Talk:Ányos Jedlik

message: Note: Copyright Cleared - Author asked
:Based on a similar note on the external link Jedlik Biography, I'd say that's what this refers to; evidently the text of the article is mostly from there.  Someone might want to better document this asserted license to use.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: The Slovak origin of Jedlik Ányos would need some exact proof in order to survive deletion. Árpád 03:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I recommend to semi-protect this article because it is often a target of vandalism. --Wizzard (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock 

message: The second to last sentence in the Life section read "He also held lectures in Brno and in Slovak", which I find myself interpreting the sentence to imply Brno and Slovak are two of the same sort of thing (I clicked Brno thinking it must be some rare language I'd yet to hear of). So I've rephrased the sentence to make clear one is a location and the other a language. I hope this doesn't seem a needless change to anyone. DO56 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brno and Slovak sentence 

message: I need not discussion, it is in wikipedia a common practice see Garry Kasparov and all sowjet people, situation is the same, Hungary was not an independent state, only part of Habsburg monarchy. We have to give always correct and complete information. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian empire

message: Since his ethnicity is disputed, I deleted his  a)nationality b)ethnicity c)citizenship  as Hungarian. Until the dipute is over, if ever..., it is not right to say  that his  a)nationality b)ethnicity c)citizenship  is Slovak or Hungarian. Jasooon (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jedlik's diputed ethnicity

message: Results so curious that Leopoldo Nobili, commanded manufacturing the same motor (you can see it in http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/museum/esim.asp?c=414100 ), in 1830. Who is the inventor of this type of electric motor then?. I´m not so sure... maybe could be both, maybe one copyed the other... who can give lights to this issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.94.191 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all very interesting on what conditions are needed for someone to be considered inventor, but we need sources to work on if you read source number  2 for example  (an English source) it states plainly "Ányos Jedlik, inventor of the dynamo". Do you have something that contradicts this statement regarding the dynamo? Hobartimus (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very simplistic. A claim of priority is not PROOF of priority. The contradiction is the generally accepted history of 19th century electrical progress, which does not mention Jedlik.  When did he publish or patent his "invention of the dynamo?" What did his device or invention consist of? The 19th century was full of discoveries and incremental improvements on inventions such as electromagnets, motors, magnetos, dynamos, telephones, and radios. Rarely, if ever, was there an "Invention" wherein someone demonstrated a practical device which was not a slight improvement over prior art. May the advocates of Jedlik please place all cards on the table, rather than presenting vague and generalized claims rooted in national pride.Thomas Davenport, for example, publicly demonstrated a motor with a commutator in the 1830's and patented it in 1837. The patent includes using either permanent magnets or electromagnets for the rotating part and electromagnets for the stationary part. Antonio Pacinotti,(invented 1860, published 1864 ,and Zénobe Gramme  are widely credited with the dynamo.  Ernst Werner von Siemens (1867)    is another claimant for dynamo inventor. Siemens' 1867 paper "Conversion of dynamical into electric force without the aid of permanent magnets", 14 February 1867, was stated by the Royal Society of London as being "the first scientific enunciation of that wonderful electromagnetic principle, on which are founded the dynamo-electric machines of today."  Wheatstone is another early claimant. We need not just jingoistic claims that Jedlik "invented the dynamo" but detailed exposition of what he published and demonstrated, and where and when. Those editors who can read Hungarian can hep greatly in clarifying the evidence for how he advanced the electrical science in the 19th century. If he did secret experiment and did not demonstrate and publish his work until others such as Davenport had published, his claim is greatly diminished. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources which have coverage of a subject, rather than breaking new ground by advocating fringe views.Jedlik does not sem to have been mentioned in 19th century books and refereed journals discussing the development of dynamos, nor is he discussed in most present day histories of electrotechnology. Far less is he acknowledged as having invented the electric motor and electric automobiles in 1828, as some want Wikipedia to say. Edison (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You must realize that Wikipedia and certainly this article is not only edited by high experts in the field of every person which has a bio. So when you write "Jedlik does not sem (sic!) to have been mentioned in 19th century books and refereed journals discussing the development of dynamos, nor is he discussed in most present day histories of electrotechnology." it seems you declare yourself as a qualified expert in the field not only that but you seem to be claiming here to heave read all "19th century books and refereed journals discussing the development of dynamos" as well as "most present day histories of electrotechnology". Before we can go forward we should clarify this point. This is where source based editing and expert based editing conflicts. We have a sentence from an English language book that states plainly that "Jedlik invented the dynamo" I'm not an expert but the statement is clear to even me. On the other hand you as an expert state that this book and any other similar claim is mistaken. Is that about right as a summary? Hobartimus (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I found (again I'm not an expert I found this in sources) is the following: the 1828 electric motor was used as a demonstration tool in the University where Jedlik was a teacher so it was no secret and others were aware of it. It wasn't a paper or publication but it was an existing, working machine named by him as "villamdelejes forgony". It's unsure when he discovered the dynamo but what survived is an 1861 record of a prototype he used in his experiments, and was recorded as university property. In the documentation and description/ manual for this machine was the description of the dynamo, so from 1861 is the surviving historical document that contains the same info published by Siemens six years later. According to the text he discovered it "in the second half of the 1850s" but again when it was written down in a form that survived is from 1861. Hobartimus (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Proofread your own typing before throwing out "sic," Mr. "heave read." Well, 1861 is not 1828. Note that if you read what I wrote, I did not say that I had read every single book on electricity written in the 1800's, and I made no claims based on my expertise in the field.  But the ones I found on Google Book search, and recent histories of 19th century electrotechnology, do not give Jedlik the priority of invention that a few books glorifying Hungary do. It is very easy to claim decades later that one "invented" something before those who wrote about it in technical and scientific publications, patented it, or publicly demonstrated it. If Jedlik invented things and kept his invention very quiet, showing it only supposedly to students, and the well publicized and demonstrated work of others led to the widespread developments in motors and dynamos, the article should reflect that, and not make overly broad and jingoistic claims. If Jedlik did unsung early work in the field, that is great, and should be acknowledged. Are you able to access and read the Hungarian references? Edison (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea you are right about that I shouldn't have used sic but I couldn't resist after someone did it to me recently. Yes I am able to understand Hungarian so I can read the refs in the article (what I gathered is from there exactly, from the refs currently in the article, tried to read the more authoritative looking ones) other than what's in the article I didn't look at extra sources nothing like that. Nowdays you can get a rough translation yourself with things like google translate or other auto-translators. I doubt there is much else to find, the 1828 "machine" was used as a demonstration tool at the university and the dynamo documents are from 1861. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The online computer translators are hopeless and useless. It would be of the greatest value to the encyclopedia if you could examine the references in Hungarian and answer a few questions. What do they say Jedlik discovered, what year did he discover it, and when was it fist published or publicly demonstrated? To Jedlik's credit, he does not seem to have personally sought to profit from any early discoveries, nor to have been used to dispute patents, as happened in the telephone and electric light patent disputes with unheralded early experimenters. To show that his work was not very well known or influential during the years electric motors became used and useful, I cite such works as "The electric motor and its applications," by Thomas Commerford Martin, 1887, chapters 2 and 3, which discusses early work by numerous European experimenters such as Jacobi, Barlow, Pacinotti and others, and American inventors such as Davenport and Page, but does not mention Jedlik. On the other hand, similar to Jedlik,  Joseph Henry did important experiments, which he demonstrated to his students, such as electric signalling at a distance, and did not seek to patent as a telegraph. Strangely, Jedlik did present scientific papers on some of his other work, such as capacitors (Leyden jars). If Jedlik invented an electric automobile in 1828, did he drive it around town? Or does the model illustrate an electric "locomotive engine," and was it possible built much later?  Could the models be classroom demonstration models built after Jedlik read of the work of others? If I do a Google Book Search for "electric motor"  jedlik date:1800-2000" the first mention of Jedlik is in 1941. If no one in the world of electric motors heard of his work during the decades electric motors were being invented and  improved and put to work powering machines, how can he be credited as the "inventor?" I found an obituary of him in Nature in 1896 which indicates that by that year at  least some English speaking scientists thought he had experimented early on with motors and dynamos, so perhaps he should be described as an early experimenter whose work was not widely known, rather than "the inventor." Edison (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "If Jedlik invented an electric automobile in 1828, did he drive it around town?" There are some pictures in the article that seem authentic to me as a non-expert for example this, and it hardly looks like an automobile more like a demonstration tool. There is one source I can quickly check  "Az áram elektromágneses hatásának szemléltetésére alakította ki 1827–28-ban folytonosan egyirányú forgó mozgást végző, kommutátoros „villamdelejes forgonyát”, mely az első tisztán elektromágneses hatás alapján működő elektromotor volt. Találmányával hat évvel előzte meg az első gyakorlatban alkalmazott elektromotort (M. H. Jacobi, 1834)." Rough translation, In 1827.28 he developed/constructed (doesnt say invented) the so called "villamdelejes forgony" for the purpose of demonstrating the effect of the electromagnetic current, which was the first purely electric motor. With his invention (here it does say invention) he preceded the first electric motor used in practice (his was used only for demonstration) by six years (M. H. Jacobi, 1834). Another source the patent authority talks about "Ez volt a "villamdelejes önforgony", az elektromotor őse. Megtalálható benne a mai egyenáramú motor mindhárom alapvető eleme: a tekercselt állórész, a tekercselt forgórész és a kommutátor." about the "this was the ancestor of the electric motor" with "all three main components of todays electric motors the commutator, stationary coil(?), rotating coil(?). Anyway the 3 main parts. Later it writes that Jedlik formulated and the concept behind the dynamo (öngerjesztés) in 1859 and in 1861 there is record of a machine at the university which was an unipolar generator without a commutator so the main focus here is not on the prototype which was not a dynamo "in the modern meaning of the word" but the description of it. Hobartimus (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Online translators cannot translate "villamdelejes forgony."  What I seek at this point is to determine what reliable sources can verify regarding Jedlik's invention of electric motors with two electromagnetic coils, and dynamos, including commutators. Somewhere I got the impression that he did not exhibit his motors in 1828, nor did he publish accounts of them, but only in his writings decades later were there claims he had built or invented a motor with two sets of coils and a commutator, long after the work of others was well known in the field. As for models, there should be proof that they were as early as 1828, rather than decades later. Anyone  could build  a model like that after the principles were well known and put any date on it. Earliest publication is very important.  Edison (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Villamdelejes forgony" is just an archaic name so its no use to translate anyway, its what Jedlik called his machine. "As for models, there should be proof that they were as early as 1828, rather than decades later." Well-right it was used for demonstration in 1828 so many people including other scientist might have been aware of such demonstrations. The question is what would Jedlik gain by building a model later and claiming he demonstrated it in 1828, why would he do it? Did he apply for patents based on this? That does not seem to be the case and his reputation would be ruined if he is caught in a lie. Hobartimus (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: For a scientist to be considered the discoverer or inventor of something, it is important to know when he first published and demonstrated it. An assertion that he demonstrated something in 1827 is not proof that he did. This also helps track what improvements he made to his invention over the years based on the contributions of others, and shows how his work might have contributed to the advancement of the technology. Again I ask, where did he first publicly demonstrate his motor, and what is the evidence for the demonstration, published around the time of the demonstratin and not many years later? Where and when did he write about it first, and what details were provided? This is no more than we ask to verify the priority of invention for any other scientist or inventor written about in Wikipedia. "HaHaHa" is not a substitute for reliable sources. Thanks! Edison (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Priority of invention

message: can someone add more detail to his career as a scientist and the significance of his contributions? Minetruly (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When we're done debating and sourcing his nationality 

message: Nézzétek meg az electric motor cikket, "Edison" fedőnevű amerikai nacionalista és elvakult baráti köre támadás alá vette Jedlik 1828-as találmányát,elég szemtelen stílusban, és megkérdőjelezik létét mivel szerintük csak magyar hivatkozások propagálják a tényét.
Az eredeti verzó szövege:
The first real electric motors
(devices with magnetic rotating parts)
In 1827, Hungarian Ányos Jedlik started experimenting with electromagnetic rotating devices which he called electromagnetic self-rotors. He used as an illustrative instrument in the university.
The first real electric motor using electromagnets for both stationary and rotating parts was demonstrated by Ányos Jedlik in Hungary in 1828.http://www.frankfurt.matav.hu/angol/magytud.htm Jedlik built an electric motor-propelled vehicle that same year.Simon, Andrew L. Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture, p.207. Simon Publications LLC, 1998. 
"Edison" vandál baráti körének kételkedő lejárató hangnemü szövege:
Hungarian writers assert that in 1827, Hungarian Ányos Jedlik started experimenting with electromagnetic rotating devices which he called "electromagnetic self-rotors," that he used them as  illustrative instruments in the universities, and he demonstrated the first real electric motor using electromagnets for both stationary and rotating parts in Hungary in 1828. He built an electric motor-propelled vehicle that same year.http://www.frankfurt.matav.hu/angol/magytud.htm There is no evidence that this experimentation was communicated to the wider scientific world at that time, or that it influenced the development of electric motors in the following decades.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says "Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." Edison (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Segítség

message: Joseph Priestley invented carbonated water in 1772. Why does the lede of this article claim that Jedlik (born years after the invention) invented it? Was he a time traveller? Where are the references to claim that Priestley did not invent it and Jedlik did invent it? Sounds bizarre. This claim should be removed. Edison (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was added  by an IP of unknown origin. Since for some reason you didn't remove it, went ahead and removed it. Hobartimus (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbonated water

message: I am of MIXED Slovak (Father) and Hungarian (Mother) parents. I speak Both, I grew up in Zelezovce not far from where Jedlik was born! I now live In Canada. 
I have issue with the article and the warring!
(current) was a Hungarian[1] inventor, engineer, physicist, Roman Catholic priest, member of the....
This is how it should read, but i wont bother since it will be reverted!
...was of mixed Hungarian and Slovak origin, Jedlik was a Hungarian citizen and inventor, engineer, physicist, Roman Catholic priest, member of the....
Will all of you [personal attack against editors removed] PLEASE stop warring!
here is neutral source for you whinny B-otches. 
Pier, A. V. "Slovak Scientist Stefan A. Jedlik, O.S.B." Slovakia 22, no. 45 (1972)
ps Sorry about my language but it makes me sike to see such pettyness from people who have never been to my home region. WE here get along and mix freely you are all the ones with problem!
--Petethebeat (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the English references which say he was Hungarian, and compare it with that you have mentioned above.--B@xter9 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes wikipedia has problems, but it's not exactly pathetic.  You can work with it more effective by following policies.  In my experience, most so-called edit wars are avoidable simply by citing your sources.  For example, if you want the alternative name added, then cite that source you just mentioned above when you add it.  Then, if someone removes sourced information, you'll have a legitimate complaint.  Doing the work of citing sources is much more effective than whining about people removing unsourced stuff.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Wikipedia's guideline: "The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, so please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also, about his Slovak origin: WP:FRINGE. 100000000000000000000000000000 english references which say he was Hungarian,  one (english?) and Slovak sources that say he was Slovak... (Pier, A. V. "Slovak Scientist Stefan A. Jedlik, O.S.B." Slovakia 22, no. 45)--B@xter9 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  And this is why WIKI is pathetic!  

message: The .de wikipedia cites this bio for alternative names.  There are more good sources available to anyone who look in books; he was called Anianus, Stephen, Stefan, Stephan, Anyos, etc.; he's clear claimed by Slovaks as well as Magyars.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a Hungarian person. Please read the article, check the references and the discussions above. The slovakized name (Štefan Anián Jedlík) of the inventor's Hungarian name is a redundant information. "Stephen" is the English form of the Hungarian hu:István (as the German version, de:Stephan from your source (which doesnt even mention the Slovak form) "Anyos" is just "Ányos" (Hungarian alphabet, there is no "Á" in English). "He's clear claimed by Slovaks as well as Magyars" Where is it mentioned? Source? So if I add "George W. Bush is claimed by Hungarians as their own" than i can add "(Hungarian: Bokor György)" into the lead? The same stupid discussion and edit war every time when a new user or IP discovers this article...--B@xter9 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first few books here suggest that he is "claimed" by the Slovakians; one appears to say that he changed his name, but I can't see enough of the snippet to know what's it's saying but the snippet indicates that he was born István, so I guess that implies Magyar.  And I haven't seen the source that the guy mentions above, but it would be good know what it says.  Maybe   Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check English sources, especially contemporary (y. ~1800) ones, he's consistently called Anianius or Anian, only Hungarian books or books by Hungarian authors refer to him as Anyos. The title of the article should be changed to follow Wiki naming conventions.  wlad 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was changed per WP:COMMONNAME: The common name in English is Ányos Jedlik.--B@xter9 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know, that books by non-native speaker, though written in English, should not be taken into account under WP naming conventions? If you exclude all the Laszlos and Istvans (authors), the only English reference you're left with is Anianius or Anian.   wlad 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you find this bit about books by non-native English speakers? Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I repeat, that according to English Wikipedia's naming convention: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English or "General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person" which is Ányos Jedlik. I dont know what is the problem...--B@xter9 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing by non-native speakers of English is often not representative of English usage. This can be from familiarity as much as lack of fluency; one historian, born in Silesia, uses Nürnberg when writing in English, despite seventy years of residency in the United States. WP:NCGN   wlad 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  That has nothing to do with the article names! Ányos Jedlik is not a geographical name! As I said it 2 times before: the main rule is WP:COMMONNAMES, use the "the most common name of a person used in English" which is not "Anian" or "Anianus".--B@xter9 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he wouldn't tell us where he got that, I used Google to find it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).  Not exactly relevant, and just a guideline anyway.  The fact that Jedlik is written about in English mostly by Hungarians shouldn't necessarily be a reason not to use the most common name; as long as there are redirects from the others, and they are mentioned, it should be OK.  On the other hand, the objections of the Hungarians to also listing the Serbian names is really not tenable, in my opinion.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  Yes, "the most common name of a person used in English" . And the quote I posted deals with what can be considered s proper English usage. It does not matter if it is a geographic name or not, if the name has several variations in different languages the one used in English  should be used, just as in the case of Matthias Corvinus And Dickylon, what about checking the link at the end of my previous quote?   wlad 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. The used, established English name of this person is Ányos Jedlik. "It does not matter" That is your personal opinion, it matters. Quick search: Anian Jedlik has 98 English hits, Ányos Jedlik has 4660 English hits, Anianius Jedlik has 0 English hits, Anyos Jedlik has 2300 English hits, Google Books Anianius Jedlik has 22 English book hits, Ányos Jedlik has 269 English book hits +the name of this article was changed before to this, English used version earlier... Do you have any evidence to prove that English scolars call Ányos Jedlik as Anianius Jedlik today? It is interesting that every wikipedia (german, polish) use Ányos Jedlik, not a death language form, latin. Just again: per WP:COMMONNAMES"title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article" Shouldnt we change the name of article Franz Liszt to the latin version Franciscus L.? Contemporary sorces mention him under this name....--B@xter9 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm saying is that the non-native speakers do not define the proper english use of whatever the name in question may be. Therefore your hits should exclude English hits by those as they are not in fact that much English after all. My search yielded two hits of an 1800s book with what could very well be his own contribution to a conference of some sort. Other than that, I found only one recent English book calling him Anyos, all the others were English books by authors like say Fekete Janos.   wlad 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one? Huh?1) Charles Joseph Singer, Richard Raper; A history of technology‎; "Within recent years the work of Anyos Jedlik (1800-95) has become known ...
Jedlik was a member of the Benedictine Order who later became professor of", 2) History of Science Society, Académie internationale d'histoire des sciences - 1933; "ANYOS JEDLIK : a Hungarian pioneer of electricity" 3)	
The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory: proceedings of a symposium; Jerzy Dobrzycki, International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science. Nicolas Copernicus Committee - 1972 "physics Anyos Jedlik" 4) A short history of technology: from the earliest times to A.D. 1900; Thomas Kingston Derry, Trevor Illtyd Williams; "Hungarian physicist Anyos"
Jedlik 5) Rough guide to Hungary‎; Charles Hebbert, Norm Longley, Dan Richardson - 2002 " Anyos
Jedlik" 6) Hungary‎, Richard S. Esbenshade " Anyos Jedlik invented t" 7)	Hungary: The Bradt Travel Guide; Adrian Phillips, Jo Scotchmer "Anyos Jedlik - a monk at Pannonhalma" 8) Energy policies of IEA countries, nternational Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development etc...--B@xter9 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd say that all of those take from the books by the Hungarian authors. But I admit that the renaming is unnecessary. However, the Slovak name should be definitely mentioned.   wlad 11:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Senseless, rdundant information.--B@xter9 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a brief mention of the various alternative names by which he is known would be quite sensible, and not redundant.  Omitting the Serbian name seems to be primarily motivated by Hungarian nationalism, which seems inappropriate here.  As to whether we should also include Japanese, Protuguese, etc., by all means, if you find he's referred to by other names in other languages, do add them; but not without sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He lived an died under this name, so he is known worldwide as Ányos Jedlik. See other wikipedias. (+he never used his slovakized name [didnt even existed at that time, it is just the creation of modern Slovak scholars]++ The magyarised name of Jules Verne is Verne Gyula. Can I add (Hungarian:Gyula Verne) into the article?--B@xter9 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so.  But if he's known by other names in English publications, we should include those other names.  And he is.  If you find other names for other people in English publications, it's OK by me if you add them.  If Gyula Verne is only found in Hungarian-language publications, I don't think so.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Slovakized name of this person is not used in english.--B@xter9 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see at least Stephen and Stefan in a few English books.  Again, the criterion should simply be a citation to an English-language book if someone wants to add alternative names.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stephen" is the English form of the Hungarian hu:István (as the German version, de:Stephan but I have nothing against it.--B@xter9 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for names 

message: Right. This article is currently semi-protected due to excessive edit warring and vandalism involving, among others, a number of IP editors. Thus, users under IP addresses and new users can not currently edit the article. For them, the only option is to request (on this talk page) an edit be made. However, more experienced editors are also highly recommended to discuss, in the same manner, changes they plan on making, especially if it concerns Jedlik's nationality - edit-warring is the last thing a decent editor wants to have on his hands. I'd also like to remind everyone to be civil to all editors. Thus, no name calling, no profanities and no accusations of sock puppetry if you're not willing to substantiate your claims with a report. Peasantwarrior (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: from another talk page: as the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 , using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names. --Bizovne (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever seen an "official" map of Hungary before the time Hungarian became an official language (which happened in 1844 and NOT in 1867 as you assert)? I have. And do you wanna know what have I seen in it? Ugly Hungarian names all over the place (you know, the ones which sound like a dog's bark if pronounced), even for bigger cities such as Pozsony (even though the map was labeled "Commitatus Posoniensis"). So if we're to use that as a reference then we'll have to rewrite EVERY SINGLE city name in pre-Trianon context to Hungarian. Then there's also the fact that essentially only the bigger cities had "proper" Latin names (i.e. Posonium, Tyrnavia, Cassovia etc.), minor towns (e.g. Dunaszerdahely, Vágsellye, Fülek etc.) and villages had NO Latin counterparts so their Hungarian names were used in Latin texts (i.e. official documents) as well. So why don't you stop your attempts at history falsifications and spreading myths? -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Just for the record the Hungarian accent sounds just like the Slavic ones to native English speakers so if I were you I'd stop bashing the Slavic accents and speak about them being caricatured in America.... CoolKoon (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian names for places before 1867 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jedlik's dynamo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jedlik motor.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: There are 9 refs next to each other (refs 2-10), and in the lead(!), which looks quite appalling.  If all 9 are really needed (are they?), could they at least be put in the same set of <ref> tags?  That would make the lead much more readable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Bit old and pointless, but... Apparently, there was a nice sized edit war over his ethnicity, and all nine were needed to keep people from deleting his ethnicity. Not sure that we need it anymore though.Kude90 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 refs next to each other? 

message: Article talks about motors in 1827, 'demonstrated' (to whom, principles explained ?, when documented) in 1828 but the first mention of dynamo is in 1861 referring to 1856 ? - Need more clarity and better sources. - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dynamo until 1856 

message: Why is the dynamo considered "his most important invention" - Who considers it, when ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Need better sources

message: Is this a diffraction grating ? Source ? What did he do with it ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Optical grate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Ányos Jedlik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228173151/http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/histodid/projekte/pognana/publication/Pognana.pdf to http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/histodid/projekte/pognana/publication/Pognana.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914192636/http://www.fh-zwickau.de/mbk/kfz_ee/praesentationen/Elma-Gndl-Generator%20-%20Druckversion.pdf to http://www.fh-zwickau.de/mbk/kfz_ee/praesentationen/Elma-Gndl-Generator%20-%20Druckversion.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609031544/http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Philosophie/Wissenschaftsgeschichte/Termine/E-Maschinen-Lexikon/Chronologie.htm to http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Philosophie/Wissenschaftsgeschichte/Termine/E-Maschinen-Lexikon/Chronologie.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615095831/http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no162/020.html to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no162/020.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611090255/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunspir/hsp52.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunspir/hsp52.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322223457/http://www.institutoideal.org/conteudo_eng.php?&sys=biblioteca_eng&arquivo=1&artigo=94&ano=2008 to http://www.institutoideal.org/conteudo_eng.php?&sys=biblioteca_eng&arquivo=1&artigo=94&ano=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214202835/http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/JEDLIK_BIO.html to http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/JEDLIK_BIO.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion