Talk:Budin Eyalet

Buda or Budin ?

• "Eyalet of Budin" -Llc 8, one of them is Wikipedia-based.
• "Eyalet of Buda" -Llc 13
• "Budin Eyalet" -Llc 4
• "Buda Eyalet" -Llc 7

Takabeg (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was Ottoman province and Turkish official name should be used. Hungarian name Buda is anachronistic and should not be used for this time period. PANONIAN 06:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I continue to research. Do you have any sources prove "Turkish official" name was Budin ? And Buda is one of the common names even in Turkish language. Takabeg (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it common in modern Turkish or in Ottoman Turkish? These two are not same. See google books hits for "Eyâlet-i Budin" and "Eyâlet-i Buda" (there are 0 hits for the later). PANONIAN 07:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, if common name is not established (there is no common name), we can prefer original one. But in this case, there is common names in English language. Takabeg (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Budin Eyalet, Ottoman Empire → Eyalet of Buda – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

• First of all, "X, Ottoman Empire" is needless. If we create articles on other "Budin Eyalet/Eyalet of Budin" of "Buda Eyalet/Eyalet of Buda"
• I think we'd better chose the style of "Eyalet of Y" instead of "Y eyalet", because when we research sources, we sometimes have difficulty in findinf "Y eyalet".
• I don't have any sources prove "Turkish official" name was Budin ? In modern Turkish language, Budin Eyaleti is more common than BUda Eyaleti ("Budin Eyaleti" -Llc - "Buda Eyaleti" -Llc), but here is not Turkish Wikipedia.
• Buda is one of the common names even in Turkish language.

In English:

Buda X or X of Buda +:

• Ottoman "Buda Province" -Llc 5
• Ottoman "Province of Buda" -Llc 31
• "Eyalet of Buda" -Llc 13
• "Buda Eyalet" -Llc 7

Budin X or X of Budin +:

• Ottoman "Budin Province" -Llc 5, one of them is Wikipedia-based.
• Ottoman "Province of Budin" -Llc 12
• "Eyalet of Budin" -Llc 8, one of them is Wikipedia-based.
• "Budin Eyalet" -Llc 4

"Buda X / X of Buda" is more common than "Budin X / X of Budin". As long as I understand, users prefer "eyalet" to "province" for distinguishing from vilayets and sanjaks in Wikipedia. Eyalet of Buda is best.

Takabeg (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do not agree with User:Takabeg. His methodology by which he concluded what is "the most common name" in English is at least disputed. I am not denying that term "Buda" is used in some sources, but that does not change the fact that term itself is anachronistic and not suitable for this time period (This was Ottoman province and therefore Turkish name of the city (Budin) should be used. "Buda" is Hungarian name form and Hungarian language was not official in that time. Furthermore, this Ottoman province included large parts of present-day Serbia (all the way to Kosovo) and it is not related to history of Hungary only and I do not see why modern (and anachronistic) Hungarian name should be preferred over historical official Turkish one). In fact, some Hungarian users right here in Wikipedia are insisting that Hungarian place names are used for time periods when certain regions and settlements were under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary. For the sake of NPOV policy and fair approach we simply have to implement same principle if we speak about settlements in present-day Hungary during non-Hungarian administration. Simple comparison of number of sources that using one or another term could be helpful if we have to choose between two accurate names. However, in the case when we have an inaccurate and anachronistic name, such comparison is not very helpful. Or to put it in this way: usage of name forms in compared sources depends mostly of bibliography that is used by these authors. In Hungarian literature and English literature written by Hungarian authors, Hungarian name forms are always preferred (which is often also a question of political prestige) and if authors of mentioned google books used these Hungarian sources for their work then they would also use Hungarian names that they found in these sources (they obviously did not knew original Turkish name and were lazy to search for it, so they used name form that was available to them). Simple "google fishing" is not an evidence that "Buda" is most common name for this eyalet and it is certainly not evidence that this name was official or historical (and we speak here about an historical Ottoman province). Anyway, I agree that ending ", Ottoman Empire" is not necessary and that article could be renamed to "Budin Eyalet" or "Eyalet of Budin" PANONIAN 10:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if we blindly follow "google fishing" performed by Takabeg, we would conclude that "most common fished name" is "Province of Buda" (with 31 hits), not "Eyalet of Buda" (with 13 hits). I really do not understand how user Takabeg concluded that "Eyalet of Buda" is most common name in English. PANONIAN 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support and at very least remove the ugly and pointless ", Ottoman Empire" appendix.--LK (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And you support what exactly, Underlying lk? User Takabeg in fact made several proposals. I think that we all agree that term "Ottoman Empire" does not need to be in the title, but question of whether we should use word Budin or Buda is an different issue. What is your position about that? PANONIAN 05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is about moving the article to *Eyalet of Buda*. So what do you think I support?--LK (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But Buda is anachronistic name that was not used in period when this eyalet existed. You do not have problem with that? PANONIAN 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Agree that ", Ottoman Empire" looks silly. And I can find nothing wrong with the proposed title. Rennell435 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you people obviously do not know much about naming disputes in Central Europe. If this article is renamed from Turkish to Hungarian name that would be an dangerous precedent that would trigger numerous naming POV wars in Wikipedia. There are some Hungarian users in Wikipedia who insisting that "historical naming criteria" should be implemented and that Hungarian names should be used for certain time periods during which certain regions outside of Hungary were under Hungarian administration. So, if that criteria is implemented there, then it also should be implemented for places in Hungary if they were under Ottoman or Habsburg administration. We cannot implement one criteria for Hungary and another criteria for countries in the neighborhood of Hungary. What result we would have if this article is renamed from "Budin" to "Buda"? We would have no fair rules and no fair naming criteria, but one ethnocentric practice that always favor Hungarian names: if one place in some country around Hungary was under Hungarian administration then we implementing "historical criteria" and we using Hungarian name for that place. But, if one place in Hungary was under Ottoman or Habsburg administration then we implementing criteria of "most common name in modern English" and we again using Hungarian name. Is that fair and NPOV? I am protesting because of these double standards and POV-ization of naming practices. And I want to ask a question: if this article is renamed from "Budin" to "Buda", does it mean that we should change birthplace of Johnny Weissmuller from "Temesvár" to "Timişoara"? You cannot just try to change criteria and practices in one single article thinking that it will not affect other articles. I am appealing to involved administrators that they do not change name of this article until we reach general consensus which of the two criteria ("historical" or "common name") we should implement in all articles related to Central European naming disputes. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per user Panonian. Also I don`t see how can WP:USEENGLISH be valid here? How is Buda or Budin a word in the English language? What is the difference? I don`t believe this can be applied here. If this move passes the problem rises to many other articles that would bring a lot of disruption. There is a clear historical naming criteria for places that was under certain control to use that nation`s names. Why should this be an exception? In this case it was under Ottoman administration therefore all this should remain under it`s Turkish name, no question asked. This consensus has been implemented for a long time and stopped a lot of problems. If this changes at this article I guess there would be a lot of chaos. Adrian (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The majority of English sources call the town "Buda" and not "Budin" even during the era of Ottoman occupation. That is "Buda" is the established English name for the town. A quick search on google books (restricted to English language results) gives 2.580 hits for the expression Siege of Buda 1686, while only 30 for the Siege of Budin 1686. Thus, in this context, more than 98% of the English sources call the town "Buda". And the name "Buda" is surely not a "modern (and anachronistic) Hungarian name", since it was established hundreds of years before the Ottoman occupation, it comes from the time of the Árpad dynasty. Therefore, WP:USEENGLISH is valid here and the preferred name of the article is "Eyalet of Buda". Koertefa (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we speak here about modern English sources, majority of which are also using name "Timişoara" and not "Temesvár" for city in Romania, so do you also agree that we should change birthplace of Johnny Weissmuller from "Temesvár" to "Timişoara"? (and that we should also change all other names in all other articles so that they reflect "common usage in modern English?). Also, there is no evidence that "The majority of English sources call the town "Buda" and not "Budin" even during the era of Ottoman administration". All we see here are "fished sources from google books site" and that site certainly does not contain all relevant English language sources. Therefore, we cannot make any conclusion about general usage in majority of English language sources, only about usage in those sources "fished from google books site". Also, name "Buda" is anachronistic for the time of Ottoman administration because it was not officially used by Ottoman authorities that administered the area in that time (this have nothing to do with Arpad dynasty). If this article is renamed that will create an precedent and a legal basis that Hungarian names of places or articles about pre-1918 counties of the Kingdom of Hungary are also changed to names that are more suitable for "modern English". Also, WP:USEENGLISH policy does not deny usage of name "Budin" since we saw clear evidence that such name is used in English sources. PANONIAN 05:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If we really want English language, we should use "Province" instead of "Eyalet". We have:

13 Google Books results for Budai Province

10 Google Books results for Buda Province.

On the other hand, the Siege of Buda argument offered by Koertefa is weak. He seems to interpret the data according to his own interest. For example in this article he replaced Siege of Belgrade with Siege of Nándorfehérvár, even if the Google Books ratio between them is 1050 : 0 (SamiraJ (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree that I was a bit hasty with respect to the name Siege of Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár and I apologize for that. There are sources which call it Battle of Nándorfehérvár, but the name "Siege of Belgrade" is more established in English, so I am happy if you change it back, as per WP:English. Koertefa (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the established English terminology, in case we choose the word "province":

88 Google Books results for "Province of Buda"

22 Google Books results for "Province of Budin"

Therefore, 80% of the English sources prefer the name "Province of Buda" over "Province of Budin". Koertefa (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: these are only sources "fished for google books", not "all English sources". We have clear evidence that both names, "Budin" and "Buda" are used in English sources. Clearly, some of these authors did thought that name "Budin" is accurate one, while others probably only used Hungarian sources that always prefer Hungarian place names and did not knew official Turkish name. There is no evidence that authors that used name "Buda" done that because of their linguistic position instead because of lack of knowledge of what was official Ottoman name of the province. Internet was not available to these authors in the past, so finding of turkish name would not be easy task for them. PANONIAN 05:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that google books searches in all English sources, still, it is a (probably unbiased) sample, so it (statistically) indicates that some names are more established in English than others. Even if we keep the Turkish name, we should also give the "Province of Buda" alternative in the lead, since it seems much more common (according to the statistical sample of google books). Like in the article about the Siege of Belgrade / Nándorfehérvár, where both versions are given in the lead, we should at least provide both alternatives. Koertefa (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The name Budin Eyalet is the most natural, because it comes from the original Turkish term Budin Eyaleti. To use the Hungarian Buda together with the Turkish Eyalet would be a little improper (TransilvaniaROU (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

This vote is a bit suspicious, since so far it is the only contribution of user "TransilvaniaROU" to Wikipedia. Koertefa (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith, especially since the user expressed a valid argument. --ANDROBETA 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The presented argument was very similar to the ones already given by others... Koertefa (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Turkish version seems more logical considering the context. Also I can see the searching benefit of the form "Eyalet of" but I don't have a strong opinion about that. --ANDROBETA 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a clear historical naming criteria for places that was under certain control to use that nation`s names. Why should this be an exception? In this case it was under Ottoman administration therefore all this should remain under it`s Turkish name, no question asked.Marian Dan (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2011 (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.

Can we remove the ", Ottoman Empire" part now? I think we have consensus for that.--LK (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We have if you ask me, but I am unable to rename this article. You should ask some administrator to do that. PANONIAN 21:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Province of Buda

As "Province of Buda" is (statistically) the most common and established English name [1] and the current alternative [2] is uncommon, the "Province of Buda" alternative name should be given in the lead, similarly to the article about the Siege of Belgrade / Nándorfehérvár. Koertefa (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we had voting and there was no consensus to rename article to "Buda". As for usage of alternative name in lead sentence, I see no problem with that. PANONIAN 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I accept the decision of the voting. I only ask for providing the most common English name in the lead as an alternative. Koertefa (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New Maps

Where do these two new maps come from? Which researcher drew them or what scientific book are they taken from? I am a bit suspicious about them... Koertefa (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You have info on each map's page about author and references. Can you specify what exactly "look suspicious" to you in these maps? Please tell me which info in these maps you consider inaccurate and I will say from which source that info came. PANONIAN 15:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budin Eyalet. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040308073040/http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/6het/map.jpg to http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/6het/map.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)