Talk:Gabriel Bethlen

Convention for Naming Places

The Wikipedia conventions are still being discussed, but for an article such as this (referring to a particular period in history), I believe that we should use the place names most commonly used in English-language sources (encyclopaedias, history books) when referrring to that period of history. Thus Pressburg (rather than Bratislava) and Klausenberg (rather than Cluj-Napoca). Also Peace of Nikolsburg (rather than Mikulov). Links, of course, should be to the official modern names of the cities. Scott Moore 16:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only "correct" solution is to use the current name (unless the town was renamed like Bratislava), especially when there are several language versions and the current version was already used at that time. English texts use German names in this particular case, because some 100 years ago the English authors used German texts as their primary source (because the number of English people understanding Hungarian, Czech etc. texts was much lower) - so this is not a tradition, but a "technical problem". The general problem with the use of names like Nikolsburg is that everybody (and poeple do not normally follow all links in a text)immediately thinks that the town is in present-day Austria or Germany, which is misleading. For example I have spoken to an Italian professor in Austria who could not believe when I told him that Pressburg was Bratislava - he said he always thought that Pressburg was a town in Austria... But that's just my opinion...Juro 16:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that using the current (official) name is "best practice", though I'm not sure that it is common practice among (still largely monolingual) English writers (and thus current official names may be unfamiliar to most readers - e.g many English speakers will not be familiar with Venezia, Firenze, Zaragoza, München, Köln, Praha etc). You have a good point, so for Wikipedia using a form such as Pressburg (Bratislava) [or Bratislava (Pressburg)] may solve the problems. Probably the most important thing is consistency. Scott Moore 17:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hungarian names

Gdańsk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdańsk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.

• Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd; Battle of Stalingrad mentions Volgograd once in the text; three times in describing external links.
• Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
• Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is widely accepted in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Someone found these in the guideline and they seem to allow usage of Hungarian names in historical context. Squash Racket 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole convention. It describes what you should do if you believe a particular historic name is widely accepted in English sources in a very clear way. Tankred 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian names pt II

As the names of Kosice, Banska Bystrica etc. are not established in English in Slovak or Hungarian and the only official name in the period the article is dealing with was Latin, all the names should be mentioned like that. Hungarian names are blatantly anachronistic as they use modern spelling (e.g. Banska Bystrica was known in Hungarian as Byztherzebana and its countless variations). Pozsony is established in English as Pressburg, therefore the English name should be used. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Having seen your previous edits I do not believe that you would want to argue about anything.--Nmate (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack from you. I have asked you politely on your talk [1] to avoid such behaviour. I do so again here. If you have no constructive counterarguments, it suggests, that your changes to the article are not made in good faith. I still wait for you to engage in a rational discussion. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names for places before 1867

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [2], 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.Wladthemlat (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Died on his birthday?

Normally such a coincidence would be worthy of some note, but I'm not seeing any reference to in any outside sources. This leads me to suspect the birthdate we show is an error, copied from the death date. Our source for the birth date hardly fills one with confidence, shall we say. Comments? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In Hungarian pages I found that in fact he died 15th, November Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing his date of death. It's his date of birth I'm wondering about. The Hungarian WP's source for the vital dates is the same as our source, the Protestant Homepage. With the greatest respect, it is not a comprehensive historical site, and should not be regarded as reliable.

The point I'm making is that when a historical person dies on their birthday, there is always some explicit acknowledgment of that very coincidence. In Bethlen's case there is none. Nobody's ever noticed that he happened to die on his birthday? Unbelievable. Which adds further fuel to the fire that says "do not trust that source that says that not only did he die on 15 November, he was also born on 15 November". Why do other more substantial and reliable sources (a) not give the precise birthdate or (b) not note the coincidence of dates? We have to ignore the Protestant Homepage, I'm sorry. They have made a mistake, and we should not be perpetuating it. I'll make the change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you make a quick search for "Bethlen Gábor 1580. november 15", you will find that the coincidence is real. There are dozens of results, althouh most of them in Hungarain. Please consider reverting yourt edit. Rokarudi.--Rokarudi (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dozens of results - and all of them probably mirrors of Wikipedia. Where's any reliable primary source that says this? Why is there not a single site that says he "died on his birthday"? Why is it that this site says James Morrison died on his 86th birthday in 1974, but makes no such claim for Behlen Gabor in 1629? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)