Talk:Sámuel Mikoviny

Slovak? Explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.137.38 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Sámuel Mikoviny → Samuel Mikoviny – The most frequent English spelling is without the accent over A in his first name [1] Wladthemlat (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - we're surely not going to make this the only ASCII-ized Hungarian bio on en.wp simply because some older books don't have full fonts. Modern sources which pass WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made" for Hungarian spelling have the name spelled correctly: Anthropogenic Geomorphology: A Guide to Man-Made Landforms 2010 "In the 18th century, in Selmecbánya (now Banska Štiavnica in Slovakia), a system with a water volume capacity of 7 million m 3 , according to the plans of the innovative engineer and cartographer, Sámuel Mikoviny, ..." or Sal P. Restivo Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia 2005 p612 "... Sámuel Mikoviny worked at the Stavnica (Selmec) mines. He was the first to make a consistent use of the triangular method and led a number of hydraulic construction projects. In 1849 Hungary declared its independence from Austria." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

See also archive at Talk:Paul Erdős Paul Erdős being cited as an example in WP:UE. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I think Wladthemlat's argument is very misleading. For instance, English-language newspapers and sites (e. g. BBC, Reuters, Washington Post or something else) frequently use Viktor Orbán's name without the Hungarian accent, but I can say other Hungarian persons. I do not think so that we should move these articles into the variants without accents. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The arguments above are irrelevant (what has the spelling of Orban's name have to do with this case? If anything, it only documents that the English use does not always follow the native spelling. Which is obvious.)

Cherrypicking sources for preferred spelling is also not relevant. Prevalent English spelling does not mean it is correct, just that it is the prevalent English spelling.

Stating that the only reason is some form of ASCII oppression is blatantly misleading, modern sources use it as well (as documented in the original reasoning), not to mention older sources, which were not dependent on encoding format. And even if it were the case (which is, pardon my French, quite ridiculous to begin with) it would still be the prevalent English spelling. We are not to analyse the reasons behind it.Wladthemlat (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat looking at your edit history prior to posting this RM you appear to have immediately prior been involved in an edit war with Hungarian editors, and not your first such edit war. Why not instead of ASCII-izing a Hungarian figure, try your approach on Slovak national hero Juraj Jánošík? What % of English sources mentioning Juraj Jánošík use full fonts and how many use ASCII-type or other restricted font sets. 115x sources with full Slovak fonts vs 270 results in books with ASCII fonts. Based on this how do you explain your selection of a Hungarian bio rather than a Slovak bio? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's stay to the topic, other articles bear no weight on this case (not to mention you are free to request a move there if you can back it up.)Wladthemlat (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:In ictu oculi The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. (WP:NPA). You should focus on arguments, not on persons. What's the problem if User:Wladthemlat did not nominate Juraj Jánošík for moving? It is his right to choose his editing priorities. It would have been a problem if he had contradictory views on different discussions, but it is not the case. 86.126.34.194 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your familiarity with guidelines is impressive. However further examination of this article's history indicates that arrival here wasn't random. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. (WP:DIACRITICS). Google Books sources published in the last quarter-century seem to favor the name that does not contain the accent. Personally I would support the name with á (an intro like Sámuel Mikoviny, often spelled Samuel Mikoviny sounds better to me) but apparently the policy suggests us to choose the tile Samuel Mikoviny, so I guess that we should follow the guidelines. 86.126.34.194 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First edits of IP, and so far WP:SPA, from Craiova - but an experienced editor who can find the outdated content in a guideline no article follows. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are coming dangerously close to a personal attack. Also, mind you, none of your ad hominem objections change the guidelines nor change the most used form of the name in English. Please keep it to the point.Wladthemlat (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just checked the first three Czech name articles that came to my mind: Leoš Janáček, Antonín Dvořák, Bedřich Smetana. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I see that Mikoviny was not Czech. But that does not affect the argument. Maproom (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per above arguments opposing the move. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As In ictu oculi and Norden1990 explained.--Rovibroni (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a Hungarian name, not an English one, and should be spelled properly. The fact that some English-speaking sources don't know better than to spell his name "Samuel" without an accent doesn't mean Wikipedia should perpetuate this ignorance. If some native English speaker cannot type the letter "á" on his keyboard, then redirects will help for that. JIP | Talk 13:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – the accent is not uncommon in English sources, so the rationale for the move is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment That it is an ethnic Hungarian name that warrants Hungarian spelling form is a presumption that has not been sufficiently established and I would refrain from calling reliable sources "ignorant" just because their content does not suit your POV. The accent is indeed very rare in English sources (there are just three in the link provided above), other language sources (French, German) don't use the accent either. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WRONG! – if you look at nom's (your) book search link, you don't see a lot of accents in the snippets, because the book OCR doesn't see them. But click through and look at the books, and you'll see the accent in 10 of the first 20 book hits. That's what I meant by "not uncommon in English sources". Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Dicklyon for reminding us all of this. The first link in the nom's search makes both points (a) the OCR doesn't pick up the accent, (b) incidentally sources identify Mikoviny as Hungarian not Slovak:

"Sámuel Mikoviny, the key figure in the development of modern Hungarian mapmaking, symbolically united his individual maps of the counties into a narrative by choosing the Hungarian prime meridian, which passed through the northeastern tower of the royal castle in Poszony." Nancy Meriwether Wingfield Creating the Other: Ethnic Conflict and Nationalism in in Habsburg Central Europe 2003 ISBN 1571813853 Page 26

Hungarian != ethnic Hungarian (Magyar), all Slovaks were politically Hungarians as well before 1918 (you know, because they lived in Hungary) see this [2] for example.Wladthemlat (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this your OR? However this debate is about correct spelling of his name and not about ethnicity. So your comment is irrelevant. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat, both your related edits and this RM probably come under WP:ARBEE. And it is normal in any group discussion/RM/AfD/RfC to disregard WP:SPA new users even when they do not exhibit expert behaviour. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iaaasi and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iaaasi‎ for a longstanding problem of anti-Hungarian IP edits originating from the Craiova geographical footprint. You need to be aware of this before supporting/defending such edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the requested move

It might be interesting to note that the above move discussion takes almost 97% of this talk page's size, and is almost 1.7 times as long as the whole article. JIP | Talk 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really that interesting. That's the nature of discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about spelling with or without acute accents for the alleged "Hungarian ethnic name" is mostly irrelevant. Of course, accents in names like Juraj Jánošík or László Kovács are absolutely OK. The problem is that the theory about "the Hungarian ethnic name" can be easily questioned. There are numerous reliable sources (some of them are already in the bibliography) that explicitly say that his nationality was Slovak. Now, I don't want to argue about his nationality, but rather explain why we cannot rely on the alleged Hungarian ethnicity and make similar conclusions. The primary, contemporary form of his name is without accents (source: Majtan M.: Transcriptions of historical surnames, Kultura Slova, Slovak Academy of Sciences, (6) 1974). Samuel/Sámuel Mikovíni/Mikoviny are Slovak/Hungarian transcription of the Jewish-Christian name Samuel and the Latin name Mikoviny (the "correct" Latin form is Mikovini, but his family demonstrably used the form Mikoviny according to contemporary transcription of similar Latin names like Ursiny, Fabry, etc.[Majtan] So, I suggest to restore previous neutral, "ethnically independent" form + Hungarian and Slovak variants. Ditinili (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please take into account the closed debate under the previous subtitle. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I took it into account. The rationale behind the previous debate is wrong, the argument that he was "a Hungarian" is at least questionable and the conclusion based on this argument is problematic. Ditinili (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think so, please start a new debate instead of making unilateral changes. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss it. I fully agree with the conclusion that we can use e.g. Czech or French accents for clearly Czech or French persons or the persons with clearly Czech or French name (what is obviously not this case). --Ditinili (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I won't raise a conflict that you treat the article if it would be a Slovak article without consensus (take it as a generosity because of his Slovak roots) - considering the order of the names and your usual elimination of the Hungarian multiple occurences. My condition to accept the majority of your changes, that you let the infobox at least in the contemporary order of names, and you let the multiple occurences of Hungarian names, as well you let those sources describing him as Hungarian, and accept the "Hungarian of Slovak origin" description in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

Frankly, there is nothing like "the contemporary order of names", it's just your misunderstanding of linguistic and political conditions of the period. However, if you want to preserve some order only in the infobox, I really do not care. In my opinion, it is not a systematic approach and you "risk" that it will be earlier or later fixed by other users. "Usual elimination" is a convention - emphasize other names at first use. Do it as you wish, I will focus on something more valuable like his contribution to math, cartography or mining.

No, I will not accept "Hungarian of Slovak origin", because it implies that he was a Magyarized Slovak or it can be interpreted in this way. Such claim is very unlikely and there must be a reliable source which can support this opinion. I think that a proper explanation of the contemporary term "Hungarus" is a much more better solution. I hope that we agree that e.g. Ľudovít Štúr was also a Hungarian politician and Juraj Košút a Hungarian nobleman, but it is not related to their ethnicity.

I will also appreciate any comment or explanation, why the Hungarian transcription is used for a person whose alleged Hungarian ethnicity is more than questionable and the same person used a different transcription of his name. Ditinili (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I have no "misunderstanding of linguistic and political conditions of the period", I referred to the common practice in Wikipedia, but I also do not wish to start the usual debate between us. The risk is only if we don't achieve consensus, we have to reset the page in a state where all recent improvements would be lost, I don't think this would be your wish. I've never met any other person that would systematically eliminate multiple Hungarian occurences.

It cannot not imply to any "Magyarized Slovak" since the concept of Magyarization is a totally different era, on the other hand in one of the notes you added a long explanation about one of the meanings of being "Hungarian". If you wish, put your note A after "Hungarian", so you can be satisfied of proper interpretation. Also we accept that today many Hungarians are Romanians, Slovaks in the lead, as they belong to different countries, as well other's accept in history also when different border's, countries existed, etc. Regarding Štúr and Košút, the clear distinction can be made, as there is a consensus of their being clearly Slovak persons. By him, this is not so clear, and I don't refer necessarily just ethnical roots, since being Hungarian does not mean necessarily this. I think the offer is very generous considering all circumstances.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

> It cannot not imply to any "Magyarized Slovak" since the concept of Magyarization is a totally different era

You have missed that natural assimilation exists. A Hungarian of the Slovak origin sounds like somebody, who has e.g. Slovak grandparents or parents but he self-identifies as Hungarian.

> I've never met any other person that would systematically eliminate multiple Hungarian occurences.

Repeating all names at every occurrence has zero value and does not improve readability and understanding. I also do not introduce similar duplicates.

> Also we accept that today many Hungarians are Romanians, Slovaks in the lead.

No, we do not. They are citizens of the Slovak republic, but saying to somebody of the Hungarian ethnicity that he is a Slovak is very impolite and offensive (and vice-versa).

I would rather expect some serious study about his alleged or potential Magyar ethnicity and/or origin based on the archive material, instead of misusing the historic term Hungarus/Hungarian without a clear relationship to real ethnicity. I have serious doubts if it really exists. Does it? It may improve the article. Ditinili (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. : could you tell me than how it was written then, if not Abelova?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

Until 1899, the name was Abelova, also confirmed by two sources, which documented all the villages and their names in Hungary (the non-Hungarian versions used by the local ethnic population also) and . One of the authors died in 1801, the other in 1876....(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

Now I see, even the the native page attest this: "before 1873 Abelova". In an other book, I've found at least Abelová for some earlier usage. If you have something contesting these, please let me know. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

Use common modern transcription, e.g. Vyšné not Wyssne, etc, the same for Ábelová. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the contemporary transcription of the same name is irrelevant. Ditinili (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it has a little chance what you say, since it is obvious the contemporary time the territory of present-day Slovakia was part of Hungary and people's nationality or self-declaration not necessarily equals with his ethnical roots. In the modern era it is easier to distuingish clearly such things, as we discussed by persons lived later, in some cases it is not so obvious. I sounds me not any case any assimilation, I think you are exaggerating. If you put your note A directly after, then you can be sure not such impression would occur.

That is your opinion. Maybe you did not introduce, but some cases removed if it was not a Slovak name.

You are going again a bit far, since I was not speaking out this. "Citizenship" = "belonging to a state", also in modern and old terms, this is what "Hungarian" refers in the lead primarily, as also in other articles. Kornel Saláta is a Slovak footballer, Hunor Kelemen is a Romanian politician, etc. Not an offense. I have no intention to misuse anything, I have to refuse such charges.

I am aware the Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, but I presented two sources, and I can even add one more. Especially, about contemporary naming if clearly it is documented in which language which version was used, we may put in practice and not I was the only one doing this. Since it is about a Slovak name, I'll let you to deal with it, but at least be fair and investigate it, since it seems sure that that time not the current version was used.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

Kiengir, use Ábelová not Abelova, London and not Lundon, etc. Try to follow WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). Thanks. Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you answer this, not this was my question. I try to follow, but if you reject the sources I referred and at the same time you won't make your own research, it is not easy. As I said, I'll let this go if you are happy with this, however still not precise enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

Requested move 16 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The arguments for and against are pretty similar to the previous RM, with slightly more support but not enough to actually change the outcome. See you all again in two years? Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Sámuel Mikoviny → Samuel Mikoviny – The form "Sámuel" is only Hungarian transcription of his name, like Mikovíni is Slovak transcription. Mikoviny personally used the form without accents - Samuel Mikoviny. This form is language neutral and should be preffered, since numerous sources contain information about another nationality. Thus, the rationale behind the previous debate is wrong, the argument that he was "a Hungarian" and Sámuel was his native name is more than questinable and the conclusion based on this argument is problematic. Ditinili (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussion. Our intention on en.wp is not to reproduce authentic signatures from the 18th Century, no to respect modern ideas about national or ethnic ownership of past great men, but simply to represent in a consistent MOS a body of biographical articles according to reliable sources - which in this case lead to following his main nationality, Hungarian, and the spelling of Hungarian names in Hungarian fonts. The pronunication in Slovak would in any case be Samuel Mikovíny, not as proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The concept of some "main nationality" has no support in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. If a member of the German minority lives in France then his "main nationality" is French and we should use French transcription? Reliable English sources use various transcription including Samuel Mikoviny (without accents) or Samuel Mikovíni, so the statement about reproduction of authentic signatures from the 18th century instead of using reliable sources is misguiding. Also an international conference about his life and work had an offical English name "Samuel Mikovíni and his message for today", so please do not misguide other editors that "Sámuel Mikoviny" is some standardized English form. Curiously, already the first English reference in the article uses the form without accents.

Also the standard Slovak transcription is Mikovíni and not Mikovíny as you claim, what is obvious from bibliography in the article, Slovak Biographical Dictionary (Slovenský biografický slovník) and also from the name of award Cena Samuel-a Mikovíni-ho. In this form it is used also in English publications like Hungarian authors use mostly Sámuel Mikoviny. Both Hungarian and Slovak forms are equal, both are used in English sources so there is none reason to prefere any of them, while Samuel Mikoviny is at least neutral. Ditinili (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose In a way of the previous discussion, but because this is an article about a historical Hungarian person (regardless of exact ethnical origin or roots). I understand Ditinili's goal is in a way some "neutralization", there are various distractions how to set a proper name and many times it is not easy to decide at first glance. However, as I see, Ditinili is bothered by the Hungarian diacritics because of his Slovak roots, in a way like this debate would imply a debate on his ethnicity, although this is not about this.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

A "historic Hungarian person" does not automatically mean a Hungarian transcription of the name. All Slovaks, Germans and Ruthenians who have lived here were "historic Hungarians". How is it related to current Hungarian transcription?

Neutral transcription, used also in English (!) and used by him (!!) will not imply any debate on his ethnicity. Rather opposite - obviously Hungarian or Slovak transcription will imply similar discussions. Frankly, it is just pushing of Hungarian version for the person, whose Hungarian origin is questionable. Ditinili (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not made such assertion that you imply. To call someone as a "historic Hungarian" does not necessarily apply to all inhabitants/citizens in the Kindgom of Hungary. You have a point of view, however also we could say by the majority of the recent edits that there may be a pushing towards to the ultimate Slovak point of view. I think in a quite tolerant way the vast majority of your edits were accepted. Please try to see everything in the whole, as a struggle for balance.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

• Support per nomination. English Wikipedia should not be taking sides in disputes over linguistic nationalism when it concerns unclear linguistic or national allegiances during earlier centuries. To quote the article: "His name is written in contemporary sources and later literature in many forms - Mikoviny, Mikowiny, Mikovini, Mikovényi, Mickovini, Mikovinyi, Mikovínij, Mikowini, Mikovény. He used mostly the form Mikoviny and wrote his name without any accents". The Hungarian Wikipedia uses the form Mikoviny Sámuel, while the Slovak Wikipedia uses Samuel Mikovíni. There is no international agreement on this — the Czech Wikipedia uses Samuel Mikovíny, the Polish Wikipedia uses Samuel Mikovíni, the German Wikipedia uses Sámuel Mikoviny, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: it's quite normal for Czech/Slovak sources to know ethnic-Slovak Hungarian figures by their Slovak names. But while his work language was German he spoke Hungarian and left letters in Hungarian. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 20 March

2017 (UTC)

It's quite normal for Hungarian sources to know ethnic-Slovak Hunagrian figures by their Hungarian names. However, this not Hungarian or Slovak Wikipedia and if there is not any widely accepted English form it should remain neutral and not prefer Slovak or Hungarian form. Especially, if also Hungarian historians do not strictly use the Hungarian form in their English or German publications. Ditinili (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: the key point in discussions which concern names of individuals from outside the English-speaking world is the form that such names take within the English-speaking world. Those who felt pride in Bela Lugosi's Hungarian heritage insisted that his article should be titled Béla Lugosi and the article bore that title for a couple of years until it was pointed out that "Bela Lugosi" was the actor's American stage name and was never rendered as "Béla Lugosi", although the actor signed his given name as "Béla" in handwritten texts. Copernicus was born in Poland, lived most of his life in Poland and died in Poland, where his status as a native son has been enshrined for centuries and his name is known to all there in its Polish form, "Mikołaj Kopernik". Copernicus' own signature, however, was the Latin form, "Nicolaus Copernicus" and that is how he is known in the English-speaking world. Since Mikoviny lived in the era before the institutionalization of formal orthography and did not inscribe "Sámuel", but rather "Samuel" as his given name, the English-speaking world should not retroactively import subsequent orthographic modernization of another language, but rather adopt a neutral stance by rendering the name in the form used by the subject himself. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, in fact we don't. Please survey all 18th Century Hungarian scientists if you doubt this. You will not find any not given correct Hungarian spelling. I don't see how a 15th Century astronomer and American film actor are relevant to the discussion. We often use Latin names for 16th C or earlier scientists. We use American names for modern American film actors. But this is an 18th Century Hungarian scientist, no reason to write his name in Latin or to make him an American actor. MOS across books is not as consistent as en.wp MOS so we don't jump around following book MOS. If we did we'd misspell all European footballers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No need for such a survey. I am convinced in advance that those Wikipedians who are proud of their national heritage have made certain that their past ethnic compatriots are rendered with the proper modern orthography of their past century names without regard to how the individuals in question rendered their own names in their own time.
If any of those names come up !voting, we can discuss them at that time, but the discussion here is solely about Mikoviny. No one is suggesting that his surname should be rendered in its Slovak form, "Mikovíni", but simply in its neutral English-language form, without accents or diacritics.
The Renaissance astronomer, most of whose life and activity took place in the 16th century was a generalized example, but the 20th century actor, who was born in Hungary and acted there before coming to the U.S., is clearly claimed as Hungarian or at least Hungarian-American, rather than simply American.
Those 18th century scientists whose ethnicity is indisputably Hungarian are likewise not relevant to this discussion. However, if any among them are also claimed by other nationalities or if it is not specifically clear whether the primary or sole language in which their output was created for posterity was, indeed, the language of their everyday speech, then a legitimate argument may be made that the English-speaking world should remain neutral in their naming disputes. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia should be neutral in similar disputes. Ditinili (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So, you support your own request. Very surprising. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see any new new circumstances since the last move request. Modern scholars mostly use Sámuel Mikoviny form, except Slovak chauvinistic historians, who claim that anyone lived in the territory of present-day Slovakia before the 20th century, he/she had to be Slovak. It's really boring now. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Just a quick look to the first book on my table: Samuel Mikovíny and his Message for Today, Proceedings of the international conference, 2005. Török Zsolt, assoc. professor, Department of Cartography and Geoinformatics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Mikoviny's map and the geography of Enlighment, (English) - "Samuel Mikoviny" (not Sámuel). Török Enikő Klára, National Széchenyi Library, Budapest, Mikovinys Karten und Plänen von Teichbauten,(German) - "Samuel Mikoviny" (not Sámuel). Other authors use at least 2 other transcriptions - Samuel Mikovíni and Samuel Mikovíny.

(By the way, your comment is an excellent example of chauvinism). Ditinili (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose One of the most important things we should take into account when deciding the name of an article in English WP is how *English* language sources refer to the person / concept / etc. I made a quick search on Google Books and Google Scholar (asking for only English results) for "Sámuel Mikoviny" and "Samuel Mikoviny": I found that (in both sites) the number of hits *with* accent is almost the double of the hits *without* accent. Hence, it is better to keep the original title. However, Google Books and Google Scholar cover only a portion of the English literature and moreover, they also make mistakes (e.g., works which use the form without accent sometimes show up in the results for searches with accent, and vica versa), therefore, my oppose is only "weak". We should probably take a look at how the mainstream English works refer to him (e.g., big encyclopedias or textbooks of top universities). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Google scholar: EN only, exclude Wikipedia, exclude the school named after him. E.g. "sámuel mikoviny" -site:wikipedia.org -"doctoral school of earth sciences"

24 Samuel Mikoviny, 24 Samuel Mikovíny, 16 Sámuel Mikoviny, 16 Samuel Mikovíni

Please, check if you have the same results. I think that these numbers are very low, not representative, they can contain some mistakes, but it seems that they do not support a theory that the number of hits in Google scholar is "almost the double", but rather opposite.

Google: EN only, Wikipedia and the school above are excluded:

5,680 Samuel Mikovíni (sic!), 3,570 Sámuel Mikoviny, 2,460 Samuel Mikoviny 1,370 Samuel Mikovíny.

This also does not support the curent title. Ditinili (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My original (English) search results were: "Samuel Mikoviny" @ Google Books: 4850 vs "Sámuel Mikoviny" @ Google Books: 7330. And "Samuel Mikoviny" @ Google Scholar: 44 vs "Sámuel Mikoviny" @ Google Scholar: 72. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the point in leaving out the doctoral school named after him. But if I repeat my searches with the "-site:wikipedia.org" tag, then I get Google Books: 82 (a) vs 4200 (á) and Google Scholar: 34 (a) vs 65 (á). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the point. It confirms that there is not any widely accepted or preferred English form and your results are heavily influenced by the existence of one concrete school in Hungary and not by the form generally preferred by EN publications (as a Hungarian school it obviously uses Hungarian transcription, like Slovak institutions use Slovak transcription) . It also shows that if you exclude this one school, frequency of "Sámuel Mikoviny" in google drops to the third place, what really does not look like a preferred form.

A comparison with other common search engines:

• bing, EN, -site:wikipedia.org): "samuel mikovíni" 1,600, "samuel mikovíny" 1,500, "samuel mikoviny" 1,720, "sámuel mikoviny" 775
• yahoo, EN, -site:wikipedia.org: "samuel mikovíni" 1,640, "samuel mikovíny" 1,640, "samuel mikoviny" 1,640, "sámuel mikoviny" 764

As you can see, even other search engines do not confirm any preference of the form "sámuel mikoviny", but (curiously) this form had also the worst score.

Note: if you have received only 82 results for "samuel mikoviny" on google books, you did something wrong. I have also 44 not 65 hits for "sámuel" on google scholar. Some of them are obviously incorrect - a publication contains "samuel", others were returned because the form "sámuel" can be found in the biography, but the author uses "samuel" in his English text). Ditinili (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Bing and Yahoo are not trustworthy in this case, for exmaple, even if you search for the version without accent, it will provide all the results with accent, as well. When I tried a Bing search using "Samuel Mikoviny" -site:wikipedia.org, 6 out of 10 results in the first page actually used the version with accent, for Yahoo it was 8 out of 10. However, if I tried "Sámuel Mikoviny" -site:wikipedia.org 10 out of 10 hits in the first page (Bing/Yahoo) contained somewhere the version with accent. Thus, it seems that the results for "Sámuel Mikoviny" is a subset of the results for "Samuel Mikoviny", therefore, your results are not conclusive at all. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: I tried again the search "Samuel Mikoviny" -site:wikipedia.org on Google Books and I again received only 82 hits (in English). How many do you get? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My test on Google Books: ""Samuel Mikoviny" -site:wikipedia.org": "About 1,820 results (0.55 seconds)" (comment: only English), Add: the same query, anonymous mode, retested on 2017-03-28: "About 2,600 results (0.18 seconds)"

I am afraid that this test is not very reliable (maybe, it is dependent on source IP?). I can also confirm that I can see wrong accents in google results (see my remark above). My another observation is (but this maybe a well known fact) that none search engine finds "thousands" of records. If you try to list them (page by page) there are maybe hundreds.

I suggest an intermediate conclusion:

• Hungarian sources prefer "Sámuel Mikoviny" (also in English)
• Slovak sources prefer "Samuel Mikovíni"(also in English)
• The widely accepted English form does not exist.
• We cannot rely on the alleged ethnicity - scholar views are different and it is not our task to resolve scholar disputes.
• It is difficult to resolve this issue by search engines. They work better for obviously different versions like Copernicus vs. Kopernik, but they are not good smoke test for accents and they are probably not reliable enough for our purposes.

• Oppose as per Koertefa's list. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

" See the results returned from other common engines in my comment above. Ditinili (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.