Talk:Paul Robert Magocsi

Paul Robert Magocsi
Edit warring to insert undocumented, uncited information is against general wiki policy. As well you are engaging in WP:OWN. Though the surname may be Hungarian in origin, you need proof of that other than knowing Magocs is a place in Hungary. As well, he is American, and I'm assuming dual citizen Canadian now, but he is not Hungarian. Please cease from inserting fabricated information into articles.--Львівське (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Our reverts are one for one and you are the one being uncivil with accusations of vandalism. Tag the material as in need of a reference.  Your objection seems nationalistic to say the least.μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection is that there is no citation, nothing more. Tagging a Ukrainian historian from New Jersey as "a Hungarian" seems nationalistic on your part, no? I'll ask him himself on Tuesday to clear this up, k?--Львівське (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds excellent. BTW I agree that Hungarian seems inappropriate since it is apparently applied to Hungarian nationals, which he is obvious not.μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go out on a limb here, but he is Rusyn, right? Transcarpathia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for some time; perhaps the name is a holdover from that and he is a Rusyn whose family was from Hungary, though not Magyar or Hungarian nationals by any means?--Львівське (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that "descent" categories require sourcing. If you have a reliable biographic source that states such descent, please add the fact to the article with a citation before adding the category to the article. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't just assert this, provide me the link to the policy.μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't read the category policies, why are you adding categories? It's here: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Yworo (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have told Lvivske that I am happy to wait for Magocsi's own opinion on the subject. But The claim was made "that 'descent' categories require sourcing".  I don't see that exact claim made on the page linked to.  This discussion has grown to general for this page so I am moving iot to the article's talk page please respond there.μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All categories require sourcing. I quoted the applicable part of the policy just above: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Yworo (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

.

From my [medeis] talk page:
 * You have to have a source that explicitly states that the subject is connected to this family. You cannot simply assume it. Yworo (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the last edit. It simply explains the origin of the name.


 * I did. The article is not about the name. Unless the name is connected to the subject, it's off-topic. Create the article Mágocsy if you like and add a see also to Paul Robert Magocsi. Magocsi wrote both entries in the book; if he'd wanted to connect himself to the Hungarian family, he had every opportunity to do so. The fact that he didn't suggests that he either isn't connected or prefers not to publish the connection. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was Pop who wrote the entry on Magocsi and on the Mágocsy name. Any guess at motivations is a guess. But the encyclopedia in question is hardly a vanity publication. What do you think would be required, that Magocsi say, in case anyone wonders, his name is his name?

Please do not revert the last edit (Historically, the Mágocsy (Hungarian) family were landed gentry with extensive holdings in Rusyn-inhabited Subcarpathia and neighboring territory.) without seriously considering it. It does nothing other than explain the origin of the name. The comment would be relevant for the origin of the name even if Magocsi were adopted.

Please address this. (1) Is there no way you can conceive of neutrally expressing the provenance of the Magocsi name in this article? (2) If not, and I were to create a separate article, would you oppose or support a link to that article from this one? (3) Have you taken up your offer to have Magocsi himself comment?μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, there is a way. With a source that explicitly makes the connection. So far, there isn't one. Yworo (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Explicitly makes what connection? The statement is that Mágocsy is the name of a historical Hungarian family.  How is that not explicitly supported?  I am not interested in hearing your opposition repeated.  I want your fully explicit argument as to what connection you think is necessary.


 * Please answer all three of my questions above. I numbered them for you.  You offered to query Magocsi.  Was that not in good faith?  You suggested creating a Magocsy article.  Do you oppose a link on this page to such an article?  Was that suggestion in good faith?  So far as I can tell, you are opposed in advance to anything that explains that the name Magocsy, which is not Rusyn, is Hungarian.  Your suspicion that Magocsi would not want to publish his possible Hungarian heritage only makes sense to me in an anti-Hungarian light.  Are you willing to work toward consensus, or to say what you would consider a neutral statement?  Repeated immediate reversion is not consensus building.  You can note that I both waited for you to respond [this was Lviske, not Yworo's offer - medeis] and did not edit the article until I had a further source - one which you find reliable when it says he Rusyn, but not reliable when it says the name is Hungarian.  Please tell me how I can work with you.μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get around to it (today wasn't good timing) but I don't see why this argument is even happening. It's WP:OR through and through. It just seems so silly to get riled up over this IMO.--Львівське (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, what is OR? The statement is copied almost verbtim from the same source which Yworo uses to claim that Magocsi is mysteriously part Rusyn, and part something secret.  I would appreciate an actual explanation of why saying that the name Mágocsy has a Hungarian history is objectionable.  Simply reverting the addition of a neutrally stated verifiable fact, in the face of requests for explanation and attempts at consensus is edit warring.  I put the same questions to you, Lvivske.  What is objectionable about saying that the name is that of a landholding Hungarian family, how would you reflect the statement yourself, and would you oppose a link to it in this article if I were to create a separate article for Mágocsy? Please answer me explicitly.μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's OR to directly state or to imply that there is any connection between Magocsi and the name or family Mágocsy without a source that explicitly states that there is such a connection. Inserting that material in this article implies a connection. You have no source that states that even the names are related, much less the specific family connection you are implying by inserting the material here. You are assuming a connection and engaging in synthesis - putting two facts together without a source that explicitly states the connection. Yworo (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's patently absurd to assert that Magocsi is not Magocsy. They are simply alternative spellings: "Mágócsy (írták Magócsi, Magocsy alakban is)".  To assert that they are separate creations is what requires proof.  I will restore the derivation of the name itself.  You have still not answered whether you would object to a link from this article to an article on the historical family.μηδείς (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the connection between Bob's family and the Hungarian gentry family of the same surname?--Львівське (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The question doesn't make sense. Are you asking whether the name is related to the name?  Do you want proof that Magocsi's relatives didn't at some point ten generations back change their last name?  The relevant comment simply provides the provenance of the name itself.  It doesn't assert that at no point in history was there a name change or an adoption.


 * A statement such as: "The surname Magocsi is a variant of Magocsy, a name held by an historically notable Hungarian family of landed gentry with holdings in Rusyn-occupied and other areas of Subcarpatia." would be perfectly neutral, notable, and verifiable.μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * General observations about names belong in surname articles. Adding observations about names of individuals in that individual's article will require a source specific to that individual. The source is sufficient for adding Magocsi to the Mágocsy article along with a link to this article. I will take care of that. Yworo (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, you are attempting to "connect the dots" without sources. You did not have sourcing that Magocsi was an alternate spelling of Mágocsy (which you have now provided, though I can't read it, I'll take your word for it). You still do not have sourcing connecting Paul Magocsi to the Hungarian family, because there is no evidence that that is the only family which bore the name. When sources are missing such that we are playing "connect the dots", that's original research or synthesis. It seems that it's so "obvious" to you that you don't see how editors for whom it is not obvious see it. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hungarian article simply says that Magocsy is also written Magocsi.

Do you object, Yworo, to the simple statement that Magocsi is a Hungarian name? Will you object to a mere "see also" link from this article to one on the Magocsy family? I am dismayed but what seems like a "keep any reference to Hungarian in any form out of the article" POV. My basic concern is to inform those readers who are interested that the name Magocsi is of Hungarian provenance. Am am not particularly concerned with what form such a statement takes.

Any progress, Lvivske, on comment from the man himself?μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object, because you haven't establiished that it's only an Hungarian name, nor have you established any connection with the subject to the Hungarian family bearing that name. I'm not sure what you expect to gain by having somebody contact the subject, we only use published sources. What he might say may be interesting, but it can't be used in the article. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, like, if you go to say, George Bush's article, you don't see See Also: Bush (surname). Like you said, it involves synthesis to make such connections. --Львівське (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation &c
It would be useful to have details about the American English and Hungarian pronunciations of "Magocsi"; also «What is the connection between Bob's family and the Hungarian gentry family of the same surname» in earlier discussion makes me think he could be known as "Bob Magocsi" rather than "Paul Magocsi".--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)