Talk:Stephen Bocskai

Untitled
Bocskai and Bocskay are equally valid, but to call him Stephen is not. 1.He signed his documents as Stephanus or István Bocskai. 2.The Stephan not Stephen was the German version. The Encyclopædia Britannica identifys him as István Bocskay http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9080351/Istvan-Bocskay 3. The most common version is István Bocskay: according to Google Results 1 - 50 of about 88,300 for istván bocskay. (0.15 seconds), the same test results in : Results 1 - 50 of about 978 for stephen bocskay. (0.14 seconds) Transylvanus 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting names to present-day Romanian versions as they weren't used officially in 17th century Transylvania. And the territory of Royal Hungary was only partly the same as Slovakia, for example the site of the first battle, Álmosd is situated in present-day Hungary. Zello 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See name conventions as per WP:NAME, all edits are rv to present-day name. --Heavypiece 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".

According to the above citation from WP:NAME (geographical names section) the usage of historical names is approved when speaking about the past. Zello 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is approved but you also have to have first the now-a-days name. --Heavypiece 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * :) also you might find this helpful WP:NCGN --Heavypiece 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such rule. Only that: "In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name". That means that in the first occurence of Kolozsvár we should mention in parenthesis Cluj-Napoca to identify the city. Zello 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but it is probably better to do too often than too rarely we'll put at every name--Heavypiece 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's better for you... Zello 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strange
It is very strange that somebody wants to make Slovak even Stephen Bocskay as neither in Transylvania (where he was born and his family comes from) there live Slovaks ,nor have there been lived there at any time in the history. The source saying Stephen Bocskay was Slovak also says about a lot of other bilge as well:
 * For instance:(at strana 568) "Svatopluk died shortly before the Magyar Invasion of 896, an event that heralded the end of the Great Moravian Empire, and a significant break in Czech and Slovak history.........The Slavs to the west of the River Morava (i.e. the Czech) swore allegiance to the Frankish Emperor, Arnulf; while those to the east (i.e. the Slovaks) found themselves under the yoke of the Magyars."

So that the sentence saying Stephen Bocskay was Slovak needs to be deleted together with the tampered refernce, by which it is backed up unless we want to bamboozle our readers...

Also, given that Wladthemlat had not interested in editing the article even before I started to edit it that suggets me that I am still followed around by him, despite the fact that I have asked him several times to avoid my environment. Not to mention that I strongly doubt that Wladthemlat would be unaware of the ethnic composition of Transylvania regarding how many Slovaks live and/or lived there. However, he accepted what the source says without any maintenance Hardly surprising, he has no interest in improving Wikipedia, and notwithstanding the fact that he adjusted the notch about his command of English at a near native level on his user page, there is no only one article on Wikipedia that would have either been created ,or significantly improved by him. And his entire edit history does not contain anything else than edit warring over Hungarian related contents with Hungarian users.--Nmate (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the source is indeed unreliable, but for none of the above but simply because it is not an expert publication. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)