# Talk:Stephen Bocskai

Bocskai and Bocskay are equally valid, but to call him Stephen is not. 
1.He signed his documents as Stephanus or István Bocskai. 
2.The Stephan not Stephen was the German version. The Encyclopædia Britannica identifys him as István Bocskay http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9080351/Istvan-Bocskay
3. The most common version is István Bocskay: according to Google Results 1 - 50 of about 88,300 for istván bocskay. (0.15 seconds), the same test results in : Results 1 - 50 of about 978 for stephen bocskay. (0.14 seconds)
Transylvanus 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop reverting names to present-day Romanian versions as they weren't used officially in 17th century Transylvania. And the territory of Royal Hungary was only partly the same as Slovakia, for example the site of the first battle, Álmosd is situated in present-day Hungary. Zello 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See name conventions as per WP:NAME, all edits are rv to present-day name. --Heavypiece 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".
According to the above citation from WP:NAME (geographical names section) the usage of historical names is approved when speaking about the past. Zello 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is approved but you also have to have first the now-a-days name. --Heavypiece 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:) also you might find this helpful WP:NCGN --Heavypiece 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no such rule. Only that: "In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name". That means that in the first occurence of Kolozsvár we should mention in parenthesis Cluj-Napoca to identify the city. Zello 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it is probably better to do too often than too rarely we'll put at every name--Heavypiece 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's better for you... Zello 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very strange that somebody wants to make Slovak even Stephen Bocskay as neither in Transylvania (where he was born and his family comes from) there live Slovaks ,nor
have there been lived there at any time in the history. The source saying Stephen Bocskay was Slovak also says about a lot of other bilge as well:

For instance:(at strana 568) "Svatopluk died shortly before the Magyar Invasion of 896, an event that heralded the end of the Great Moravian Empire, and a significant break in Czech and Slovak history.........The Slavs to the west of the River Morava (i.e. the Czech) swore allegiance to the Frankish Emperor, Arnulf; while  those to the east (i.e. the Slovaks) found themselves under the yoke of the Magyars."
So that the sentence saying Stephen Bocskay was Slovak needs to be deleted together with the tampered refernce, by which it is backed up unless we want to bamboozle our readers... 
Also, given that Wladthemlat had not interested in editing the article even before I started to edit it that suggets me that I am still followed around by him, despite the fact that I have asked him several times to avoid my environment. Not to mention that I strongly doubt that Wladthemlat would be unaware of the ethnic composition of Transylvania regarding how many Slovaks live and/or lived there. However, he accepted what the source says  without any maintenance Hardly surprising, he has no interest in improving Wikipedia, and notwithstanding the fact that he adjusted the notch about his command of English at a near native level on his user page, there is no only one article on Wikipedia that would have either been created ,or significantly improved by him. And his entire edit history does not contain anything else than edit warring over Hungarian related contents with Hungarian users.--Nmate (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

the source is indeed unreliable, but for none of the above but simply because it is not an expert publication. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Bocskai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.

Bocskai was one of Sigismund's few councillors who supported his plan to join an anti-Ottoman coalition: this wording makes it sound as though Sigismund had a few councillors, all of whom supported his plan.  I think what is meant is "Bocskai was one of the few members of Sigismund's council who supported his plan to join an anti-Ottoman coalition".
Maximilian, who had a very tolerant attitude towards Lutheranism, died on 12 October 1576.[18] His devout Catholic son, Rudolph, succeeded him.  I assume we're mentioning the religious positions because they're relevant to Stephen, but I don't see how -- he was Calvinist, not Lutheran.  I would also suggest linking "Calvinism" in the paragraph above.
There appear to be two people named Stephen Báthory, since one dies in 1586 and one is active with Balthasar Báthory in 1588; can we make it clear to the reader that this is a different person, to avoid confusion?
His lieutenants overrode his instructions and pushed the rebellion: should this be "punished"?
He personally led his troops against the Crimean Tatars and Ottomans who had broken into the Partium, which made Bocskai the actual ruler of the principality: I don't follow this.  Why does Sigismund's leadership of the troops make Bocskai the ruler?
Sigismund Báthory, who had again decided to return, tried to convince Bocskai to support him, but Bocskai gave his nephew's envoy over to Rudolph's official, Pál Nyáry,[106] but this did not earn him the trust of Rudolph's commissioner: two "but" clauses in a row.
but Bocskai did not accept his offer on 24 March: do you mean that it was on that date that Bocskai refused the offer?  If so, make it "but on 24 March Bocskai refused the offer".
His partisans regarded Bocskai's uprising as a war for the independence of Hungary already during his life: suggest "Even before his death, Bocskai's partisans regarded his uprising as..."
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:, thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your copyedit. I changed the text based on your suggestions ([1]). Please let me know if further actions are needed. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the fixes look good.  Can we do a bit more to make the second Stephen Báthory less confusing?  Perhaps "He replaced his cousin, also named Stephen Báthory".  This is the only time this Stephen Báthory is mentioned, right? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the younger Stephen Báthory is also mentioned under the previous subtitle. This edit may have made clear the difference between the two Stephen Báthorys: ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I moved the explanation to the first mention; I think it works better there, but revert if you don't agree.  Either way this is fine to promote now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)