Jump to content

Talk:Maurice Benyovszky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wladthemlat (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 21 April 2010 (→Renaming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Mi úgy utáljuk a szlovákokat, hogy semmit nem tudunk róluk. We hate Slovaks and know nothing about them. [1] --Nina.Charousek (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read the sources (+article) again. Thank you. (+Where is tha "Natio Hungarica" in the sources?) A hint for you: "was a Hungarian[1][2][3] count[4][5] with Hungarian[6][7] and Polish[7] ancestry."--B@xter9 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ McOmie, William (2006). The Opening of Japan, 1853-1855: A Comparative Study of the American, British, Dutch and Russian Naval Expeditions to Compel the Tokugawa Shogunate to Conclude Treaties and Open Ports to Their Ships. Global Oriental. ISBN 1901903761, 9781901903768. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
  2. ^ Wells, David N. (2004). Russian Views of Japan, 1792-1913: An Anthology of Travel Writing. Routledge. ISBN 0415297303, 9780415297301. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
  3. ^ March, G. Patrick (1996). Eastern Destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275955664, 9780275955663. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
  4. ^ Shepherd Benson, William (1923). Catholic Builders of the Nation. Continental Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Michigan History Magazine. Michigan State Historical Society. p. 89. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  6. ^ March, G. Patrick (1996). Eastern Destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275955664, 9780275955663. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
  7. ^ a b "Maurice Benyowsky, Citizen of the World". www.amphilsoc.org. Retrieved 2009-05-24.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
you added a lot of references, example reference http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]
There are many sources. You can choose to ignore them at your own risk. Hobartimus (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it before: you have your sources.--B@xter9 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2] with [3] Wladthemlat (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as that wasn't his name. Hobartimus (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any proof except your opinion? Wladthemlat (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice_Benyovszky&oldid=357373979"