Talk:Móric Beňovský

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a full. 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 imagine that someone could replace all mentions about his Slovak origins with mentions of his "Hungarian roots". I think that you should appreciate fillings 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.

[edit] Some thoughts

I appreciate the effort that went into writing this article; however, I wept as I read it. Could you please run the article through a spell checker and put a little more work into the grammar?

This article should be clearly de-slovakized. Benyovszky was a Hungarian noble who never thought that his ancestral land would be called Slovakia later in history. I am holding in my hand a letter he wrote to his father in perfect Hungarian. So it is highly doubtful that his first language was Slovak. [removed repeated vandalism, chauvinism and primitivism by Enigma] Enigma1 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the aricle should be "slovakized". Every noble spoke also Hungarian at that particular time. He was only Hungarian in the sense that he was from Hungary. And I am not interested in what you hold in your hands, because until now you have presented nothing but lies, fascist and highly primitive comments and permanent lies. You have been explained this 100 times already. And I wil continue to delete you, since this is no fascism forum. Juro 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are not interested in exact proofs just in your extremist Slovak nationalist propaganda, as I can see. So far you have not provided a shred of evidence that he was Slovak or that he even spoke the language (his Slavic ancestry was most likely Polish) 81.183.183.239 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Remember when Hungary was British (and not independent)? Those people were not Indian citizens, because India did not exist, but would you call them British? Not really, as well as you cannot call Benovsky Hungarian. Of course, he could speak Hungarian, it was a must for any Slovak in a higher position to speak Hungarian. But could perfectly speak Polish and Russian, what is quite easy to learn for a Slovak, but very difficult (and pretty unusual) for a Hungarian.

[edit] grammar

Grammar and style of this article really need attention. The problem is that here and there it's written so badly that discerning what the writer meant appears to be beyond my imagination. Mostly though, it's not that bad. And one more thing: at least once the author made a mistake which exactly inverted the meaning - "fighting the French" and "fighting with the French" differ considerably. Zbihniew 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)