Talk:Ján Kollár

message: 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) 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is an experiment, but even according to that page, the places should be displayed as: "Mošovce (Mosóc)" and "Pressburg (now Bratislava)". I can agree with these variants. You should read the page that you have cited before making modifications based on it and, please, do not remove the information that these places were in the Kingdom of Hungary (which was part of the Austrian Empire, since the kings of Hungary were Habsburgs) in that time. Koertefa (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: That is precisely why it should be "Mošovce (Mosóc)". Moreover: "For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence." Koertefa (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don´t write absurdity: "Ján Kollár Mosóc" > 0 results in english books 1. Mošovce was always 100% Slovak village. Name Mosóc was use only in 19. century and Kollár was born 29 July 1793 in Mošovce. So name Mosóc is irrelevant for English article. Term  Prešporok > In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively --Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, read again that page, since Pressburg is the established English name, it should be used. Koertefa (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Please, cite a source that claims that "Mošovce was always 100% Slovak village". And read my previous message and the page that you have cited regarding Pressburg. And, please, stop deleting the information that they were part of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time. Koertefa (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not article about Mošovce. So please, cite any English book that claims that "Ján Kollár from Mosóc". --Omen1229 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You claimed something, so it is you who should prove it. We should keep ourselves to the naming conventions (to avoid revert wars), so the Hungarian name should also be mentioned, since it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (you cannot deny that). I guess you only want to apply to suggested guidelines of Elonka if they agree with your interest. Koertefa (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are weak as results in google. I will wait 24 hours, so please cite any neutral source that claims that "Ján Kollár from Mosóc". You can not find anything, because name Mosóc was used only in 1898–1913. And term Prešporok > In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively --Omen1229 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only true for places without widely accepted English names! The guidelines explicitly mention Pressburg as a place that has a widely accepted English name. In this case this name should be used and the other relevant historical and modern names should be given in brackets at the first occurrence (again, read the guidelines, it is the last item in the list). However, the part that you have cited ("in biographies of clearly Slovak persons") applies to Mošovce (Mosóc), since that village does not have a widely accepted English name.  Koertefa (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

text: About your claim that "Mošovce was always 100% Slovak village": take a look at this . It is the list of taxpayers of the village from 1715. In that time the administrative language was Latin, so the first names are given in Latin (like "Georgius", "Stephanus", etc.), but you can guess the nationality from the family names. There are many names that very much sound Hungarian family names among the taxpayers, such as: "Asztalos", "Takacs", "Macska", "Szurcsek", "Gal", "Kulhany". So the village was clearly not always 100% Slovak. Moreover, this question is not even relevant here, since in that time the village was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, therefore, according to the naming conventions, its historical Hungarian name should be given, as well. Since this article is about a Slovak person, I agree using the Slovak name of the village, while mentioning its historical Hungarian name at the first occurrence. Koertefa (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the list of taxpayers. Administrative language was Latin, but latin does not use diacritics, so I see 99% obvious Slovak names: Takacs>Takáč or Tkáč(weaver) Macska>Mačka(cat) Szurcsek>Súrček Gal>Gál Kulhany>Kulhaný Polereczky>Polerecký Tessak>Tesák Rakusz>Rakús Teszak>Tešák... Name Mosóc was created in 1898 and was used only in 1898–1913. Kollár was born 29 July 1793. He could not be born in Mosóc, because this name did not exist. So please cite any neutral source claims that name Mosóc was used for Mošovce in 18. century. It will be miracle. --Omen1229 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply and for your ideas about the name of the village. I think that your argument in which you try to Slovakize the names is not valid, since these names sound typical Hungarian names (and, yes, "Takács" means "weaver" and "Macska" means "cat" in Hungarian, too). Why do you think that they would write the family names with diacritics in a Latin text with a perfect Hungarian spelling? Anyway, as I said, it does not even matter, since the village was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so based only on this, the Hungarian name should also be given. And why do you think that the name "Mosóc" was created in 1898? Do you have some sources about that? The list that I have cited shows the alternatives "Mossocz", "Mosócz", "Mosóc" and "Mošovce" with respect to the taxpayers in 1715. You surely cannot claim that all of the first three was created in 19th century. It could be that the old Hungarian names "Mossocz" and "Mosócz" were replaced in the Language Reform of the 19th century by the simpler ""Mosóc". If it is your problem, then we can provide "Mossocz" or "Mosócz" as the contemporary Hungarian alternative. By the way, there are several English sources which claim that Ján Kollár was born in "Mossocz, Thurocz (Hungary)": . Should we use "Mossocz" then? Koertefa (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your genealogic original research is impressive. You wrote here name "Takacs", but in the list of taxpayers is only name "Tkacs". What means the name Tkacs in Hungarian? Name "Macska" - maybe some ancient Hungarian word for you, but in fact this word has Slavic origin. Minimal 20% word roots in Hungarian language have Slavic origin. Mačka in Slavic languages 1 2 3 4 5... Polereczky>Polerecký You don´t know what is Polerieka. Tessak>Tesák You don´t know who is Juraj Tesák Mošovský. You don´t know history of names from list. As I said, I see 99% Slovak names and every real genealogist will say the same thing. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the name "Tkacs", I simply misread it. Of course, the majority of the village was Slovak (I never doubted that, I just said that it was not 100% Slovak). That is why we should primarily use its Slovak name in this English article. But since the village was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, we should mention its Hungarian name at the first occurrence. Koertefa (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: This is getting mysterious. How do you know that none of the Hungarian variants existed in 1793? Why do you think that all of these were invented later? If you cannot provide any sources supporting your strange ideas, then I simply do not believe you, since Wikipedia should be verifiable. In your opinion, what was the official name of the village in that time, i.e., the name in which it was administrated, e.g., in the taxation documents? Only "Mošovce"? I doubt it. And I provided several sources about the name "Mossocz", you cannot simply ignore them as "obsolete". I guess you only want to accept those sources that agree with your point of view. Koertefa (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that none of the Hungarian variants existed in 1793? Why do you think that all of these were invented later? If you cannot provide any sources supporting your strange ideas, then I simply do not believe you, since Wikipedia should be verifiable. > I am not a parrot, I didn´t edit article, you're added name "Mosóc", so is nonsense if I have to prove what didn´t exist in 1793. This is not a discussion what was sooner or later, but what was used in 29 July 1793. I know it, the name was Mossowce, but this archaic name is not important for article. --Omen1229 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Please, calm down and do not make personal attacks. If you cannot prove your claim that all Hungarian names of the village were created only in the 19th century, then we should keep ourselves to the suggested guidelines of Wikipedia and user Elonka and provide the Hungarian name, as well, since the village was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time. It is simply not enough if you only "know it" without able to prove it (with reliable sources), since Wikipedia should be verifiable. Koertefa (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a personal attack.  He did not say you were an ultra nationalist from Hungary. He could very well have meant the sources are published by ultra nationalists from Hungary. You should remove that template from Omen1229's talk page and refrain from accusing people of making personal attacks.--v/r - TP 13:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The book he was referring to was published in the 19th century, while he talked about current "ultra nationalists", living in the 21th century. Thus, I think that he was not talking about the book, but about those who think today that this name is important. Nevertheless, I might have been too sensitive, so I have removed my warning. Koertefa (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment and mentioning the version "Mosocz" is fine with me. Koertefa (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: ,
not "again", and let's not go back to earlier discussions where it has been already demonstrated that what you refer may be interpreted and applied more ways. Don't worry, I did not forget anything from the past (however, you did not surprise me), the infobox I did not even touch - I never edited this page before-, by the way I just bended the lead to it (however it is simply disturbing that not the same belongings are in brackets, but they are interlacing - I realized this now after a long time).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Kiengir... You do the same every few months. There is no reason to take the (historic) Slovak placename that is used also in the modern English, replace it by its Hungarian or Magyarized form and to move the original to the brackets. It is unnecessary source of conflicts. Have a nice day. --Ditinili (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , no, this was a situation I did not met before. As per status quo the article had standard form in the infobox, but not in the lead. I've bended the difference to the more standard (contemporary/modern) and correct form. I am fully aware the person is a clearly Slovak person, so if there is the claim for the option you pursue, I should accept it. Generally, I am still on that opinion that the same belongings should paired approprietly, and anyway nominally the historic name is Hungarian (we don't apply in such cases etymology research). Yes, it is really and unnecesary source of conlficts, but we should understand properly each other. Have a nice day too.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  "anyway nominally the historic name is Hungarian". 1233 Machyuch, 1264 Moyus, 1277 Moys, 1391 Mossouech, 1476 Mossowec, 1736 Moschowce. Hornansky I: Z osudov slovenskych geografickych nazvov (5), Slovenske slovo, 2016.--Ditinili (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not misunderstand me, by historic I mean the belonging to Hungary, modern is the belonging to Slovakia. Anyway some more: 1233 "Majos comes", 1264 "villa Mayus", 1293 "Mois", "Mossovych", "Mosocz", "Mossowecz", "villa regia Mayos alio nomine Mossovych", "oppidioum Mayus sue Mosocz", "Mosocz olim Mayus", so we may interpolate to the relevant period cca. Mosocz in case of your point of approach.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then, it was completely irrelevat note, since it is obvious that the statement about "the historic Hungarian name" is not related to any language, but to the territory.Ditinili (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really, as in appropriate places we distuingish the modern status quo with the comtemporary status quo and names are represented according to them (as obviously to any territory it is assigned a name by the actual status quo, let's call it "name of reference".(KIENGIR (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The contemporary "status quo" and the actual "status quo" is that the form "Mošovce" has been documented from the middle ages. Also with the Slovak patronimic suffixes -ce, -ec that have been used on the whole territory of present-day Slovakia cca from the 13th century (literally people of Mojš /a familiar form of Mojtech, Mojslav, Mojžiš-Moses/, like Mošovce in Nové Mesto nad Váhom district, Mojšova Lúka, Moškovec, etc), resp. -vých (with similiar meaning), from which is the (later) Hungarian name (-óc) obviously derived. In this context, any thought about "status quo" (???) is absolutely irrelevant. I am leaving this absurd discussion. --Ditinili (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thas been just pointed out that the so-called name and it's usage has no connection to etymologycal origin and now you argue with this, although I did not speak about this, I told you that all certain status quo has it's own name reffering to a current location. I.e. For Kingdom of Hungary belongs one, and Slovakia as well, and it is not irrelevant (???), this is the base of the usage of names. It's your choice, the discussion is anyway not absurd, but professional and demonstrate some controversies of application that are problematic.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "again"