as a source in the article, if that's a priority for anyone; whatever your attitude to the name issue is, it may prove eloquent in general. From Emanuel Copilaş, "Confiscarea lui Dumnezeu şi mecanismul inevitabilităţii istorice: o comparaţie între mitologia legionară şi cea a comunismului românesc" ("The Confiscation of God and the Mechanism of the Historically Unavoidable: A Comparison between Legionary Mythology and That of Romanian Communism"), part II, in Sfera Politicii, Nr. 139 (Copilaş is on the academic staff of Timişoara's West University; the paper opens with a short abstract in English).

The relevant fragment refers to the official mythology of the communist era, in its earliest stage (i.e., before Ceauşescu, and probably even before Gheorghiu-Dej died): "În ceea ce priveşte problema continuităţii daco-romanilor, respectiv românilor, pe teritoriul carpato-danubiano-pontic, în faza internaţionalistă a comunismului românesc erau acceptate două teze: cea autohtonistă şi cea imigraţionistă. Conform tezei imigraţioniste, românii apăruseră ca popor şi pe teritoriul actual al ţării, dar imigraseră aici şi din întreaga peninsulă balcanică sub protectoratul populaţiilor slave. Teza imigraţionistă va fi vehement combătută în faza naţionalistă a comunismului românesc, când teza autohtonistă, conform căreia 'etnogeneza' românească a avut loc exclusiv în spaţiul carpato-danubiano-pontic devine singura teză acceptată. De asemenea, continuitatea naţională românilor de-a lungul istoriei nu prezenta nici ea o importanţă deosebită în prima fază a comunismului românesc. Figurile istorice cele mai importante sunt acum Gheorghe Doja, Tudor Vladimirescu sau Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan. Componenta naţională a mişcărilor de revoltă socială pe care aceştia le-au condus va fi estompată, în paralel cu evidenţierea puternicului caracter antifeudal al acestora."

My translation: "In what concerns the problem of Dacian-Roman, later Romanian, continuity in the Carpathian-Danubian-Black Sea territory, two theses were accepted during the internationalist stage of Romanian communism: the autochtonist and the immgrationist ones. According to the immigrationist one, Romanians had emerged as a people on several territories other than the present-day country's, but had immigrated here from all over the Balkan Peninsula, under the protection of Slavic populations. The immigrationist thesis would be vehemently rejected in the nationalist phase of Romanian communism, when the autochtonist thesis, according to which Romanian 'ethnogenesis' had taken place exclusively within the Carpathian-Danubian-Black Sea space, became the only accepted thesis. Neither did the national continuity of Romanians throughout history present a special importance during the first phase of Romanian communism. The most important historical figures at this [internationalist] stage are: Gheorghe Doja, Tudor Vladimirescu or Horia, Cloşca and Crişan. The national component of those social revolutionary movements that these figures led was offset, while their strong antifeudal character was highlighted."

I have also quoted and translated a part not directly relevant to Dózsa for context, and because it is instructive for some of the larger issues, including while we are still having controversies over such inane issues. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I will use this in the article in some form. Hobartimus (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dahn's conclusion from the debate above

Having been forced to acknowledge that this article is basically held hostage by a restrictive mindset, wanting to deescalate all edit warring (having myself at all times refrained from taking part in editing the article after the start of this controversy), and realizing that continuing to debate with just one user over issues that he will no matter what still consider suspect (especially since anybody else must by now be having a difficult time following that dialogue), I wish to end my participation in this debate - at least until some other arguments are brought in to contradict mine, preferably by way of a third party. At this stage, this is no longer a debate, it's a set of reasons bouncing off self-referencing, monotonous, rejection.

To Hungarian editors reading this: the above is a test case for what has been debased in our ability to communicate, plainly and reasonably, to each other, to the supposed alternative in which we reduce ourselves to writing two autistic versions of the same history or nothing at all. To those of you who understand that our purpose here is not to write two "national" wikipedias, nor to joyously carpet bomb all that happens to fall in between our respective historiographies, I address this appeal: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Thank you all, and have a good tomorrow. Dahn (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what is in the article about the Gheorghe Doja name variant, should be anything added or subtracted from this section?

"Many cities in Romania have a Gheorghe Doja street, as his revolutionary image and Transylvanian background have been heavily used during the country's pre- Ceauşescu communist regime. The Hungarian national component of the movement led by him was de-emphasized, while it's strong antifeudal character was highlighted." Hobartimus (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, on Google hits:

• many English hits refer to "Street G. Doja" + there are also villages, communes by that name.
• do we take seriously English hits pointing to works written by Romanians in English? (Slovak editors very clearly would say NO here. Wonder whether policy is clear on that.)

What you call restrictive mindset is probably clarity mindset from another point of view.

My removal of the Hungarian name of Michael the Brave isn't "apartheid" (will we please drop such exaggerations?). English hits mostly point to a Hungarian poet with a similar name. The main reason that would justify adding the Hungarian name is in case the Romanian "Viteazul" was derived from the Hungarian "Vitéz". Is that so? Squash Racket (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hobartimus, Squash: can I get back to both of you later today? I'm afraid that, at this moment, I don't have enough time to address the questions you posed, since they all require detailed answers (I also have some suggestions on format, with which I hope you'll agree). Dahn (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on György Dózsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.com/topics/hungary/page4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412180514/http://www.walkinhungary.com/history.html to http://www.walkinhungary.com/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mészáros Lőrincz in the article

There is a sentence in the article which lacks citation that references a so-called "Mészáros Lőrincz".

Since it is lacking citation, I fear that this might be some form of vandalism, since Lőrincz is a controversial political figure in Hungary.

Can someone verify this statement or remove it ? Thepinkfluffy1211 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed it Thepinkfluffy1211 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rebellion vs. the Man Who Led It

It seems odd to me that there is an article about György Dózsa and not the rebellion which is commonly referred to by his name. It seems like there should be an article just focused on the rebellion itself, no? 76.32.138.130 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)