Talk:Lajos Thallóczy

Flag
This view has no merit as it isn't supported by any other historians, not to mention that even as logical conclusion assuming that a flag was first designed in 1897 because there's a document about such a flag design in 1897 is irrational. That being said, the oldest preserved Albanian flag (the actual fabric) in possession of the CAS (Centre for Albanological Studies) dates to 1881. Views that don't correspond to what is colloquially known as the reality don't become suitable for inclusion merely by attributing them to anyone who's seen his work published.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that flag was designed in 1897. It was payment for drawing of the flag which was executed in 1879 per source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He organized the design of the national insignia, such as the coat of arms and the flag. A red banner with the doubleheaded black eagle was selected. In the Sarajevo "State Archive" is preserved even the bill by which a painter in Vienna in 1897 was paid 15 florins "für Ausführung des Wappens sammst Fahne".  and no other source supports it.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why it is attributed to Ekmečić. He published this opinion in early eighties. Nobody has ever denied it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Attributing something to someone doesn't make it notable for inclusion. If it's not supported by other scholars it's merely a fringe claim i.e. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ekmečić is member of several academies. His opinion is certainly notable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

{(unindent)A view's notability has to do with academic consensus, not inclusion in academies by the Milosevic regime.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading, Ekmecic's views may be notable, but they are also flawed, and it would be intellectually dishonest to give credence to those views without mentioning their flaws. If the flaws are to be removed from the article, then the views are to be removed also. DS (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on evident Thallóczy's political role on Balkans in designing flags and coat of arms (which is undisputable, i.e. Bosnian CoA) I don't think there is any reason to attribute controversy to him in this case.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which scholars have ever supported such a view?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Rating
Taking in consideration that Robert Elsie included Ludwig Thallóczy in A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History so he certainly was not of low importance for Albania but at least of middle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How does Robert Elsie including someone in his dictionary make him "important" for the project?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It shows that the subject is reasonably notable on a national level. Since this subject is reasonably notable internationally mid level of importance is the lowest level that should be rank of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it show that the subject is reasonaly notable on a national level? WP ratings may be arbitrary but based on general notability guidelines within the project and of course the subject doesn't match the rest of the mid-importance subjects. Enough said.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will you please be so kind to present "the rest of the mid-importance" criteria the subject of this article does not match?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Had you been able to read and understand the sources you quoted on Theodor Ippen: Heutzutage wird Thálloczy hauptsächlich durch seine Tätigkeit in der Vorkriegszeit als Chef der bosnisch-herzegowinischen Landesverwaltung und im Kriege als österreichisch-ungarischer Zivilgouverneur in Serbien in Erinnerung behalten. Weniger bekannt sind seine regen wissenschaftlichen Forschungen und seine zahlreichen Veröffentlichungen zur Geschichte Albaniens.. Enough said. There's nothing else I can/will contribute to this discussion.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote you presented refers to notability of the subject on international level, though it does not imply lack of notability. On the contrary. His works on Albana are known, but less known comparing to his position of governor of Bosnia and later Serbia. That is quite understandable. Hence only mid importance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DOB
Was he born 2 December 1857 or 8 December 1857 -- this wiki has both dates --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ekmečić
There is an excellent article about Milorad Ekmečić and his assessment in international bibliography. The same discussion has been had here before about the flag claim. The policies cited then (8 years ago!) were WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Apparently, nobody took it upon themselves to do a proper assessment of Ekmečić neither then, nor later - so Antidisikriminator's use of Ekmečić remained in the article. Ekmečić's work isn't "undue" or "fringe" - it has been classified as pseudo-history and belongs to a bibliographical corpus that nobody would cite today. It's not "fringe" - his work has been assessed as pseudo-historical and nationalist. There's no debate to be held about when the flag of Albania with this book as part of the debate.
 * The argument that Thallóczy was the "creator of Bosnia" is a half-quote without any contextualization from the post-WWI memoir of Miklós Bánffy - WP:OUTDATED misquotes will be removed.
 * At some point, everything gets assessed properly in wikipedia. It's part of the value of wikipedia. Things progress and now bibliographical progress has reached a point where Ekmečić will be removed from every article's bibliography. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thallóczy

 * Just because some Austrian documents reguraly written some foreign names in a Germanized form, that does not mean the subject's name was German. He was a Hungarian citizen, and his main page is alsó following his official Hungarian name, so there is no problem just to refer to that.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
 * It is not uncommon, this is how his name was spelled according to official documents therefore how he was known, it is clearly visible at the bottom of this article. As civilian commissar he must have approved it. His page actually mentions the different spellings that he used but forgets to mention that he was born into a German-speaking Hungarian family. Aeengath (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was uncommon and I did not deny anything about military documents, what I said that Austrian issued documents reguraly Germanized names even if the family did not have any German background, and and alternate spelling does not imply necessarily that the main spelling should be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * We have to follow the reference WP:CITE, both sources I use have that spelling including Prit Buttar who is British and even Mitrović. For the sake of WP:VER the spelling should not be changed, adding to it between parentheses is fine. It would be interesting to find out why he used that many names.Aeengath (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is just overreacted, the cited policies does not exclude what I say, we may safely link people to the names they are identified in WP, since it is the most relevant. I am not interested to add it parenthesis, it would be a bit strained, since it is not a common practise. Having more names has nothing special, since Austrian military used Germanized names, and while was active in the Balkans, no surpise he was called in a Slavic orthography, but it does not change his original, official name. I just want to indicate I won't accept the recent case necessarily as general and common, because of the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I suggest you look him up, he was from a German-speaking Hungarian family, his real surname was Strommer, he changed his surname after a Croatian noble family called Talovci. This is the way his name is spelled in the bibliography mentioning him as civilian commissar of Serbia. It's all in the sources. Aeengath (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you argumentation is circular, the family's origin is irrelevant, also what is the name's origin. It's officially Lajos Thallóczy. Some bibliographies or Austrian military papers or other stuff are a thing, but does not his official name. I just wanted indicate I won't argue more, accept like this now, but this is not a general practise, don't take it as automatical.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Right there is nothing to argue about, on last circular time his name was not Germanized he was born Ludwig, the article shows both spellings anyway, sources are reliable information can be verified. case closed.
 * , nope, he was born Lajos Benedek Strommer.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
 * , here are my sources:
 * In 1877 he changed his name from Ludwig Strommer to Lajos (Ludwig) Thallóczy for reasons of his career, after a Hungarian-Croatian noble family.
 * Born Ludwig Strommer of Hungarian-German origin, Thallóczy changed his name to Lajos Thallóczy in 1877 for career reasons
 * Lajos Thallóczy was born as Ludwig Strommer in Buda on December 8, 1857. In his hometown he studied Slavic languages, philosophy and law
 * Yes, foreign sources are usually inaccurate on this, not knowing exactly how Hungarian baptism papers (both religious and administered) were managed in some periods. The most authentic .(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC))
 * The most authentic foreign sources are usually inaccurate on this . I am happy to discuss possible changes about the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia but this is clearly going off-topic. I use Dr. Ludwig (Lajos) von Thallóczy to show both spellings of his name since he clearly used both languages as can be seen here and here. He also used many more variations see Library of Congress. This talk should be moved to Talk:Lajos Thallóczy as it will be more appropriate and may be of interest to other editors. Aeengath (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The most authentic foreign sources are usually inaccurate on this . I am happy to discuss possible changes about the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia but this is clearly going off-topic. I use Dr. Ludwig (Lajos) von Thallóczy to show both spellings of his name since he clearly used both languages as can be seen here and here. He also used many more variations see Library of Congress. This talk should be moved to Talk:Lajos Thallóczy as it will be more appropriate and may be of interest to other editors. Aeengath (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, hope you're both well. He changed his surname, but this move has to do more with reasons related to the emerging Magyar nationalism and the "magyarization" of names, which many Magyars chose in order to "get rid of" germanized names. It's a pan-European phenomenon which has been observed in all ethnic groups. He used both forms (Ludwig/Lajos) because both languages were used in different contexts within the K.u.K administration. What is the dispute about? --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber thank you so much for your insight this makes total sense, not really a dispute just a bit of confusion from the name variations coming out of the sources so your explanation is super helpful Aeengath (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * according to me who dealt with many naming issues in the timeline, inlcuding many persons (and the source I provided was supervised the most renowned and  institutions, which have direct access to the birth documents). I already finished discussing the issue, as I said I accept this time the version in the other article, I only responded to you because you stated that Ludwig was his birth name.
 * right...according to me WP:POVEDITOR inlcuding many persons WP:WEASEL I’m gonna leave it there obviously, I’m glad could clarify the issue. Have a good day gentlemen. Aeengath (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * we are fine, we did not discuss about the surname change, but name of birth and official usage later.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC))
 * per WP:CITE and WP:VER which have been provided in the article. Aeengath (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You cited in WP:POVEDITOR, most of the description does not fit to me or the issue, since the whole issue is not about bias and not even against neutrality, but accuracy ("I’m gonna leave it there obviously" -> ?? noone said you should add the birthname instead). On the other hand it's a fact what I said, "weasel" is as well unrelated (moreover, please don't alter my comments commenting in). Maleschreiber did not clarify the issue, he was thinking about something else and even asked the cause of the issue, why you say that? We are fine as well because I accepted your edit, I just said it won't be a general routine necessarily. It would be good if you would not continue this issue, just because you are not aware exactly the birth name and you feel to justify more your edit on the other page (again supposed (sur)name/ethnic origin is irrelevant to the issue). Overdiscussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC))
 * per WP:CITE and WP:VER which have been provided in the article. Aeengath (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You cited in WP:POVEDITOR, most of the description does not fit to me or the issue, since the whole issue is not about bias and not even against neutrality, but accuracy ("I’m gonna leave it there obviously" -> ?? noone said you should add the birthname instead). On the other hand it's a fact what I said, "weasel" is as well unrelated (moreover, please don't alter my comments commenting in). Maleschreiber did not clarify the issue, he was thinking about something else and even asked the cause of the issue, why you say that? We are fine as well because I accepted your edit, I just said it won't be a general routine necessarily. It would be good if you would not continue this issue, just because you are not aware exactly the birth name and you feel to justify more your edit on the other page (again supposed (sur)name/ethnic origin is irrelevant to the issue). Overdiscussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC))
 * You cited in WP:POVEDITOR, most of the description does not fit to me or the issue, since the whole issue is not about bias and not even against neutrality, but accuracy ("I’m gonna leave it there obviously" -> ?? noone said you should add the birthname instead). On the other hand it's a fact what I said, "weasel" is as well unrelated (moreover, please don't alter my comments commenting in). Maleschreiber did not clarify the issue, he was thinking about something else and even asked the cause of the issue, why you say that? We are fine as well because I accepted your edit, I just said it won't be a general routine necessarily. It would be good if you would not continue this issue, just because you are not aware exactly the birth name and you feel to justify more your edit on the other page (again supposed (sur)name/ethnic origin is irrelevant to the issue). Overdiscussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC))