Talk:Sándor Petőfi/Archive 1

Selmecbánya
Regarding the recent reverts, I think this is clearly a situation where the ethnic affiliation of Petőfi is much more relevant than the current name of the place, simply because 99.9% of sources dealing with Petőfi will use the name Selmecbánya, not Banská Stiavnica (or one of "Schemnicium/Schemnitz/Selymeczbánya/Ssčawnica", for that matter), and I doubt it seriously that Wikipedia is the place to start changing this practice, if it needs to be changed at all. Similarly, I have nothing against Slovak persons' biographies using the Slovak name for a place in present-day Hungary. This is btw also in line with the consensus developed regarding Gdansk/Danzig, as outlined in Gdansk-Vote-Notice (see bullet points 3 and 4). KissL 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply: What you write is complete non-sense. The four names are the true names of that city at that time. Hungarian was neither the official language of the country, nor of the town (the town had German and Slovak inhabitants). The name you have inserted is the MODERN Hungarian name, completely out of place here (an anachronism). Errors you have seen in other articles in the wikipedia or other texts do not justify falsifying this name or any other name. Affiliations of the person are completely irrelevant for toponyms. And above all, the school-type is called lyceum in English and this is an English-language encyclopaedia. Juro 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So a change in ortography (the omission of a "y" which wasn't always used there anyway, and the replacement of "cz" with just "c" which was one of the systematic changes effected at the definition of the first official Hungarian ortographic rules) amounts to the name with the modern ortography being "completely out of place here (an anachronism)" and "falsifying this name". And of course "what I write is complete nonsense". I'm afraid I'm not putting up with this anymore. KissL 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The name is NOT the name used at that time, neither in terms of orthography, nor in terms of the language of the town (nevertheless, I have kept the CORRECT Hungarian name version in the text). Either you prove the opposite or the discussion is over. And the fact that you even keep changing "lyceum" to "líceum", which is no word in English is proof enough what your motivations are here. Juro 20:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * petofi was a hungarian person, country was hungarian kingdom, dominant language was hungarian und german, liceum/lyceum was a hungarian (german ?) institution, Selmec(z)bánya is OK and monstrum with 4 names is a nonsence. --Mt7 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is about a toponym, not about a person. Although the country was called Hungary, neither the language of the country, not the language of the town was Hungarian (how many times do I have to repeat this?). The fact that an article is about a Spanish person or a person that considers itself Spanish does not mean that all proper names in the arcticle will be in Spanish. The lyceum was anything but a Magyar langugage lyceum (either Latin, Slovak or most probably German), but even if it had been Magyar, the school-type existing in the whole monarchy is called lyceum in English (we also call all universities "universities" here). And whether you personally like the correct contemporary name is compeletely irrelevant. Juro 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * a lot of nonsense, my first source is en:wp and I see only Selmecbanya, Banska Stiavnica and Schemnitz END of DISCUSSION!!!--Mt7 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What??? You "see"??? I do not understand, why someone has not blocked you for lack of elementary inteligence months ago, and I do not refer to this article only. Either you provide one normal argument or the discussion will not "end". Juro 02:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no arguments, only nonsence, you demonstrate you idiocy daily. --Mt7 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Die Gefahr von Wiki-Lynchjustiz halte ich für sehr real. In der Wikipedia-Welt bestimmen jene die Wahrheit, die am stärksten besessen sind. Dahinter steckt der Narzissmus all dieser kleinen Jungs, die der Welt ihren Stempel aufdrücken wollen, ihre Initialen an die Mauer sprayen, aber gleichzeitig zu feige sind, ihr Gesicht zu zeigen see Der Standard So one demoniac is unfortunately juro. --Mt7 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I am waiting for the arguments for how contemporary names can be wrong. Second, I cannot comment on your crap, because except for me and e.g. Zello in this wikipedia (ad Komarno) and Tilman Berger in the German wikipedia (ad ungarische Slowaken), others do not know who you are, to what statements you are able and the sockpuppet of whom you are. And KissL of course takes advantage of this to threat with a block. Wikipedia par excellence. Juro 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * you are author of monster ungarische Slowaken, i see you are proud of it, congratulation. --Mt7 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the term used somewhere in the German wikipedia, where you failed to realise that German usage is different from Slovak usage. No I am definitely neither the author of the term, not of that article. You will have to invent a better lie, I am sorry. Juro 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * your theory of sockpuppet is a total nonsence, exact suit to behavior, lack of common-sense - and verbal slander --Mt7 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, Reti. A "theory". What other lies supplemented with misplaced quotes from "classics" will follow? Juro 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * next verbal slander: lies - congratulation again! --Mt7 17:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yoa are a liar: Term ungarische Slowaken from you: Dunajská Streda and Slowaken. --Mt7 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my...Dear Reti alias Mt7 (i.e. a "non"-sockpuppet), First, I am still waiting for arguments. Second, I really do not understand whether you are bored or why you are constantly talking about this here. You know very well that the articles I have mentioned are article in which YOU had problems with other users (not with ME) and the article(s) you cite are not the articles I have meant. Maybe you should provide a link to that correct article (in which btw you have basically a accused a professor of being stupid), if you are so proud of your crap. That would also show your "excellent" knowledge of German, just like your "excellent" knowledge of English and of Slovak (you are unable to write one grammatically correct sentence in any of those three languges, nevertheless your constantly try to "discuss" on language issues). Irrespective of this, you were wrong and are wrong, the two words are correct, but interestingly your ...goes so far, that you do not realise that even if 10 people tell you that - like always. And as for the two articles, I do not remember anymore whether the respective parts are from me, they use the words in a different context - population exchange between two countries, i.e. a content, in which everybody having brain understands what is meant and cannot confuse anything. Juro 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Personal attacks stop here. Discuss article content, not editor's ethnicities. Please. Khoikhoi 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(That is a misunderstanding, ethnicities have not been discussed here) Juro 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever, dont discuss other editors in this manner - period. Khoikhoi 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Barguzin
I've deleted the assumption that Petőfi fled to Barguzin, as it is a factoid, proven to be wrong, and even talking about it is degrading for Petőfi. Pumukli (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

sex life
Surprisingly, there is no section on Petofi's sexual life. Could this please be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.1.135 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Local names
Dear friends, I think that in this article (and also in other articles) the international rules of writing local names should be observed. It means that local names can be written in a language in which all text is written (in this case English), if this langauge has its own version of a given local name. If not, the actual local name in  the official language of country in which this place is situated, must be used.

For exmaple, the sentence:

"Sándor had to leave the lyceum he attended in Selmecbánya (Banská Štiavnica) in Slovakia." should be written in this form:

"Sándor had to leave the lyceum he attended in Banská Štiavnica (Hungarian: Selmecbánya) in Slovakia."

This is a neverending problem with articles conserning the history of the Kingdom of Hungary. It looks like an sign of arrogance from the side of Hungarian contributors. If they used a Hungarian form of a local name (on non-Hungarian territories) for which a Hungarian language has its traditional version in a Hungarian text, it is ok, but if they use Hungarian names for places on the territory of foreign states in English or French texts, it is a problem. Even for potential readers who are not able to find those places on a map.

The Slovak language has also its own terminology for many places in today Hungary, but in English I do not dare to write Miskovec (Slovak) but Miskolc (Hung.). I think that English version: "Michaels town" is not in use :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.188.146 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Local names 2nd time
You wrote "When the news of the revolution in Vienna reached them on the 15th... " and did not use a Magyar name for this city (Bécs), why the same principle can not be used in case of places in Slovakia or Romania?

The most used  and internationally most known name of Bratislava in 1848  was not Poszony but Pressburg   (in Slovak Presporok). If somebody write about historical Bratislava in English, he or she should write Pressburg but definitely not Poszony (see: Peace of Pressburg) for example....

Even a criterium of a historical authentic original toponomy was not kept in article about Petofi!

Cities in Slovakia till 20the century were more known in German versions of their names then Magyar... So, if somebody wants to be "international" in his or her writinig, he or she should use German names :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.188.146 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

it is an accept name convencion, see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, it is to use Pressburg. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Local names
Yes, Local name should be used in English form. If there is no English form, in an official language of a country in which the place is located. A non- Hungarian reader may not know that Kolosvar is a todaj Cluj- Napoca. The fact that Hungarina name for the city of Cluj Napoca is Kolozvar may be in brackets as an additional information. The Kingdom of Hungary was an multi-national state and there is no reason to prefere Hungarian names to Slovak, German and Romanian (till 1848 the official language was Latin and "languages of the county": Hungarian, Slovak, Croatian and German were up to 1820-30s regarded as equal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisw (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Slovak local names
Yes, there is no reason in the English text to use Hungarian names for cities in Slovakia. 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Janos Vitez

Should not be the name of the poem "Janos Vitez" translated better as "John the Hero" or "John the Knight"? 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Only slovak genesis
What about Igaz-e, hogy Petőfi édesapja szerb volt?? Is it not better to write: whose native language was rather Hungarian or magyarnak vallotta magát (without language). What is here a native language? First language, mother tongue? Did he speak with his wife Hungarian? Please a bit more assumption, less legends and fiction. --Mt7 21:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again - Élet és Irodalom and National Geographic Hungary - best sources for hungarian literature. --Mt7 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CITE them in the article, with exact refrences. Dahn 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So what if his mother spoke only Slovak? A man can speak several languages, so we can assume that his father spoke Hungarian, Serbian, and Slovak. The fact that his mother spoke only Slovak does not mean that his father was Slovak too, he simply learned to speak Slovak among other languages that he knew. PANONIAN   (talk)  16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From Élet és irodalom:

''Többször szót emeltem már ez ellen, most sem szabad tévedésben hagynunk a tájékozatlan olvasót. Petofinek semmi köze sem volt a szerbséghez. Petofi mindkét ágon szlovák származású. A szakirodalomban utoljára Kiss József (1923-1992) könyvében (Petofi-adattár, 3. k. 1992.) található Petofinek a legtüzetesebb és legpontosabb családfája. Jakus Lajos kutatásai nyomán 1685-ig tudunk visszatekinteni a költo oseire. A Nyitra megyei Vagyóc (Vadovce) a legrégibb hely, ahová a család apai ágának, a Petrovicsoknak eredete visszamutat. Az anyai ág pedig a Túróc megyei Necpál (Necpaly) községbe. Mind a két ág evangélikus, s ez is a szlovák (tót) származás bizonyítéka. Ha szerb lett volna bármelyik is, ortodox, görögkeleti lett volna.''

I said sometimes, I have now to inform the unknowing reader again. Petofi has nothing to do with Serbs. At both lines has poet a slovak genealogy. In scentic literarure has Jozsef Kiss (1923 - 1992) in his book (Petofi adattar, 1992) published the most complett and most exact genealogy of writer. Results of studies of Lajos Jakus testify this to year 1685. Last know place of father's ancestors is Vadovce in Nitra country. Mother's ancestors last place is Necpaly in Turiec. Both lines are lutheran, it is a argument for slovak ancestors too, if his father would be serb, religion is ortodox too. --Mt7 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If he had nothing with Serbs why this source (and some other sources that I have) claim that his father was Serb, Stevan Petrović: http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2006&mm=07&dd=31&nav_category=15&nav_id=206334&fs=1 Quote: "Otac mu je bio Srbin Stevan Petrović, a Šandorovo kršteno ime bilo je Aleksandar." This is in Serbian, but since you speak Slovak, I assume that you will be able to understand this sentence. And regarding Serbs, many Serbs lived in Slovakia too and many Serbs were Protestants (and they still are). And not to mention that Petrović is well known Serbian surname. PANONIAN   (talk)  16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, to conclude: what you quoted here is nothing else but opinion of one single author which confront with data from most other sources. PANONIAN   (talk)  16:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Pannonian, Vesti is not an argument again Élet és Irodalom and National Geographic Hungary. And what about genealogy from poet to year 1685 and to Vadovce in Nitra country!? Serbs lived in Slovakia, but not in Vadovce. --Mt7 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this genealogy is wrong or perhaps his father had both, Serb and Slovak roots. If we want to reach compromise here, we could mention both opinions about origin of his father, but it is not acceptable that you simply replace word Serb with word Slovak because one source that you saw claim this because other sources claim other things. PANONIAN   (talk)  16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise is not possible, for me is important, that english and hungarian ( I edited it too) have a correct version, the fiction about serbian origin of petofi's father, that is only about serbian sound of his name and my sources say serbian origin is an error - and sorry we write encyclopedia and not vesti. --Mt7 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise is not possible? I am sorry but then I will be forced to ask some of the administrators to block you. You clearly broke 3 revert rule here and your obvious intentions are to push your own POV which is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. PANONIAN  (talk)  16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is clear, you don't have arguments, it's not acceptable to bloch me, but in this case, we have only one truth. --Mt7 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no only one "truth". Job of Wikipedia is not to declare that one source is right and another wrong, but to present data from ALL sources. I repeat: the source that you presented is only a OPINION of one single author. I do not object that we include this opinion into article, but opinions of other authors should be included as well because "your" author is not a God to know everything. Regarding block, one user is not alowed to revert article more than 3 times in 24 hours, and you reverted it 4-5 times. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

hallo william, nice to see you. thanks you, that you make attempion to resolve this case. I find that mistake (father of poet petofi was not a serbian) and it is sure, that is only a mistake, and I can not discuss with Panonian about this without his good arguments. His argument and link von vesti is only a daily newspaper like englis The Sun, a serbian tabloid. My arguments are the hungarian National Geographic and hungarian Élet és Irodalom. Both very good arguments, Élet és Irodalom is a very good weekly literature magazin and hungarian sources are very good, even neutral, in question: petofi's father is serbian or slovak. Sometimes there is not only one truth, in this case is only one truth. please pannonian, write some arguments or write some good articles. And be not in shit. --Mt7 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand at all the policy of Wikipedia to present ALL possible sources and ALL possible theories about the subject. In Serbia, it is generally accepted that father of Petofi was a Serb. I never heard before that he was Slovak until you came here and said that. Since I never heard that before and since sources in Serbia present different theory, then your source obviously is not so relevant to determine what is "the only existing truth". I mean, the National Geographic is not a Holly Bible, thus what ever is written there is only opinion of the author of that specific article and who knows what sources this author used for his work. Regarding my sources, if you do not like that one, I have more of course:
 * http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/petofi.htm

Quote: "Sándor Petõfi was born in Kiskõrös, 110 km south of Budapest. His father, István (Stephanus) Petrovics, was a village butcher, innkeeper, and a Serb, whose family had assimilated with the majority population. Mária Hrúz, Petõfi 's mother, was a Slovak, whose knowledge of the Hungarian language was not especially good. However, the family used Hungarian at home."

I think it say it all. Now more:


 * http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?id=95281

(Same thing)


 * http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no160/144.html

Quote: "The name Petrovics was Serb (not Slovak)"


 * http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/poetica/stories/s936384.htm

(Same as previous sources)


 * http://www.languagehat.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1808

Quote: "And Hungary's great national poet, Sandor Petofi (Petőfi Sándor), was the son of a Serb father (named Petrovics) and a Slovak mother, although they did speak Hungarian at home."

How many sources more you want to see? Please say now that all they are wrong and that only your "Holly Bible" is the only truth and the only doctrine and that all other "false books" should be burned in fire. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry, I know the situation very good and I know, that many sources say father of petofi was serbian, but this is a MISTAKE and ERROR and nothing else, wikipedia is a encyclopedia and have to be EXACT and CORRECT. you don't speak hungarian, I ask in Hungarian board to say, what is truth. The hungarian boys are in that question neutral. see [] --Mt7 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to correct you: it is your source that claim that these sources are mistake and error, but we cannot know is your source itself an mistake or error, can we? What I repeated already is that Wikipedia is not place where we should claim what is right and what is wrong but where we should present different theories if there are such, are there are certainly different theories about this. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Panonian is right on this one, I've always heard that his mother was Slovak and his father Serbian. I will check out some more sources...K. Lastochka 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct answer is: His father had Serbian ancestors, but he himself was (spoke) already Slovak, but I am not going to participate in this debate. Juro 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate, Juro, so long as you stay calm and reasoned. :) I just checked some books I have, and they totally contradicted each other. One (biography of Petőfi by Enikő Molnár Basa) said his father was of Serbian ancestry but his family had lived in Hungary for several generations and they spoke both Slovak and Hungarian. Another book ("The Lawful Revolution", by István Deák) simply said Petőfi was of "purely Slovak origin". So go figure, there doesn't seem to be any scholarly consensus anywhere. Everyone seems to agree, though, that the family spoke Hungarian at home. K. Lastochka 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the sources that I presented here also claim that his father was Serb by origin, but that he was already assimilated into the majority of population (whether it be Slovak or Hungarian), so, yes, depending of the definition, we can claim that he was all 3, Serb, Slovak and Hungarian, but I really do not see a reason why user:Mt7 insist that we remove every mention of this theory about his Serb origin. If theory exist, we should mention it, especially because this theory is widely accepted in Serbia: in another words, almost everybody in Serbia "know" that his father was Serb by origin. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * important is the religion of Petofi's parents, both are lutheran, please see Religion in Serbia, it is a rule in hungary and probably in north-serbia - lutheran=slovak or hungarian with slovak ancestors, calvinist=hungarian, some others --Mt7 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I told you that there are many protestant Serbs too (even some of my own ancestors were Protestant Serbs). Protestantism among Serbs was very strong in the 19th century. Later, the descendants of many Protestant Serbs converted back to Orthodox Christianity, so today number of Protestant Serbs is smaller than in the 19th century, but even today they exist. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There were only two branches of Protestantism among Serbs, Sabbathers (subotari) and Nazarenes (bugeri), and nothing else. The present day situation is a little different. Bendeguz 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all right, my ancestors were Nazarenes indeed, but that does not mean that few Serbs could not become Lutheran too. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that is interesting, seems to point more toward the Slovak side of things... One thing, friends, is it really important what exact ethnicity Petőfi's parents were? It's pretty obvious that by the time little Sándor was born, they were a Hungarian family. Nationality and ethnicity get so confusing in central Europe...look at Kossuth, the greatest Hungarian patriot, he was of Slovak ancestry on both sides....but 100% Hungarian. Same with the great Hungarian pianist, Ferenc Liszt, he was actually German/Austrian, but again, 100% Hungarian. :) And I am not just being nationalist here, all these people, Kossuth, Petőfi and Liszt (and many others besides), all considered themselves Hungarian. So maybe this big controversy is a little bit pointless. :) K. Lastochka 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a "semi-secret" expedition of Hungarian researchers to Slovakia (I do not know any details), who specifically studied Petofi's genealogy there, so one of the sources - that one based on that "expedition" - must be correct, I do not know which one, i.e. it is not a question of opinion, but of citing the better source. But, actually. the texts you cite do not contradict each other much - the implication is that he had Serbian ancestors (the question is what the formulation "his father was of Serbian ancestry" means - directly himself or his ancestors??), but he himself already spoke Slovak. According to all Slovak sources going into details I remember, both of his parents were Slovak and his father had Serbian ancestors. And according one internet source I have read months ago (maybe it is among Mt7's links) they explicitely spoke Slovak at home (I cannot imagine, why they as Slavs should speak Hungarian, even if the father was Serbian). Also, note that Serbs settled in Slovakia exclusively and as early as in the 16th (maybe also 17th century), when they fled from the Ottoman-occupied terriroty in the south, and the Serbian families in his region were no exception. By the way, children in Slovakia have to learn Petofi for the matura as a Hungarian author, his Slovak roots are not or barely mentioned, so even for Slovaks, this is rather an academic question. As for the religion: I would not rely on that much, because it can happen that someone has parents with two religions and thus "switches" the religion, for example.Juro 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about religion--it's usually a pretty flimsy indicator of nationality. But where have you heard that the Petrovics/Petofi family spoke exclusively Slovak at home?? Everything I have read says they spoke Hungarian, which doesn't surprise me--Slavic ancestry notwithstanding, they were, by the time of Sandor's birth, a Hungarian family. K. Lastochka 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt hear either before about Petőfi being Slovak... This is another product of slovak extremists. Petrovic was always a Serb name anyways. But all in all lets just state what the truth was: Petőfi was hungarian as per nationatily, so in his heart. Aswell, to start his biography with a "Only Slovak genesis" title... and to talk only about his Slovak relatives... Thanks for the contribution, but hey, he was one of the most known Hungarians ever, and his biography should reflect the truth, and not an extremist idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.130.189 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I thing, there cannot be one truth... because serbs will always say "it was serb" slovak "it was slovak" and hungarian will say "it was hungarian".... i believe there is many scientific search, that wxplains all of these theories........ but notice: on Petofi´s grave is written "Alexander Petrovič" ....Č... maybe it proofs nothing..... but maybe.... 11:20, 25. April 2010 (UTC)

Segesvar in Hungary
I see Hubartimus has to go to ground kurs of history Transylvania was only 1867-1918 part of Hungary. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania was always under Hungarian rule, because the majority of its Diets/parliaments were Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.14.60 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Name
Some editors keep on changing his birth name to Alexander, referring to the parish register which lists him as Alexander. The birth certificate does not reflect someone's real name, as in the 19th century all parish registers were kept in Latin. (My grandpa once showed me the baptismal certificates of my great-grandparents and their parents and all of them were mentioned by Latin names, even though they were mostly either Hungarians, or Poles, or somewhere in-between.) As you can clearly see, this record has Latinized names even in those cases where the person, judging by his last name, was clearly Hungarian (e.g. Paulus Szabó instead of Szabó Pál, which must have been his real name. Szabó is one of the most common Hungarian surnames).

If you insist that he was actually called Alexander, because this church register says so, you must also accept that his father was called Stephanus in everyday life, which would imply that he actually spoke Latin as his native tongue, which is clearly absurd.

– Alensha   talk  15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but it his name is in in written form Alexander and give first his name as Alexander, please do not change it once more, if you don't have a source. thanks you --Mt7 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

...but what Alensha just said is exactly the point: the official language back then was Latin, so birth certificates were written with Latinized versions of people's actual names. Franz Liszt's birth certificate, for example, says "Franciscus Liszt" but I don't see anyone running off to rename him. :) Back then people translated their first names whenever they felt like it. K. Lásztocska 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please a statement why has hungarian wp another view? --Mt7 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * what about His lutheran record, written in Latin, gives his name as Alexander Petrovics. --Mt7 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this. :) (Alensha and Lásztocska are right, just in case I wasn't clear.) KissL 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mt7, you're still missing the point.....everyone's name was written in Latin, regardless of what his parents actually named him. Ferenc becomes Franciscus, Sándor becomes Alexander, Lajos becomes Ludovic (or something like that??) and on et cetera. If you want to go rename everyone to their "official" Latin name, have fun. :) K. Lásztocska 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

you statement born Sándor Petrovics is not 100% true There was no Slovakia at that time --152.66.214.110 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) latin lutheran record
 * 2)  kiskoros was at this time a slovak town
 * 1)  his mother was 100 % slovak and father 100 % slovak genesis
 * 2)  lutheran church and pastors in kiskoros only slovak
 * 3)  hungarian was at this time not the official language of country
 * 4)  if hungary at this time would be hungarian, why revolution '48. (please make article about '48 better - a disaster - and do not quarrel about this matter)

and statement His lutheran record, written in Latin, gives his name as Alexander Petrovics is 1000 % correct. an this is wikipedia, not a accumulation of guesswork --Mt7 18:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're STILL missing the point! What we were saying about why the birth certificate was in Latin was precisely BECAUSE Hungarian was not the official language at the time! It doesn't mean parents couldn't give their son a Hungarian name. (as for the 48 article, you're absolutely right it's a disaster...we'll start on it in a few weeks once some of our important contributors come back from de facto wikibreak.)K. Lásztocska 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So why is Alexander Petrovics a redlink? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gene Nygaard (talk • contribs) 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Sándor Petőfi declared himself hngarian, and he fought in '48 -among others- aganist the slowakian. So, there's no reason to use Alexander Petrovics. (That is similar to the hungarian-slowakian village names.) --141.13.244.241 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alensha, Lásztocska and KissL, etc.: in that time it was customary to translate names to Latin in birth certificates, and Alexander is the Latin translation of Sándor. This does not indicate that he was actually called Alexander, since then (as Alensha pointed out) his father was called Stephanus. If somebody claims that his real name was actually Alexander, then a proof is needed. --Koertefa 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references
Can anyone explain why sourced info on his parents and the town he was born in was removed?Wladthemlat (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Petőfi's mother
The claim that Petőfi’s mother could not speak Hungarian is very suspicious and such a strong statement needs a solid proof. The source given for this information is not adequate, since it only mentions this in a half sentence without further information and reference. Margis’ book, “Danube”, is not about Petőfi at all and it is not a scientific work, it is simply a travel book. It should not be used as the main reference for such a radical statement that the mother of one of Hungary’s national poets could not speak Hungarian. The books of Anton Nyerges and Gyula Illyés are, however, dedicated to Petőfi, therefore, they are much more adequate references. They both claim that Mária Hrúz did speak Hungarian.

Moreover, the statement that Petőfi’s mother couldn’t speak Hungarian is dubious for several reasons: (1) Petőfi himself wrote his poems in perfect, virtuous Hungarian, so it is unlikely that his mother tongue was not Hungarian. (2) Of course, it is still an option that he was bilingual and spoke with his mother in another language. But, it is quite implausible, since he never mentioned this. Petőfi has several poems about his family and he talked about warm discussions, but never mentioned that these discussions would have been in another languange, e.g., Slovakian. It is clear from his poems that he deeply loved both of his parents, so stating that he "forgot" to mention that he spoke with his mother in another language is questionable. Additionally, (3) the family was not originally from Kiskőrös. Petőfi's parents first met in Maglód and they only moved to Kiskőrös a year before Petőfi’s birth. Later they first moved to Szabadszállás, then to Kiskunfélegyháza. So how could she manage to live in the middle of Hungary without actually speaking Hungarian?

For the record: I do not doubt that Mária Hrúz had Slovak roots and she might speak Slovakian as her first languange, but I think that the claim that she couldn't speak Hungarian is hardly believable (and contradicts several major biographies). -- Koertefa (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Place of Death
There were some modifications with respect to the death place of Petőfi. I think that because of the April Laws, which were signed by Emperor Ferdinand on 11 April 1848 in Pozsony, Transylvania and Hungary were united. Transylvania was only separated from Hungary after the failure of the revolution, in the Bach era. Therefore, Segesvár was part of the Kingdom of Hungary at the (presumed) time of Petőfi's death. -- Koertefa (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The April Laws were signed although Austria denied the validity of the laws after the revolution was defeated (1849), Hungary continued to insist on their legality. Under the 1867 Ausgleich (Compromise), Hungary received full internal autonomy. link. Emperor Ferdinand I abdicated in December 1848 and until 1867 (Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867) this laws were not applied. Sándor Petőfi died in 1849 when this laws were not valid. Adrian (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sándor Petőfi died in 1849 when this laws were not valid." This is denied by your own comment Iadrian yu. You write " Austria denied the validity of the laws after the revolution was defeated" (1849). Petőfi died before the revolution was defeated thus Hungary and Transylvania were unified and a single country in that time. Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, Hungary and Transylvania were united from 11 April 1848 till December 1848. From the article, Sandor died in July 1849. How can Transylvania be a part of Hungary in July, 1849? Also his exact time of death isn`t crystal clear to say that he died those few months. This source states that he died in Siberia . Adrian (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does the date "December 1848" come from? Regarding Siberia: you are right that there are alternative theories concerning Petőfi's death and the most plausible of them claims that he died in Siberia instead of the Battle of Segesvár. However, as I know, most of the historians do not accept this theory, so we should keep Segesvár as his (presumed) place of death in the main article. Nonetheless, I am going to extend the article with a subsection which present this alternative theory of Petőfi's death, as well (viz., the one that you have mentioned, thanks for pointing that out). -- Koertefa (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that this laws were not valid after the abdication of Emperor Ferdinand I in December, but I was apparently wrong, those laws became invalid in March 1849. Adrian (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The laws were apparently revoked in March 1849, thus it should be Transylvania. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * During the revolution only the Hungarian Parliament had power to revoke past decisions. Hobartimus (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it is clear that the Hungarian Parliament would`t revoke this decision but it wasn`t up to them. Then this territory was administrated by the Austrian Empire. Until 1867 (Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867) Transylvania wasn`t a part of Hungary again (as Wladthemlat pointed out). The correct place of death should be The Grand Principality of Transylvania, Austrian Empire. Adrian (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at the Battle of Segesvár article, under location it is Segesvár, Transylvania (31 July 1849). Adrian (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * During the Revolution Hungary and Transylvania was the same entity as it was already explained. It can be argued that this is true after as well but under illegal occupation, but that question doesn't even come up here. This is because the Battle of Segesvár was during the revolution and thus Transylvania wasn't under separate administration at the time. Hobartimus (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1856?
I thought the 'Siberian version' is a fringe theory about his death. It is not? Britannica states thatFakirbakir (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This alternative theory about his death is mentioned in the "Death" section of the article . Do you think that we should give some more emphasis to this theory, for example, by giving both dates in the "death_date" and "death_place" fields? I am not against it, but we should check how widely accepted this new theory is. But, since Encyclopedia Britannica has accepted this alternative theory, we should probably also give some more emphasis to it (e.g., by mentioning it in the lead). Koertefa (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the 'Britannica theory' is about the 'Barguzin' story. I hope it is not. We should find and check the Hungarian sources about the Russian records. Perhaps we do not have to emphasize it yet, and I concur we need to check how widely it is accepted.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. Koertefa (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given name
About this recent edit. I believe that his birth_name is indeed Alexander Petrovics according to this source. Can you please take a look at this? Adrian (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. As I know Petőfi published his first works under the name Sándor Petrovics (not Alexander Petrovics). His first poem "A borozó" (The Wine Drinker) was published in Athenaeum under the name Sándor Petrovics (in 1842). Some of his letters written as a student (e.g., to József Bajza and Szeberényi Lajos) remained and he signed them as Sándor Petrovics. Though it is an English translation, here is a source. In order to prove that he did use Alexander as his given name, an original non-Latin document would be needed. -- Koertefa 16 August 2011


 * Of course, I agree, he did`t user the Slovak/Serbian version but according to the reference his birth name is Alexander Petrovics. I am suggesting that maybe we could reinsert in the infobox this line: birth_name = Alexander Petrovics, with this link as a reference ? Adrian (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be misleading. The source that you cited claims that "Sándor Petőfi had been born Alexander Petrovics, a Serbian name, and his earliest poems were published before he decided to Magyarise it." The facts are that his birth certificate contains "Alexander Petrovics", but it is in Latin and calls his father "Stephanus Petrovics". Moreover, in contrary to the source, his earliest poems were published under the name "Sándor Petrovics" (not under "Alexander Petrovics"). It is out of question that his original family name was "Petrovics", but as I know, despite his Slavic ancestry, his father thought of himself as a Hungarian and named his son "Sándor". This is in line with the majority of Petőfi’s biographies  . Therefore, stating that his birth name was "Alexander Petrovics" would be inaccurate. -- Koertefa (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Adrian (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The misleading claim that Sándor Petőfi's bithname was "Alexander Petrovics" was added again. Please, read the conversation above before adding it. The birth certificate which can also be seen in this article is in Latin and contains tanslated names, it does not indicate that his "real" name was "Alexander" (unless his father's real name was "Stephanus"). The added sources use weasel talk and try to hide this Latin translation. This one: even got further and wrote his name with "č", which is clearly a lie. It can be seen from the photo that even in his birth certificate his name is written with "cs". See the above discussion regarding the other reference (which is also misleading). And please note: nobody wants to hide Petőfi's Slovak or Serb ancestry: it is even mentioned in the lead (even though it is not usual for Wikipedia articles) and these ancestries are also clearly stated in the first paragraph describing his early life. If somebody wants to prove that he indeed used "Alexander" as his first name (which I strongly doubt), then it should be done via a reference to a non-Latin contemporary (from the 19th century) document, since in Latin ones the names are translated, so they do not prove such statements. Koertefa (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your genealogic research is interesting, so I added only birthname Petrovics.--Omen1229 (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead already contains the claim that "He had Serb or Slovak ancestry and his original family name was Petrovics, which he later changed to Petőfi". Since you have also added the name "Petrovics" right after "Sándor Petőfi", it is stated twice now, which makes the lead a bit redundant. One of the occurrences of "Petrovics" should be removed from the abstract... Koertefa (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Heritage
Petefi's father was surely a Serb. His given name - Aleksandar Petrovic is the most common name in Serbia. Aleksandar is the most common first name,and Petrovic ( the son of Petar - Peter) is the most common last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.144.97 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

50 Pengo banknote
Is it worth mentioning that Sandor Petofi was featured on the 50 Pengo banknote (the Hungarian unit of currency in use before the Forint)? He was also on the 10 Forint note. Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.247.214 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sándor Petőfi. 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/20050124123130/http://www.hhrf.org/szabadujsag/2004/23/petofi.htm to http://www.hhrf.org/szabadujsag/2004/23/petofi.htm

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) 23:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sándor Petőfi. 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/20110517113943/http://www.es.hu/pd/display.asp?channel=PARATLAN0313&article=2003-0331-1238-12QKRS to http://www.es.hu/pd/display.asp?channel=PARATLAN0313&article=2003-0331-1238-12QKRS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330211708/http://budapestguide.uw.hu/Petofi.htm to http://budapestguide.uw.hu/Petofi.htm

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) 07:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Slovaks, Serbs
I am not a fan of the Habsburgs at all but there is no proof they wanted to settle these people here to harm Hungarians. This is an encyclopedia, ok? Kapeter77 (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems a sourced content, is it in the source that you relocated as well?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR There is no proof for it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapeter77 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kapeter77, please answer my question, is in the source that you relocated or not? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR I couldn't find a source for it... but anyway there cannot be any good source because it is not a FACT. After the Turkish rule half the country was empty also the landlords needed people. So it's not only because of the Habsburgs. This should be a factual site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapeter77 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kapeter77, I see your argumentation, but we have to stick as well to the technical part of WP somehow. You relocated this source " " that was after the sentence, could you verify that the stuff you removed is not part of this source?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR Remove the sentence TOGETHER with this 'source'... I cannot see what is the problem. This sourse is not reliable. Kapeter77 (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kapeter77, could you tell me why it is not reliable?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Kapeter77 A book is NOT A PROOF! I know history... but if u insist on, keep this information in... I do not know why is it so important to you... —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kapeter77, I never said that just a book would be a "proof", and did not refer any "personal knowledge of history", neither any possible "personal importance", I just raised a legitimate question inside the framework of Wikipedia.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR I cannot follow you... I do not understand oyur problem... but just let that informaiton in if you wantKapeter77 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kapeter77, although I think I am accuarate enough...could you prove that the source does not quailify as an RS (initially this would be the first question before entering to further details.)(KIENGIR (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR I can't (though I have never heard about the author) but this info is not reliable. Kapeter77 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, however I don't agree entirely that the info would not be reliable, we may involve Wikiproject Hungary in case for further input.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR I AM SURE,I know history quite well and this is a lexicon, so only fix infomration. But check it elsewhere if you want... Kapeter77 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC))