Talk:Ányos Jedlik

Copyvio?
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)

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

The Magyar origin of Jedlik Ányos would need some exact proof in order to survive deletion. Juro 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
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)

Reliable references
As far as I know he didn't have any Slovak ancestry and was born in a village populated by Hungarians which is now in Slovakia. The reference you gave doesn't seem to be reliable. And why did you remove two relevant categories? Would you explain? Squash Racket (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The Hungarian reference I deleted was a dead link. --Wizzard (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking about the reliability of the new sources. That's all. He was born in a Hungarian village, receiving the Hungarian name "István". He was among the first to teach his pupils in Hungarian instead of Latin, when that was possible. He was involved in the Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary and he had difficulties later because of his "patriotic behavior." Squash Racket (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of your sources is a nuclear power plant which is a reference that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Squash Racket (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are joking, aren't you? You are giving hungarian references only, what is not neutral at all. I do not see any reason why my reference does not belong here. It is an energetic dictionary what is equal to encyclopedia. --Wizzard (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A nuclear power plant is not a source on Wikipedia. A source from the Cleveland State University Library also claims he is Hungarian. The book "Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture" by Andrew L. Simon is also available online. A conference sponsored by the University of Oldenburg, Deutsches Museum, and the University of Winnipeg about "the greatest Hungarian physics teacher Á. Jedlik". Squash Racket (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, that is a stupid lie. He was one of the most famous Slovak physicist. Just you, Hungarians, treat all the nationalities in former kingdom to be Hungarian. Who are you that you want to judge what is a relevant source and what is not? At least, he was of Slovak origin, it does not matter that he taught in Hungarian, cause it was the official language in whole kingdom. --Wizzard (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch your language please (both here and in your edit summaries). I think I've cited enough reliable sources (both English and Hungarian), you brought a source from a power plant. Squash Racket (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I watch my language, so please tell me why do you think my references are not relevant, if you want, I may provide much more Slovak references, so do not start an edit war. --Wizzard (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After you warned me, you made five reverts in a few hours? Squash Racket (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you wanted to say, but you are funny with that revert war. --Wizzard (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You reverted three different editors and made five reverts in just a few hours in your revert war. What is so hard to understand? Squash Racket (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is a disagreement between Hungarian and Slovak sources. Therefore it would be NPOV to include both claims in the article (and references for them) as I did. It is also a compromise between the versions preferred by WizzardSK and Squash Racket. I do not understand what exactly makes User:Squash Racket believe that "most sources state that he was one of the greatest Hungarian engineers, some people make the claim that he was a Slovak". I doubt anyone here has ever read "most sources" and I do not know any peer-reviewed academic study of "most sources" about Jedlik. The words "some people" is also misleading. I added a reference to Tibensky (1979), which is the most authoritative source on the history of science in Slovakia published to this date. I would not discard the whole mainstream historiography in Slovakia by calling it "some people" while presenting the Hungarian historiography as "most sources". I also urge both users to use the standard term Slovakia instead of the rarely used Republic of Slovakia. I hope these reasons explain sufficiently why I feel obliged to revert to my version (yet retaining sources added by Squash Racket's last edit). Tankred (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That phrasing wasn't made by me, User:Tankred, at least check the page history. "Some Slovak sources" would be more correct. There is a disagreement between neutral, English sources and POV, Slovak sources. I do not understand why User:Tankred thinks the webpage of a Slovak nuclear power plant is a "reliable source" regarding the biography of a scientist. Also please always mark your sources as written in Slovak, otherwise it's misleading. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tankred, I agree with your revision of this article, it seems to be the best and NPOV. Thank you very much. --Wizzard (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the short names of countries instead the long name feel free, but then style demands that we use it consistently not playing around with long and short versions mixing them like you did. Hobartimus (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobartimus, you are now edit warring without even attempting to address the issues I have raised on this talk page. You have deleted references and replaced the correct English name "Slovakia" by "Republic of Slovakia". Your edit summary ("rv to NPOV") is totally misleading in light of the arguments posted here. Please be reasonable and either explain your edit here or simply refrain from edit warring. Tankred (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whx don't you address what I wrote above, please state that you want to use the Long Form, or the Short Form of countries' names? We can progress here but even one issue at a time will seem much if we don't focus. Hobartimus (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobartimus, it is not important if you write Slovakia, Slovak republic or Republic of Slovakia (although I never saw the last form) but do not try to hide your deletting of categories and Slovak references from the article. If you do not agree that he was Slovak, he was not Hungarian either. --Wizzard (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were given 8 references including ones in English that state that he was Hungarian. Please make no further attempts to compromise the integrity of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All Slovak sources and also English sources say that he was Slovak. This means that he was not Hungarian. Foreign sources are not relevant. --Wizzard (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Which book/title talks about his ethnicity/nationality? I went through the list and couldn't find it. Would you help? Foreign sources are not relevant? Excuse me? Squash Racket (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want? I do not understand: it is written: Pier, A. V. "Slovak Scientist Stefan A. Jedlik, O.S.B." Slovakia 22, no. 45 (1972): 158-60. What is not clear? --Wizzard (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If this English language source is reliable, I accept it for now.
 * But you also changed his ethnicity to simply Slovak on the List of Slovaks which hasn't been very constructive. Squash Racket (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, if we keep this article as it is now, I accept it. In the List of Slovaks, we can change his nationality to "Kingdom of Hungary", what is more clean that just Hungarian or Slovak. --Wizzard (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So it seems we have now a stable referenced version, mentioning both POVs and acceptable to everyone. Congratulations. Tankred (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you all very much. --Wizzard (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I only said I accepted it for now (to avoid edit wars), but here are my concerns: The above points and the overall quality of the references and the details in the citations still make me think he was in fact Hungarian. Squash Racket (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * he was involved in the Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary and he had difficulties later because of his "patriotic behavior"; as we know real Slovaks were put into prison for using the Revolutions for their own nationalist movement.
 * no record of him speaking Slovak
 * he established the basic vocabulary of physics in Hungarian (creating new words usually done only in someone's mother language)
 * he was among the first to teach his pupils in Hungarian when that became possible
 * he was born in the village of Szímő which even today has a clear Hungarian majority
 * according to sources he received the Hungarian name "István" after his birth
 * sources praise him as "one of the greatest Hungarian minds", and "one of the greatest Hungarian teachers"
 * In every case, it is very interesting for the people which did not know that (even me). I just found this on : V slovenskej historiografii je považovaný za Slováka, hoci vyrastal v maďarskom prostredí, ktoré naňho veľmi vplývalo. Jeho otec bol Slovák z Liptova, ktorý sa ako mladý presťahoval ku Komárnu. In English: In Slovak historiography he is considered Slovak, although he grew up in Hungarian environment, that influenced him a lot. His father was a Slovak from Liptov that moved to Komárno region when he was young. So, the only thing that is clear is that his nationality is disputed, cause he was not either only Slovak, nor only Hungarian. --Wizzard (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Website of the first Slovak magazine about industrial automation, measurement, control and information technologies? OK, move on. We'll need more information from reliable, neutral, possibly English language sources, the article may change in the future as our knowledge about the topic develops. Squash Racket (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not find the fact that a technical sciences magazine writes about a physicist and inventor suspicious. What exactly is unreliable and not neutral with that? As to your points, I do not know what you mean by "real Slovaks". Are there real and unreal Slovaks? Hungarian sources describe him as a Hungarian, while Slovak sources (including mainstream scientific works cited in this Wikipedia's article) describe him as a Slovak. The article reflects this disagreement. By the way, I have read that an international commission composed of Hungarian and Slovak historians is preparing a monograph on the common history of these two nations. When completed, their book may be a very valuable source for us here. Who knows, maybe they will also find a consensus on Jedlik's ethnicity. Tankred (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I think, that both sides have the right on their own view of his nationality and we must respect both sides. Maybe most of Hungarians never thought that Slovaks consider him being Slovak and vice versa. Now it is the best compromise. --Wizzard (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Brno and Slovak sentence
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)

Jedlik's nationality/ethnicity
It's pretty stupid how some people vandalize this article when it comes to Jedlik's nationality. It is actually pretty hard to say what ethncity he was. Perhaps he felt Magyar, perhaps Slovak, Perhaps bot Magyar and SLovak, his name is of Slovak origin, etc etc...so he perhaps was an ethnic Magyar, but you woudl have to ask him... And please do not use biased phrases on this topic. Be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.115.227 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I added neutrality and verifiability tags, concerning Jedlik's nationality, but especially the way it is presented in the text, i.e. part "but Slovak nationalists...". This is inapropriate: why do you define people that disagree with you nationalists????. Ethnicity is a complex notion that is hard to measure. Jedlik comes form a village taht is currently predominantly inhabited by ethnic Magyars. It is in Slovakia, now. When he lived, ethnciity and even less so nationality were clearly defined. He probably felt Hungarian, in the sense of being a citizen of the MULTIETHNIC Kingdom of Hungary. Here the distinction between Hungarian and Magyar is crucial. He certainly was Hungarian (citizen), perhaps ethnci Magyar (but one cannot veryfiably exclude the option he was ethnci Slovak, or perhaps even Roma), and his name is Slovak (or at least Slavic, but certainly not Magyar). Some people do not (want to)understand these things, such a s Nmate. Sorry dude, but you seem to be pretty biased.


 * Hi there!


 * Could you show me sources about your allegations ? (especially his Slovak surname) But citations are not acceptable which come from Matica slovenská or other Slovak political organizations. His Hungarian origin is supported by 5 serious sources. After this the probably Hungarian statement would be very strange.


 * All the best.Nmate (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jedlik means "eater", or someone who likes to eat (a lot) in Slavic languages. It is derived from "jedlo" in Slovak or "jidlo" in Czech, which means food. Has forms jedak, jedlik, etc. It may come from Slovak or Czech, or some dialects of these two languages (or perhaps other Western Slavic langauges). All publications on the issue of Jedlik's ethnicity may be biased, or based on biased sources. I think it is fair to say he was Hungarian (citizen), born in what currently is Slovakia, probably Magyar (ethnic), but his name is Slavic, hinting at Slovak ancestry. What I especially do not like about your version is that you supply many references (all Hungarian) on Jedlik's being Hungarian, but your exposition/language/wording is biased against the possibility that he was in one way or another related to Slovakia/Slovaks. What languages did he speak, btw?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.115.227 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. His surname is Slavic origin but this is no evidence. Pavol Országh(-Hviezdoslav)'s surname is Hungarian origin. The Hungarian "ország" word means krajina in Slovak or country in English. I have no doubt about his Slovak nationality. Ján Komensky was also Hungarian origin.
 * Nmate (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are all the sources (6 or 7) claiming his Slovak origin? I added them and they are removed. Why? --Wizzard (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because all those citations screams "edit wars" and makes the sentence look like an unholy mess. Minetruly (talk)
 * It is visible for example in this revision. --Wizzard (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about this anonymous edit without any explanation? If it won't be explained, it will be reverted. --Wizzard (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I afford to revert it unless someone explains why all Slovak-related sources was deleted without explanation. --Wizzard (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I just added the deleted references, because reverting caused also other changes. --Wizzard (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we replace "He was Hungarian [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13][14][15][16] or Slovak [17][18][19][20];[dubious – discuss][verification needed] both nations claim him as one of their great inventors" with "Both Hungary and Slovakia claim him as one of their great inventors?"

Being new and unknowledgeable on the topic, I refrain from making the change myself, but I do think I can observe that nobody is likely to show up and unequivocally settle the issue for us. We should clean up the mess (that sentence, with all its citations and tags, is a mess) and replace it with a simple sentence. Minetruly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Austrian empire
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)

Austrian Empire have never existed. Only The Empire and countries of the Habsburgs Monarchs. Just look the old historic maps of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears159 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jedlik's diputed ethnicity
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)

Priority of invention
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)

Jedlik's motor is three years older than Leopoldo Nobili's motor from 1830. Jedlik taught in three universities, and therefore he demonstraed his invention for wide public. AMEN. --Celebration1981 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article presently makes some pretty strong claims as to Jedlik's having invented the electric motor in 1828. Jedlik is not recognized as an electric motor inventor in most histories of electricity. Sturgeon invented the electromagnet in 1823. It was weak, with one layer of winding of uninsulated wire. Joseph Henry created the first powerful electromagnets in 1827, with multiple windings of insulated wire. Sturgeon invented some sort of electric motor early on, as did Henry, as did Faraday. Thomas Davenport created electric motors, with commutators, which could power model trains and useful equipment in 1833. These were described in publications widely circulated among scientists at that time. When did Jedlik first publicly exhibit his motor, and when and where did he first publish a description of it? What is the origin and provenance of the electric motor models claimed to have been made by Jedlik in the 1820's? Are they more recently created museum models? The Soviet satellite countries under Soviet domination might have created models in the 20th century and claimed they were old. None of the English language references states that he invented the electric motor in 1828.The reference says on the contrary that "..he did not speak about his most important invention, his prototype dynamo, until 1856" You are not the "inventor" of something if you only claim 28 years after the fact to have discovered it, after the state of the art has proceeded, and after others have published. That critique applies to the dynamo. When did he first publish his electric motor work, and where, and what did he say that advanced the art? Edison (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * "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)

Hahaha, Jedlik was a monk and a scientist. What could a monk do with licence and patent royalty and money? Countries in Continental Europe hadn't patent offices in 1827-1828. --Celebration1981 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

When we're done debating and sourcing his nationality
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).

Segítség
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. Jedlik built an electric motor-propelled vehicle that same year.

"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. 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)


 * 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 Embassy." Edison (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Carbonated water
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)
 * 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)

Jedlik invented the so called industrial production of carbonated water.--Celebration1981 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

J. J. Schweppe invented the industrial production of carbonated water before Jedlik was born. Beamish Son (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And this is why WIKI is pathetic!
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)
 * Please check the English references which say he was Hungarian, and compare it with that you have mentioned above.-- B@xter 9 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * According to Wikipedia's guideline: "The relevant policies on sources are Verifiability and 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@xter 9  18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for names
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)
 * 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 István (as the German version, 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@xter 9 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. w  lad  02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was changed per WP:COMMONNAME: The common name in English is Ányos Jedlik.-- B@xter 9 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  w  lad  13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where do you find this bit about books by non-native English speakers? Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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@xter 9 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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  w  lad  16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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@xter 9 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since he wouldn't tell us where he got that, I used Google to find it at 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)
 * 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?   w  lad  17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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@xter 9 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  w  lad  20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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@xter 9 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  w  lad  11:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Senseless, rdundant information.-- B@xter 9 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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@xter 9 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The Slovakized name of this person is not used in english.-- B@xter <sup style="color:red;">9 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * "Stephen" is the English form of the Hungarian István (as the German version, Stephan but I have nothing against it.-- B@xter <sup style="color:red;">9 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian inventor
Jedlik was Hungarian inventor, its undisputable. But from the small number of sources dealing with the question of his origin it seems that he had partly Slovak origin (his father was Slovak peasant from Liptó who came as young to ethnic Hungarian village Szimő (Zemné)). Question is: Is it important to write in the article about his origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CsabaBabba (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, nobody reacted to my post so in my humble opinion its better to write there about Jedlik´s origin:
 * 1. Origin of his Slovak father is well proven
 * 2. It is the prevention against the wars of editors (svk vs. hu)
 * 3. If has somebody source dealing with his origin and this source speaks differently he can put the link of this source to this discussion
 * I think if would be no disapproval with my 3 points the next week I can add the quote about his origin. Thanx for dicussion. --CsabaBabba (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection
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)

Hungarian names for places before 1867
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)
 * 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)

You are wrong. The official written language was latin. Mostly clericals and the very thin (less than 0,5 percent) intelligence could speak Latin. Latin was the official written language of the country until 1844. Majority of Slovaks can't correctly read/pronounce the Hungarian words that why they barking instead of speaking.--84.0.172.50 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget, slavic languages (especially slovak russian czech) are very very hadr because they are full of hard consonant, and their words conatin few vowels. Therefore it is not wonder that the slavic-accent English speaking is a very frequent object of irony in American films.--84.0.172.50 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

Please learn linguistic, statistically, the words of slavic languages contain the most consonants in Europe (barking like).

9 refs next to each other?
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 tags? That would make the lead much more readable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (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)

Origin
Where did Jedlik ever state or even imply that he was of Slovak origin? His father's name probably refers to Slovak ancestors too but it does not betoken that he considered himself Slovak. Fakirbakir (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to ask user Wladthemlat not to remove sources and not to add badly sourced statements to the lead. So far, we have a source that makes the *hypothesis* (i.e.,it uses the words "azt lehet sejten" - "we can conjecture") that, based on his *family name*, his father's family might have been Slovaks who assimilated/melted into the Hungarians. That does not mean at all, that you can safely add the claim to the lead that he was ethnic Slovak, especially, if the overwhelming majority of sources call him Hungarian. (Otherwise, you could also add to the biographies of every Slovak citizen who has Hungarian-sounding name that in fact (s)he is ethnic Hungarian.) You should bring direct reliable (e.g., scholarly/academic) sources about his Slovak ethnicity if you want to have it included in the lead. Related WP policies, which you should read, are WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  09:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S.: A similar situation happened not long ago at the Talk:Alexander_Rudnay article, where his family name, coat of arms and familty tree indicated that he was (also) ethnic Hungarian, still since we only had direct sources claiming his Slovak ethnicity, we kept only that in the lead. K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  09:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not to say he was an ethnic Slovak, it's to say he was of mixed (Slovak-Hungarian) ancestry, we have a source claiming his father was most likely a Slovak (based on more than just the surname). Majority of sources call him Hungarian, but that says nothing about his ethnicity, until 1918 even people like Stur were Hungarian, politically. So the sources actually do not contradict the claim of his Slovak origin.
 * Could we at least group the sources in the lead, current [1][2]...[156910981] looks mighty ugly. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most likely" is not a fact, only a theory. You said "majority of sources call him Hungarian", so there's nothing to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most sources state nothing about his ethnicity. We have another one supporting his Slovak origin, is that enough for denoting mixed heritage in the lead?Wladthemlat (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hoci vyrastal v maďarskom prostredí a maďarsky aj cítil, po svojich predkoch bol nesporne slovenského pôvodu, narodil sa na Slovensku (v Zemnom pri Nových Zámkoch), navyše začas účinkoval v Bratislave, preto.... This is a dubious text without specific datas, and it also states that Jedlik was Hungarian. This text does not mention his father, so your edit is just a mere assumption. According to independent, English-language academic works, Jedlik was definitely a Hungarian inventor. His name (Jedlik) does not prove anything, maybe his distant ancestors were Slavs, however it is only a presumption. He declared himself as Hungarian. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, "Hungarian inventor" says nothing about his ethnicity and does not contradict his Slovak origin (not even Slovak ethnicity for that matter). The source is not "dubious" at all and does not assume from the name. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wladthemlat, could you provide the quotation, together with its translation, you are referring to? Thanks, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: You also wrote that ""Hungarian inventor" says nothing about his ethnicity". Why do you think so? How do you know that even the modern (written after WWI) works use the term "Hungarian" to denote citizenship? I highly doubt that, since following this reasoning the majority of sources should call Andrej Hlinka Hungarian, since he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Hungarary, just like Ányos Jedlik. But, the majority of sources call Andrej Hlinka Slovak, why Ányos Jedlik Hungarian. Cheers, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just look at the case of Laszlo Hudec - he himself said he was both Slovak and Magyar, English sources predominantly refer to him as exclusively Hungarian. You have no ground to presuppose that modern sources suddenly changed their approach and research the ethnicity, they usually cite older sources ;) Until ethnicity is explicitly stated, Hungarian is ambiguous and can not be safely translated as 'Magyar'. Prominent nationalists of mid-to-late 19th century are a different story, they are mentioned in the context of nationalism, so ethnicities are very relevant and well-researched. In other cases English sources just don't give a damn or don't have enough research on the topic, so they cite what they are sure of - the citizenship. Hungarian is ambiguous in English, so the burden of proof is on both sides to provide sources that state the ethnicity explicitly. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Magyar vs Hungarian
Do we seriously need to war over Magyar/Hungarian? For ethnicity Magyar is perfectly fine in English, see and it's the most precise translation of any Slovak text that lingustically makes an explicit distinction between the political entity and ethnicity  Wladthemlat (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the Slovak point of view, but Hungarian viewpoint does not make any difference between meaning of "Magyar" and meaning of "Hungarian", nor English. English language naturally prefers to use the "Hungarian" form. English speakers can not even pronounce the word "Magyar" properly. From historical point of view, western European peoples always called Magyars "Hungarians". The word "Hungarian" had been widely used ( from the word "Onogurs") in the Middle Ages, for instance, there are written Latin sources from the 10th century about "Ungarii" (see Name of Hungary). "Hungarians" in the Middle Ages only referred to the "Magyar" ethnic group. Please do not mix it with the !latter! "Natio Hungarica" or "Hungarus" expressions. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * English *does* make the difference, as demonstrated by the link above or and especially for 19th century the term 'Magyar' is used very frequently.
 * "English language naturally prefers to use the "Hungarian" form" - not in historiography.
 * "English speakers can not even pronounce the word "Magyar" properly." - was this supposed to be an argument?
 * Also, are we talking Middle Ages here? Can't see your point.
 * It is indeed the Slovak point of view, but with an appropriate English equivalent, almost the very definition of "accurate translation"Wladthemlat (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fakirbakir's comment. Furthermore, an average English speaker does not know what the word "Magyar" means, (s)he uses the word "Hungarian" for the ethnicity, too. The term "Magyar" is *occasionally* used for denoting ethnic Hungarians. Your link does not demonstrate what you claimed, as it uses the term "Hungarians" and "Magyars" *interchangeably*, e.g., "Hungarians are the dominant population in Hungary" (would not make too much sense, if the author meant "citizens of Hungary", by "Hungarians"), also, it states: "large number of Hungarians live in neighboring Romania (1.7 million)...". It is clear that your source refers to ethnic Hungarians by the term "Hungarians". Also, could you demonstrate that English historical works talking about the  *modern history* prefer the word "Magyar" for "ethnic Hungarian"? I am sure that there are some, but I hardly believe that it is the usual approach. Therefore, taking into account my first comment (i.e., that the word "Magyar" is typically unknown for an average English speaker), if you want to emphasize that you mean the ethnic group, you should use "ethnic Hungarian".  K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  10:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I think it's a common practice to use 'Magyar', especially for the late 19th century, I am totally fine with your version, you are after all right in assuming it could be confusing to the average English speaking reader.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael Schumacher is a Deutsch (German) racing driver... only highlighting the absurdity of your version. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No dynamo until 1856
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)

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

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

External links modified
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Jedlikanyos.jpg