Talk:Pavol Országh Hviezdoslav

Concerning the birthplace

Here is a link [1] of a scanned page of the book Das Königreich Ungarn: Ein topograph.-hist.-statistisches Rundgemälde by J. C. von Thiele (1833!). In this you can clearly see that in 1833, even 11 years before making Hungarian official language in the country and in the middle of Germanization, in this book, written in German, the name of his birthplace can be found under "Kubin (Felső)"! Not even "Oberkubin"...! Engivuk (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, there are many books, written by bureaucrats in Vienna, Bratislava and Budapest, today, and some time ago too. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, so you agree (bacause it is authentic) but don't care (becasue it doesn't back up your "version") - sigh. But since the current version of the article - regarding the birthplace - seems acceptable, I quit further pointless rumbling. I recognize Országh as a significant Slovak poet anyway.

PS. By the way, this "bureaucrat" J. C. von Thiele also described the Silická ľadnica ica cave in 1825 in Slovensky kras. What a bureaucratic armchair scientist! ;)

PS2. Sorry again for missing the relevant section at Elonka, my bad. Based on Elonka, btw, I updated the article. Thanks for the reference!

Engivuk (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

v poriadku, minden rendben, is ok --Nina.Charousek (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Life section:

How long did Hviezdoslav "work in the field" for his father?

"A festival of amateur reciters named Hviezdoslav's Kubín has been held there since." Is it a festival of recitations? Of Hviezdoslav's poetry, or all poetry? Annual festival? Suggestion: "Hviezdoslav's Kubín, an amateur recitation of Hveizoslav's poetry, has been held annually since then."

In the Slovak Matica section: Suggestion: Slovak Matica needs a seperate page for its history, even if short for now. This article is about Hviezdoslav, so the origins of Slovak Matica before Hviezdoslav should be elsewhere.

I agree...Juro 23:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parents and grandparents only slovak

I am very surprised at how poorly are researched many items.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously his paternal ancestors were Hungarians, since his family name is Hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.70.168 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention

Naming convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Naming_convention
Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)". In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively --Omen1229 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

CoolKoon wrote: "Miškovec" was never EVER official and (hopefully) will never be either[2]. Please stop with your original research and please try to be more encyclopedic. I don´t create the name Miškovec, it is Slovak hitstorical version and in biographies of Slovak person the name should be used in the Slovak form. So we have 2 variants for person from multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary" > Slovak person in conjunction with today's Hungary or Hungarian person in conjunction with today's Slovakia:

1.1 Slovak person, for example Hviezdoslav in conjunction with today's Hungary - Miskolc > He studied in Miškovec(Slovak form) and the other official hictorical + modern name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence.

1.2 Hungarian person, for example Kálmán Mikszáth in conjunction with today's Slovakia - Sklabiná > Mikszáth was born in Szklabonya(Hungarian form) and the other official hictorical + modern name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence.

2.1 Hviezdoslav > He studied in Miskolc(modern form) and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence.

2.2 Mikszáth > Mikszáth was born in Sklabiná(modern form) and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research?! I hate to break it to you, but just go ahead and read the first sentence of the above link again. It says The naming convention for places in Slovakia. So even though Miškovec is used by Slovaks, it isn't (and hopefully will never be) in Slovakia, hence the naming convention doesn't apply, thus Miskolc is there to stay. This means that in case of Hviezdoslav the convention says that the Hungarian (then official) name should be used once, after which the Slovak name can be used all over. In case of Mikszáth the convention says the exact opposite: the Slovak name would be mentioned once and the Hungarian name in the rest. Once again this doesn't affect the town/settlement names that are STILL in Hungary (e.g. Győr, Szeged, Miskolc, Esztergom, Budapest etc.). -- CoolKoon (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is discriminatory, illogical, dubious and not neutral. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. You have just written The naming convention for places in Slovakia is different than The naming convention for places in Hungary in the same cases. Wake up, this is english wikipedia. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Sorry CoolKoon, but I can not accept this nasty discrimination.--Omen1229 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

CoolKoon is right, Elonka's naming convention experiment does not apply to Miskolc, since it was never part of Slovakia. The standard geographical naming conventions [3] should be applied and Miskolc is both the historically relevant name and the modern name of the town. Omen1229's symmetry argument fails, since in that time there was no Slovakia and we use the Hungarian names of places now in Slovakia in historical articles related to Hungarians, because in that time those places were in Hungary. But Miskolc was never in Slovakia... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're really mistaken. Koertefa please write me what you mean "Hungary", because in that time there was no Hungary. We talk here about multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary" with a large Slovak population with Slovak language.--Omen1229 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So there was a Hungary. The guideline is only for places which are now in Slovakia. Pretty easy to understand, no? And it's for clarity, by the way. In English, places in Slovakia are referred to now by their Slovak names and pre-WW1 by their Hungarian names, that's why we write both in historical bios. Places which are now in Hungary have never been referred to by their Slovak names in English, thus it's as silly as writing "Pozsony" rather than "Pressburg", or "Vienna (Bécs)" just because someone is Hungarian. - filelakeshoe 15:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe, political unit Holy Roman Empire is not Roman Empire, Roman Empire is not Rome. Pretty easy to understand. If it's for "clarity", why not use modern names of cities? Please write me what you mean "English source", because we have source for names of cities in Slovak, German, Hungarian etc. for places which are now in Slovakia, Hungary etc. Yes, Slovak names in present day Hungary. 1773 - Lexicon universorum regni Hungariae locorum populosorum, 1786 - Geographisch-Historisches und Produkten Lexikon von Ungarn, 1796–1799 - Magyar országnak Leírása. K. 1–3, 1808 - Notitiae politico-geographico-statisticae inclyti regni Hungariae partiumque eidem adnexarum. Tomus primus Hungaria, 1845–1853 - Allgemeine geographisch-statistisches Lexikon aller Österreichischen Staaten. B. 1–6, 1858 - Geographisches Lexikon des Königreichs Ungarn und der serbischen Woiwodschaft mit dem temescher Banate, from 1863 - Statistical Office of Kingdom of Hungary and from 1895 Statistical Office published only Hungarian name of places without Slovak version, because it was a period of Magyarization. We need new orders for naming convention for places in Slovakia and in Hungary, because NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation?! Discriminatory? Illogical? Dubious? Not neutral?! Which part of The naming convention for places in Slovakia you don't understand? Tak teda pekne po slovensky: Konvencie pomenovania miest na Slovensku. Takze uz je to jasnejsie?

But really, the consensus (and Elonka's supervision) was NEVER about places in present-day Hungary at all, but about the places that USED TO BE in Hungary (or KoH if you will) and now are in Slovakia. Thus I'm sorry but it does NOT entitle you to use Miškovec in Slovak authors' biography on EN WP. Sure, you can use Slovak all over the Slovak Wikipedia, but not here. Feel free to report me, Koertefa and even Filelakeshoe for this on ANI, but I doubt that any of the admins would share your opinion. But let me suggest something else: since there's very scarce information about Štefan Banič (especially in English) and the Jozef Murgaš article could use some additional information too, why don't you do some research and expand those articles instead? The former needs a LOT of expansion (since it's little more than a stub), whereas the latter needs some sources (since it doesn't seem to cite any). I think that both of these people really deserve due credit for their work and efforts. I also have a feeling that none of the evil Hungarian editors would follow you there either. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)