Talk:Maurice Benyovszky

message: It seems a good number of editors care a great deal about whether this person was Slovak, Hungarian, or something else. Virtually all edits made to this article since the bulk of the content was added some years back have been related to his nationality. But the rest of the article is a shambles. There are Citation Needed tags throughout it. For all we know, everything in this article is false. I know the info on Madagascar was very incorrect, which is why I made edits to that piece, and that's the reason I follow this article. But I hope the editors who care about this historical figure enough to engage in edit wars over his nationality will stay a little longer and instead work to improve the references and check the facts in the rest of the article. Otherwise it's not much worth fighting over. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instead of warring over his nationality, improve the article content instead 

message: Let's discuss the name of this article (a topic related to the nationality). There is an inconsistency between title (Maurice, Count de Benyovszky) and lead (Maurice Benyovszky). There is a ton of problems here, which I will list in bullets:
* Inclusion of title (Count) is not a common or a good practice, at least for Slavic nobility - you will not see it on most Polish nobility, nor on Hungarian, for that matter. The :Category:Counts of Hungary (not present in this article) has only one person, suggesting this title isn't common. In my experiences those titles are often bad translations of specific Slavic titles, unfortunately Hungarian nobility article we have does not discusses the titles at all (I did find the Perpetual count). According to (unreferenced) claim in our Count article, Hungary used a viscount, but not a count, title. Sometimes a related title was translated into English/French sources because English/French translators/readers couldn't be bothered with proper Slavic titles (like said Perpetual count which is not a count). For that reason I strongly recommend removing Count from the title (also, this is English Wikipedia, not French, so why Count de, instead of Count of? Proper French would be 'Comte de' anyway...). Final note: the Count was added without discussion by User:Zacwill two years ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice,_Count_de_Benyovszky&diff=660235105&oldid=583052416). I am going to be bold and revert his undiscussed move to the version that was stable for many years prior.
* Leaving his nationality for discussion aside, Maurice is neither Polish (Maurycy), Hungarian (Móric) nor Slovakian name (seems to be same as Hungarian). Maurice is a French version of that  name: Maurice (name). While it was common practice in older (19th century) sources to translate names and badly transliterate surnames to make things easier for Western readers (which generally meant we got badly Anglicized/Francized version of names), this is no longer the case, and today Wikipedia (and modern books/articles) try to use the subject proper (Slavic) name. Whether to chose Maurycy or Móric depends on our views of his nationality. Benyovszky is a a Hungarian version of his name (Slovakian is Beňovský and Polish is Beniowski).
* There is also the question of the WP:COMMONNAME in English, through we should be careful with Google (Books) counts as Google indexes a lot of old (19th century etc.) texts. Still, some data points from GBooks search: "Count Beniowski" - 106 hits. "Count Benyovszky" - 151 hits. "Maurice Benyovszky" - 4,919 hits. "Maurice Beniowski" - 2,260. "Maurice Beňovský" - 71. This shows us that when using the French name, the Hungarian name is twice as popular as the Polish one. But let's take a look at native spelling. "Móric Benyovszky" - 391 hits (but Hungarian likes reverse order, and "Benyovszky Móric" gives us 1,890 hits). "Maurycy Beniowski" - 2,010 hits. "Móric Beňovský" - 538. What we can see here is that the bastardized, half-French spelling "Maurice Benyovszky" is most common, but we should keep in mind it is a translated first name, a bad practice in modern scholarship. For native spellings, we have a roughly equality for Polish and Hungarian, with Slovakian being a distant third. Those results do however include the respective languages (and the count is affected by country's population), and anyway, this is English Wikipedia, so I tried to control for it with the words count and noble, getting: Slovakian "Móric Beňovský" count (104) and "Móric Beňovský" noble (61), Hungarian "Móric Benyovszky" noble (195) and "Móric Benyovszky" count (238) + reverse order "Benyovszky Móric" noble (362) and "Benyovszky Móric" count (270), and finally for Polish "Maurycy Beniowski" count (1280) and "Maurycy Beniowski" noble (1230), which suggests that when English sources use non-French native spelling, they use Polish twice as often and Hungarian, with Slovakian being the distant third. PS. Old discussion also suggested a surname spelling Benyowsky which is an anglicization of the Polish spelling, but it is not very popular: "Maurice Benyowsky" gives us 334 hits. PPS. Sorry I didn't provide direct Google Book links, but it should be easy for anyone to copy paste my search strings to books.google.com and verify the numbers.
In conclusion, and given that (per sources cited in section below) he called himself Pole seemingly more often then Hungarian I would suggest renaming this to use the Polish version of the name (disclaimer: I am also a Pole, so I have a bias here). Second best would be Hungarian name (since it is his birth name, after all). Using a French version of his first name, i.e. a translated first name that he never used himself, is the worst possible option. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: English Wikipedia articles occasionally run into a nationalistic tug war, with some articles not stating the subject's nationality since 2+ parties can make a claim to it. A better solution is to mention in the lead the various claims, rather then be silent. I took a look at Polish, Slovakian and Hungarian wikis, and this is what they say:
* Hungarian: "Hungarian and Polish nobleman" (magyar és lengyel főnemes) and later says something about him having relatives in Poland
* Polish: "Polish adventurer of Slovakian-Hungarian origin" (polski podróżnik pochodzenia słowacko-węgierskiego). Polish wiki also states "He considered himself a Pole, which he stressed several times in his diary [2] through  he was de facto related to three nations: Hungarian, Polish and Slovak" (Uważał się za Polaka, co podkreślał kilkakrotnie w swym Pamiętniku[2], chociaż de facto związany był z trzema narodami: węgierskim, polskim i słowackim) with the cited ref being page 14 of a Polish book: Mieczysław Lepecki: Maurycy August hr. Beniowski zdobywca Madagaskaru. Warszawa: Ludowa Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza, 1986. ISBN 83-205-3633-2.
* Slovakian: doesn't make a nationality claim in the first part of the lead, but later calls him several times "the first Slovak to do something" (prvý Slovák).
Now, reading his biography it is clear to me he has strong claim to being Hungarian, being born there. He did spend some time in Slovakia (studies?), got married to a Slovakian women, and joined a Polish resistance army (Bar Conf.), but those times lasted only a few years. He spent the rest of his life outside those countries, and frankly if not for the Polish wiki/book claim that he considered himself a Pole I'd really favor calling him a Hungarian noble, with ties to Poland and Slovakia. I was able to access the book in question (which btw dates to 1938, the 1985 cite is for a reprint) through GBooks snippet view () and luckily enough the displayed page does confirm the claim. I will quote it here and provide a translation: "Istnieje wiele dowodów stwierdzających wyraźnie, że hrabia uważał się za Polaka i wielokrotnie to sam głosił. 
Najpoważniejszym dokumentem jest jego własnoręczne pismo do marszałka Kongresu amerykańskiego w Filadelfii, w którym pisze o sobie jako o Polaku, a o Polsce — jako o swej ojczyźnie. W śledztwie prowadzonym w Petersburgu w związku z próbą ucieczki z Kazania oświadcza w swoim zeznaniu, że jest Polakiem; akty sprawy o bunt na Kamczatce wymieniają go też zawsze jako Polaka. Jako o Polaku pisze o nim Sgibniew i Bogulubow. Generał Kopeć, zesłany na Kamczatkę po bitwie maciejowickiej, pisze, że ludność tego półwyspu pamiętała Beniowskiego doskonale i nazywała go Augustem-Polakiem. Gubernator Wyspy Francuskiej w roku 1772, kawaler Desroches, w raporcie do Paryża, w którym donosił o ucieczce hrabiego z Kamczatki i jego przybyciu do Port Louis, pisze o nim, że podał swą narodowość jako Polak. W Pamiętniku Beniowski wspomina, że opuszczając Kamczatkę kazał wywiesić na maszcie chorągiew „Konfederacji Polskiey", a z okazji utarczki z Holendrami na wodach japońskich podaje, że wywiesił „banderę Rzeczypospolitej Polskiey". W podtytule swej książki napisał: "szlachcic polski i węgierski, etc."" Translation: "There are numerous proofs that the count considered himself a Pole and stated so numerous times. The most serious document is his own letter to the marshal of the US Congress in Philadelphia in which he describes himself as a Pole, and Poland - as his homeland. In an investigation carried out in Petersburg due to his attempt to escape from Kazan he declares in his statement that he is a Pole; documents about his Kamchatka mutiny describe him as a Pole. He is described as a Pole by S and B. General... writes that local people of Kamchatka called him August-Pole. ... [French official] wrote about him that he declared his nationality as a Pole. In his diary B. wrote that [twice he chose to display the flag of Poland on his ship]. In his diaries he describes himself as a "Pole and Hungarian noble". 
It is worth noting that the book is available in a digital library repository (since the book is in PD: ), but that book does not seem to contain what I see in GBooks snippet, perhaps it is a new edition introduction. On first page of the 1938 edition it (unnumbered, digital scan page 5) is stated that he called himself a 'Polish and Hungarian noble"). 
Given all of this, I think our lead should describe him and a Hungarian and Polish noble, born in (then) Hungary, and self-described as Pole or Pole-Hungarian on a number of occasions. No source I found outside Slovakian wiki suggests describing him as Slovakian is important enough to warrant inclusion in the lead, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "He did spend some time in Slovakia" --- you mean in the territory of present-day Slovakia (which was part of Hungary before 1918/1920). His wife Anna Susanna Hönsch was not a Slovak, but a daughter of a German burgher. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the corrections. This does further show that his connections to Slovakia are rather thin, through maybe some of our Slovakian colleagues will be able to provide more on that. PS. At the same time, I should note that the present-day location of his birth is Vrbové in Slovakia. But the sources do suggest that as far as cultural influences, he was associated with Polish and Hungarian cultures.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I pretty much agree with your analysis, but I dislike not having nationality indicators in the lead, it smacks to me more of trying not to offend people and deciding not to include pertinent information. We would need to see more sources on him claiming to be Hungarian/etc. before I'd support calling him just that; for now I think calling him a Hungarian and Polish noble, born in a city that was then part of Kingdom of Hungary and now is in Slovakia should be clear enough, with a note that he called himself Hungarian and Pole on various occasion, per sources presented.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Your changes seem a good starting-point, even though I disagree!  Are you going to make the changes you propose?  
What I find quite disappointing, though, is that while (a) the article is subject to peer-review and (b) this Talk is in progress, other editors have been happily ignoring the whole discussion - in the past 2 days, "hungarian" (sic) has re-appeared - then corrected to "Hungarian" - and out of nowhere the "Count" has acquired a completely new noble title. (I will need to start a new Talk thread on Benyovszky's claims to nobility).  But I begin to wonder just what is the point of peer-reviews if other contributors are simply going to ignore anything being said, and not share their thoughts during the review process?  And I find it really depressing, in a world which is slowly slipping into nationalism and sabre-rattling, that so much effort is being put into deciding whether an 18th century adventurer was Hungarian, Polish, Slovak etc, and whether he was of noble blood or not.  Is it not enough that he was a citizen of the world and gave the world much to talk about?  Does the fact (or not) of being  "of noble family" make a blind bit of difference to history?
MurdoMondane (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, to me the absence of notability is an indication of an incomplete state of the article. While this is indeed a controversial issue that likes to attract some flames and nationalist warriors, it still needs to be addressed. And yes, I am also saddened that too many editors focus on such issues rather then proper content creation and rewrite (btw, I want to thank you and others who wrote and expanded this article). But, c'est la vie... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: :  I notice that you have suggested that Maurice Benyovszky was a "Count ... de Benyó et Urbanó".  I would be interested to know where you found this information.  Assuredly, there was a noble family "Benyó et Urbanó" but as far as I can tell, it was a completely different branch of the family from the one that included Maurice.  And Benyovszky himself, while making very many claims about himself and his family, never once mentioned that branch.  But you may be correct - so can you advise further?
:I should also point out that Benyovszky frequently described himself as a "baron" and/or a "count".  So far as I know, he was never a baron, and only acquired the title of "count" after he had completed his autobiography (1776).  "Count" of what, I admit I'm not sure - perhaps this is where "Benyó et Urbanó" came from?  His baptismal record, which may be one of the very few documents which give reliable evidence on his name and title, only describes his father as "Colonel" and not a "Count" of any sort, and his mother as "Baroness" - but I understand that the latter title was not hereditary.
:It should be noted that the Hungarian historian Mor Jokai - who in all other respects greatly admired Benyovszky - did not believe that Benyovszky had any hereditary titles.
MurdoMondane (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is doubtless that Maurice was born into the Benyovszky de Benyó et Urbanó noble family. He was granted the title of Count on 3 April 1778 by Maria Theresa (charter issued in Vienna, see its text). --Norden1990 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the pointer to the Maria Theresa document.  (1778 is, of course, the correct date, not 1776 as I suggested).  From this document I can see that he became a "Count", but not that he became a "Count of Benyó et Urbanó" - have I missed something?   I can also now see, from the Jokai document you refer to, that he was in that family line.  But he was clearly not a born "Count", and neither was his father.  Indeed, if Benyovszky was in fact a Count by birth, why did he have to petition Maria Theresa to be granted the title a second time?  That doesn't make sense.  Do you have any more information on this?
MurdoMondane (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Benyovszky was not Count by birth, but a member of an untitled noble family, which was called "Benyovszky de Benyó et Urbanó" since the 16th century. The comital branch of the family descended from Maurice and his brother Emánuel (who was granted Count in 1792). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Noble or not a Noble? 

message: Please the Hungarian Chauvinists to calm down.  „The document is a register of students in Saint Jur, where he has written Slovak nationality as a sixteen year old.“ In autobiography he say that he fell be a Polish and sure they say that he is Hungarian. I would be glad if we agreed to write there not Slovak, not Hungarian but Hungary-Polish-Slovak. We are all reasonable people and we can come to an agreement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk • contribs) 05:47, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
:It is not a good idea to start a discussion calling for 'peace' with a personal attack, calling somebody a 'Chauvinists' is not nice as it is a pejorative term. Anyway, per the discussion above, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence he consodered himself Slovak. He might have been born and briefly lived in a territory that is presently part of Slovakia, and he may be considered a Slovakian hero by the Slovaks, but there is no evidence he felt Slovakian (likely, for him it was just a province of another country). Please provide reliable references that would enable us to call him Slovakian. Who calls him Slovakian? It would be nice to see non-Slovakian sources... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Slovaks pushing the theory that he was partially Slovak usually reference these sources.1.In the register of students at the Piarist College in Szentgyorgy, he is evidenced as "Slovak nobleman". 2.Benyowsky is the name of the Slavic origin, meaning "coming from Benov". Benov is the small village near Bytca, which belonged to old laird families Benovsky and Urbanovsky (also close to Turiec, where his father supposedly came from). As for the non-Slovak sources, good one is the book "Hungaria in parabolis: sive, Commentarii in adagia et dicteria hungarorum" published in 1804 and written by Antal Szirmay which contains also a short section about Slovaks (starting at page 70, available also online). Here, the author lists the names of  Slovak noble families (or, if you prefer, of noble families with Slovak origins, almost exclusively lower nobility which gained their ranks for the army service). In this list, you can find also Benyowszky family. --Bublimuf| reply here 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious about the reason why these sources can't be used in the article. Since there's no response in here, I'll try to reinsert them and see who is removing them without giving a reason. Azure94 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so it's  who's removing the sources. I would like to know what his issue with the SME article is. I hope it's not because he believes the wacky stuff about "Slovaks being taught to hate Hungarians in schools" that I can see up here on this talkpage being spread around by weirdos. Azure94 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I reverted your edit (with different text than now), because the source (Szirmay) did not confirm your assumption. But I also wrote this in the editorial summary. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain to me the reason for why you're removing a reliable source, SME? SME is one of the most read mainstream newspapers in Slovakia. The linked article is an interview with an histprian who is native to the same town where Benyovszky lived, and has been researching him for decades now. The article in no way claims that Benyovszky is 100% Slovakian, it merely talks about how much influence Benyovszky had on Poles, Hungarians and Slovaks. Mainstream news sources ARE RELIABLE SOURCE. We can absolutely mention the influence Benyovszky had on Slovaks without condoning their interpretation. --Azure94 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For a historical person, a newspaper is not a reliable source. Why do not you cite one of the academic works of the aforementioned historian? --Norden1990 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please the Hungarian patriots to calm down. 

message: Since the Peer Review was closed, I'll reply here to User:MurdoMondane's last comment, or at least continue the discussion on how to improve the article outside the nationality issue, which is extensively discussed elsewhere. I've added CNs to places where the GAN reviewer would ask for them. Do note that some places may require numerous citations added throughout paragraph,  not just for the last sentence. Each fact needs to be referenced. Nothing here is common knowledge (WP:SKY does not apply). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With cite needed issues addressed, I suggest WP:GAN as the next step. Good luck! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On road to [[WP:GAN]]