Talk:Miklós Zrínyi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name spelling

FWIW, I've moved the page to the Croatian spelling because there's not much reason to default to the Hungarian one - both are pretty alien to English, and Zrinskis were primarily a Croatian people (evidenced by statements made in the article itself before anyone even edited the EB1911 version). --Shallot 23:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uh. Now, some questions:

• what was their mother tongue?

Actually I recall to have read that his mother tounge was Dalmatian.

• where were they born? what language people did speak there?
• how did they called themselves?
• how the world call them (with the memorable exception of Croatians)?
• what was in the original 1911 article? what was its title? how did well-respected(?) ecyclopedists called them?

Seems pretty weird to me that you croatian people slowly changed the name of the subjects, their nationality, and finally retitled the article. Not to mention that english wikipedia should use english names, which happen to be the one found in Britannica, which is, accidentally, Zrínyi.

I'm off to holiday now, but till then I wanted to note that. Non-croatian (and non-hungarian, obviously) comments are welcome, too! Thanks for listening. --grin ✎ 23:37, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

From what I read, the grandfather's parents were both Croats, and the grandson's father was Croat while his mother was Magyar. The grandfather's famous battle was fought with two thousand of his subordinates who were Croats, and the grandson was a poet who wrote both in Croatian and in Hungarian. Both were bans of Croatia coming from a Croatian noble family, one split off from the Šubićs because they were undermining the authority of the king of Hungary. In fact, a man from the same family participated in a conspiracy to overthrow Hungarian rule over Croatia even after the second Nikola was gone (can't remember if Petar was his son, grandson or what). Therefore I don't really see any reason for them to be considered primarily Hungarian. EB 1911 was written while the Kingdom of Hungary still existed so it's rather expected that it would prefer the Magyar title. --Shallot 08:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are two persons with the same name. From what I've learned by checking around the great-grandfather should be considered Croatian, since both his parents were so, he talked croatian, etc.

However the great-grandson was definitely Hungarian. First, the family was marrying Hungarian nobles, as you've mentioned. (And from then on they became Hungarian nobles, linked to Francis II Rákóczi and beyond [while the Subic family seem to have done the same, becaming the Hungarian noble family Frangepán].)

Err, you mean Frankopan, the family that owned estates on Krk? No less Croatian than any others in the vicinity? :) --Shallot 15:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Errr, the same way like the grandfather was given huge estates in Hugary, by King Ferdinand? :)Szlevi 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then he was raised by Péter Pázmány, who was a Hungarian noble. He was fluent in both Croatian and Hungarian [and latin and italian and german], but as you may know he was among the first poets to use Hungarian language as the language of literary texts, used and advised to use Hungarian among the Hungarian nobles who often couldn't read or write. His friends were mostly Hunagrian politicians, poets and writers. On the political side he supported Hungary as a whole (containing Croatia) as far as I know, and it sounds logical that he supported Croatian [and Hungarian] rights against the Austrian empire since that was he was mainly against, apart from the Turkish empire.

Yeah, I agree with the literary observations, he deserves a place among the Hungarian poets because of his. But don't you think that it's a bit strange that the same EB1911 which calls Zrinski Zrinyi (and Krk Veglia, and Korčula Curzola, and ...) says this about him (copy&paste from this article, unchanged compared to e.g. [1]):

In 1646 he distinguished himself in the Turkish war. At the coronation of Ferdinand IV he carried the sword of state, and was made ban and captain-general of Croatia. In this double capacity he presided over many Croatian diets, always strenuously defending the political rights of the Croats and steadfastly maintaining that as regarded Hungary they were to be looked upon not as panes annexae but as a regnum.

Panes annexae would be annexed lands I think, while regnum would be kingdom. Sounds suspiciously pro-Croatian for a primarily Hungarian noble, don't you think? :) He also married a woman named Drašković (spelled Draskovics or Draskoy in Hungarian, too), from the Croatian noble family of the same name (owners of Trakošćan/Trakostyan), so he must have made friends with not only the ethnic Hungarian nobility. On the same note, I googled a bit and found a site called worldroots.com that says that one of the women from the Nadasdy family married into the Drašković family, and then one of her daughters married into the Szechenyi, and another into the Palffy families. At the same time there was a daughter of Eszterhazy marrying with the Pallfys. All of those families with Hungarian names have given bans of Croatia, but none of them have been remembered with relation to Croatia quite so overtly as the Zrinyis were, both in the local-patriotic history books and in the rusty old Britannica, apparently. This can't be without reason. --Shallot 15:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(On a side note, a Nadasdy was a conspirator in 1671 and was put to death together with a Zrinski and a Frankopan, and Tat(t?)enbach and Rakoczy and Tökölyi were also involved. The families from various crown lands intermingled, but you can always tell where each of them came from. --Shallot)

(His brother on the other hand was supported everything what was Croatian, and he used mainly Croatian language for his literary works, and I consider him a Croatian, as well as probably you do.)

If you're talking about Peter (son of Gyorgy, brother of Miklos) then yes, certainly - and, let me add this here, he was probably the main reason Croatians think the grandson was mostly Croatian even though he loudly voiced his love towards Hungary in every single piece he wrote during his life - see my notes below about Peter's manipulative Croatian translations... ;)Szlevi 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to keep title of grandfather croatian and revert great-grandson to english/hungarian spelling, both maintaining redirects from the other language. I can expand the article (of great-gandson) using Hungarian references, but it would look rather stupid to talk about his all-Hungarian literature while he have Croatian title. If it is acceptable this way either you can move it back, or I can do it.

Thank you, --grin ✎ 13:19, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it would look stupid to talk about his Hungarian literature under the name that isn't literally Hungarian. You can make a very graceful transition to such content by providing a nice elaboration on how he came to write Hungarian poetry (the article merely hints at it now) and state clearly how he was known as Miklos Zrinyi because that is the rendering native to his Hungarian colleagues and friends and one that was used in the Kingdom of Hungary's official communication. --Shallot 15:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It would certainly look silly, let alone you would harshly ignore Zrinyi's own stance on this. That's one thing that if you check any reference of the world, the grandson is listed with his Hungarian name, under Hungarian literature - because he published his works in Hungarian including his military essays - but he voiced his loyalty to Hungary, the Kingdom of Hungary - including Croatia, of course - all the time. Besides the references and the fact that he was Hungarian by his mother and that he was a strong supporter of the Hungarian Kingdom, opposing Austria and the Ottomans, he also always stated his Hungarian feelings, openly and consistently - instead of longer explanation here's a quote from "Az török Áfium ellen való orvosság" ("The remedy against that Turkish Opium"): "Elfussunk? nincs hová, sohun másutt Magyarországot meg nem találjuk, senki a maga országából barátságunkért ki nem mégyen, hogy minket helyheztessen belé. A mi nemes szabadságunk ez ég alatt sohun nincs, hanem Pannóniában. Hic nobis vel vincendum, vel moriendum est!” [latin, he's paraphrasing Livius here]." My shallow translation: "Shall we run? There's no place. Nowhere else we can find Hungary, nobody would leave his country for our friendship, just to put us there. Our noble freedom under this sky doesn't exist anywhere else, only in Pannonia [latin name of Hungary, given by Roman Empire]. You must win or die here!" It's safe to say it much more sounds like a Hungarian noble, isn't it? It would be very rude to ignore his feelings and call him mainly Croatian, just to please some purist here... And it was just one example... I strongly believe it would be nonsense to list him under Croatian name, to not to revert to Miklos Zrinyi - there's no better evidence for his feelings than his own words. To be honest I think the problem Coratians have here with the grandson was 'born in translation': the grandson's literature work was - mostly, if I'm notmistaken - translated and published in Croatian by Peter Zrinyi/Petar Zrisnki, his brother (also a Croatian Ban). Peter always maintained a staunch pro-Croatian stance, reflected everywhere in his translations, even to such extremes that in the bilinguical publication of "Adriai tengernek Syrenaia"/"Adrianskoga mora Syrena" he consistently replaced every 'Hungarian' references to 'Croatian' in his Croatian translation of the grandson's Hungarian text. It's explained and backed by examples here (in Hungarian): http://www.hik.hu/tankonyvtar/site/books/b10027/ch20s04.htmlSzlevi 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this: keep the grandfather in Croatian (keep his Hungarian name listed, of course, along with all the historical references) but revert the grandson's title to Hungarian (keep his Croatian name listed too, of course, along with all the references) - this would make sense for everybody and would not only reflect the differences between the two but also the famous poet and his voiced citizenry would be in context and respected again. The current listing is way out of the line, of his way of thinking, that's obvious for anybody who ever read few lines from Zrinyi.Szlevi 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree --V. Szabolcs 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When is this going to happen, and who will do it? Korossyl 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, unless someone explicitly disagrees or does it first, I'm going to move it tomorrow. Korossyl 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, it is long past Decemeber 24th... no objections to the move, but I can't seem to figure out how to move it while retaining the page history. Korossyl 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it weird that a Croat thinks that he should move the page. It's more complex, and in this case I think fondness is not a good thing of Croats. Moreover if Miklós Zrínyi signs his epic Szigeti veszedelem as Groff Zrini Miklos and not Nikola Zrinski I think this page shouldn't be named this way. Nobody debates on that he had Croatian origins, but it should be still named after Miklós Zrínyi, if he called himself that way. Drkazmer (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article has been moved and is now entitled "Miklós Zrínyi", I changed his name to Hungarian throughout the article. It would be strange to refer to him in a way different than what the title of the article is. (Imagine an article on "John Smith" that refers to John Smith as "Johann Schmidt" in the text.) Apart from that, I also inserted a great number of other things - this is practically a new article now as the old version was just a slightly re-worded version of the article in Britannica 1911. You're welcome to make your comments or modifications. (Zigomer trubahin (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi there. In his letter 1658 to his good friend Ivan pl. Rucicu (Rucsics János) he said "Ego mihi conscius aliter sum, etenim non degenerem, me Croatam et quidem Zrinium esse scio" or translated "I am aware, and i will not deny that i am Croat, and moreover i know i am Zrinski", so there is no doubt about his nationality, he is explicit here. He was citizen of Hungarian empire, therefore he was Hungarian, like we all were yugoslavs before '91. but in first place he was Croatian. Source for this is actually Hungarian (Ráth-Rómer: Győri és régészeti füzetek. Vol. II., Győr, 1863) Since someone said that it would certainly look silly to ignore Zrinski's own stance on this will revert title of the article and his name throughout the article into Croatian version, until someone gives some other references. Or we can use latin version of his name - Nicolaus Zrinio?(talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Scolar

That's a very interesting source; I'd love to see more of it! It is apparent that Zrinyi thought himself Croatian -- however, the rationale for moving the article was that he thought himself more Hungarian than Croatian, or at least, there's no real evidence pointing one way or the other, and he was more active in the Hungarian community. That excerpt from his 1658 letter, however, does not address his thoughts on his Hungarianness -- perhaps the context was, "I am Hungarian. Also, I am aware..." or something of the like. I really would like to see that letter in full. No? Korossyl (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He was Croatian Ban, that is the closest thing to being croatian king, so there is no way he was more active in hungarian community.

Splitting up

I'm also thinking of moving the first one to Nikola Subic Zrinski but I'll need to investigate whether he was actually a Šubić or if the second surname was introduced just to be able to differentiate them. --Shallot 23:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Having two different persons in one article is not very good. I suggest moving the Nikola Zrinski who lived 1508-1566 to a separate article, namely Nikola Subic Zrinski, regardless of whether Subic was his real name. –The Phoenix 08:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actualy there is 7 Nikola Zrinskis in Zrinski family, and Šubić is added much later, so we can distinguish them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.154.75 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationality and Name

Actually the above discussion around whether the Zrinskis/Zrinyis were Croatian or Hungarian is based on a false presumption. Nationality as we think of it is a modern invention (it came to prominence as an idea across much of Europe in the 19th century). Many modern nations were "created" in the 19th century and membership of a given nationality was defined by (spurious) ethnic or (accurate but easily manipulated) linguistic considerations. The nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 15th/16th century probably didn't consider itself Magyar/Croatian/Slovak etc. After all they used Latin as an official language and, as the Wikipedia articles show, often spoke numerous other languages. Probably only the peasants could be considered as belonging to a particular "nation" as they were largely monolingual.

Both modern Croatia and Hungary have adopted the Zrinkis and Frankopans as their own, but really it would be more appropriate to regard them as of mixed nationality (we could call them Hungaro-Croatian, for example). In terms of the name, Wikipedia guidelines suggest using the form most commonly used in English. That doesn't help much here as there are few references to the Zrinskis in offline English-language sources. Probably Zrinyi is more common, only because there are more histories of Hungary than of Croatia published in English. Online, Zrinski and Zrinyi both show around 7,000 Google hits (on English Web pages). I would suggest, however, using the English versions of Christian names within the articles, and maybe also for the article titles (with both the Croatian and Hungarian forms given in the first line). Scott Moore 12:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you pick Zrinski, you alienate one half, if you pick Zrínyi you alienate the other, if you use "of Zrin" it's semantically correct but alienates everyone. It's a lose-lose-lose situation, really :) --Joy [shallot] 23:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably correct. :) On the other hand using English first name is certainly the stupidest way - why would you *rename* them in order to please the remaining - and unaffected, let's not forget - 98% and piss of both Croatians and Hungarians, let alone the rewriting the history?Szlevi 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They couldn't possibly be Hungaro-Croatian.

Umm how so? Sure they could. I never heard about such a narrow world view where everybody is pure Coratian or pure Hungarian... Szlevi 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Zrinskis and Frankopans were Croatian, but were also respected in Hungary.

Actually, to put this into the overall context of Wikipedia: if you pick Zrinksi you alienate the (at a guess) 1% of Wikipedia users who are Hungarian, and if you pick Zrínyi you alienate the 1% who are Croatian. Most of the remaining 98% will probably accept either form (or "of Zrin"). I suggest staying with Zrinski, but using the anglicized versions of the Christian names. Scott Moore 11:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Shouldn't this article be at Nicholas Zrinski then? Olessi 05:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No, because his name was Miklos Zrinyi/Nikola Zrinski.Szlevi 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because although names used to be translated back then, his name was Nikola Zrinski, and that's were he should be.

Umm no, you're not making any sense: you just said he was *using* his name as Zrinyi (I'm talking about the grandson, and it is a historical fact) - then who are you to rename him? :) I hope now you can see the hypocrisy in your view... I really think Zrinyis should be listed both in Croatian and Hungarian: the grandfather should be listed under his Croatian name (mentioning the Hungarian one below), the grandson - who was a strong and voiceful Hungarian all the time - should be listed under his Hungarian name (mentioning the Croatian one below). Szlevi 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I changed the picture because the former portrait (by V.M.) was of the greatfather, Nicholas Šubić Zrinski--84.2.191.227 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

An editor with a peculiar nickname wrote this: "rv; The entire article is sourced to Britannica 1911, as seen on the bottom." I don't think the entire article is sourced to Britannica 1911. If it were, then why not incorporate the whole article from Britannica 1911, as it is? Now, if only some parts are included from Britannica 1911, then those parts should be properly sourced. This is what I believe, but I have no intentions to pursue this to the next level. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The original article is here. I've looked through it, and I didn't find anything in the article here that was not in the original. The reason that the article isn't used wholesale is because of some archaic language (it was, after all, written in 1911), and some constructions which would instantly be decried as POV. For instance, where our article states "The last year of his life was also a culmination of his efforts and prestige", the Britannica has "The last year of his life was also its most glorious one." Look also at the two direct quotes our article has for more examples. The whole article is indeed sourced, but should not be copied verbatim. Korossyl 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. The DAB page was moved to Miklós Zrínyi (disambiguation). Andrewa (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zrinski → Miklós Zrínyi — It's a tough question, but here on the talk page there was a kind of agreement that the grandfather would stay on his Croatian name, and the younger Zrínyi would get a page after his Hungarian name. I think it's a fair compromise between Hungarians and Croatians. The younger Zrínyi signed Szigeti veszedelem in Hungarian, and it's written in Hungarian, so despite his Croatian origins, it'd be fair to move this page. —Drkazmer (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support: Because of the previously mentioned reasons. Drkazmer (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: any kind of reasonable compromise should have our support. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think personally it's a bit weird that a Croatian admin takes both Frangepáns and Zrínyis, and move them to the Croatian name, just because he is Croatian and an admin. And his name is actually Shallot. This is the monopolization of history and shows great symptoms of fondness. For example the so-called Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy is known in Hungary as Wesselényi conspiracy, and on the English Wikipedia most of the articles skip Wesselényi (except only this very article). That's why I'm supporting to move at least Miklós Zrínyi, the younger to his Hungarian name. The current situation is unfair to all Hungarians who admire both Zrínyi and Frangepán families for their greatness. Drkazmer (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question There is currently a dabpage at the intended destination. What is the plan for said dabpage? JPG-GR (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Miklós Zrínyi and Nikola VII Zrinski

So, there're always some nationalist arguments going on over the House of Zrinski, and whether they were Hungarian or Croatian heroes. Fact of the matter is, they were all ethnically Croatian, but one in particular, Miklós Zrínyi, was quite the distinguished Hungarian, as well. Long story short, there was a consensus some time back that all the Zrinskis pages should have their Croatian names, except Miklós Zrínyi (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica 11, on which the article is based). The page was moved to its current location May 11 of last year. The arrangement has been fairly stable for some time now -- until User:Silverije created a page on Nikola VII Zrinski -- the same individual, except under his Croatian name -- in September of this year. The "pirate" article is unencyclopedic, poorly written, and entirely unsourced.

This seems to be an extraordinary case, to me -- to get around discussion and consensus by just writing a brand new article under a different title? It doesn't seem to be under Wikipedia's policies for deletion, so I thought I would ask here: what can be done? Korossyl (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pick a title, merge 'em (or just redirect one). If anyone objects to your choice, talk it out and change it if there's consensus to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the articles, but what you're describing is a rather straightforward WP:CFORK. Start an AFD for the new page and point that out, and it's very likely that the page will be deleted (as it should be, taking everything that you said above for granted).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the simplest solution is to just turn the content fork into a redirect to the proper article, provided that the content fork's title make some (even limited) sense. Technically that's a merge without adding anything to the original article. Under the circumstances that you describe that would also be the correct result of an AfD. The only advantage of an AfD is that you get a kind of official stamp and seal through it, but since the new article is an obvious content fork that is hardly necessary. Hans Adler 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

eh... it kind of depends. We should be careful (or at least cognizant) about article histories as well. Real Content Forks (the determination of which is a good reason to have an AFD) are an excellent reason to use deletion. In cases like this, where a person has two forms of a name, it would be perfectly appropriate (and even necessary, really) to then recreate the page as a redirect. Things that are actually worth deleting (actual spam, attacks, content forks, etc...) really shouldn't live even in the history pages (and, not to show my "ideology" too much here, but if it's acceptable that something remains in history why do we need the delete function at all?)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I redirected Nikola VII Zrinski to point to the other name. If there's anything worth saving in the history, it's still there. If there's anything that needs removing, leave me a note. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... wow! Thanks! ...This was a lot simpler than I thought it would be. Korossyl (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

and it's back... :( Korossyl (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I must rely on your description of the articles, but I agree with Ohms law that you describe a fork of some sort and that deletion may be appropriate. If you choose to nominate the newer article at AfD, you should include the background you provided here, that it was redirected and reverted, and whether merging any content would be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

These two articles are still er... problematic.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He used both versions of his name, and he was Croat without any doubt (Ego mihi conscius aliter sum, etenim non degenerem, me Croatam et quidem Zrinium esse scio" or translated "I am aware, and i will not deny that i am Croat, and moreover i know i am Zrinski") he is as important for Croatian heritage as he is for Hungarian, so please try to find a way to use both versions of his name in article title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.7.169 (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We know very well that he was Croatian, and that he is very important to Croatian history. We do not mean to diminish that role, and we certainly mean no disrespect to Croatian history. But he was certainly Hungarian as well, and it's impossible to represent both in the title. Petar Zrinski and Nikola Subic Zrinski were both Croatian and Hungarian as well, and we represent their Croatian heritage in the title to the exclusion of Hungarian. The reason is, is that both of them are best known for Croatian achievements, and Miklos Zrinyi is best known for his Hungarian achievements. The consensus is, that this is the most fair solution, if not perfect. Korossyl (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár in 1566

Where is the mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.172.115 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Nikola VII Zrinski be merged into Miklós Zrínyi. I think that the content in the Nikola VII Zrinski article can easily be explained in the context of Miklós Zrínyi, because it is the same person. there was a consensus that all the Zrinski pages should have their Croatian names, except Miklós Zrínyi. The merging of Nikola VII Zrinski will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be merged immediately, because these two pages go about the same person.

• Support - Same person, This page was made earlier, there was a consensus about Miklós Zrínyi/Nikola Zrinski.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nikola VII Zrinski was created as a content fork by editor Silverije, who has previously attempted disruptive edits to this page. The editor was not a supporter of the consensus, and felt that this page should emphasize the subject's Croatian heritage to the complete denial of his Hungarian heritage (see especially this subsection. The editor was aware of this page (see his edit from March 2009, six months before he created the fork), and after creating the fork, began making disruptive changes to this page, to delegitimize it in favor of his own (starting the very day of his own page's creation [2]). When I countered his vandalism (yes, vandalism: the purely negative nature of his edits meant that "good faith" was no longer a viable assumption), he personally attacked me as "spiteful" to another editor [3] -- please note his belief, expressed in the same post, about the value of his opinions relative to those of other editors. Finally, we had a discussion on this page, which concluded with an admin deleting Silverije's page. Which Silverije then reverted. So, I don't believe that his continued disruption should be in any way rewarded or legitimized through a merge of the pages, as one page is the primary, consensus-based article, and the other is a deliberate POV fork. Korossyl (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Merger proposal

We have an old problem (for nearly two years) we have two pages about the same person Miklós Zrínyi-Nikola VII Zrinski. We have to find a way to solve that problem. I proposed a merge, but maybe, the deletion of the page (one of them) would be better. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The two articles should obviously be merged. Do we know what was the form of his name he used? Maybe this information could help to determine which is the preferred form. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He used this form. "Groff Zrini Miklos".[4][5] I do not mind if we use the Croatian name, but I can not decide which article should be improved and It is very sorrow.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the first step to merge the two articles, that is to consolidate the two texts, and based on the consolidated text the merged article could be improved. I suggest that the texts should be consolidated under the name Miklós Zrinyi or Nicholas Zrinyi, and the article Nikola VII Zrinski could be redirected there. I think that the article should clearly emphasize his Croatian background, his brother's role in the Croatian literature, but because he wrote his most important works in Hungarian, there is a ground to use the Hungarian form of his name. If any other editors objected this approach, we could discuss it on the consolidated article's talk page. Enjoy your work (Jó munkát!). Borsoka (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am very busy in real life now, but I support the merger. The name form is indeed a problem. I can say that in Hungarian he used the Zrini Miklós form and in Latin Nicolaus de Zrinio or a Zrinio, occasionally he was called also Serini, de Serin and von Serin. The form Zrínyi is a later development in Hungarian language, the family members during their lifetime were known in Hungarian as Zrini or Zriny, but never as Zrínyi. However as today Zrínyi is the accepted spelling, I would suggest to keep him as Miklós Zrínyi as per above, but his brother, who wrote mostly in Croatian should be listed as Petar Zrinski. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the merge (it is impossible not to agree, since it is the same person), and I support the suggestion (Miklós Zrínyi and Petar Zrinski). The prime criterion should be the name used in English sources, not necessarily the one they used themselves. GregorB (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that this two articles should be merged, since I have put merge tags on both of them a long time ago. The name of the article remains a problem. The person is known in literature as Zrini Miklós (mostly in Hungary and in some English sources), Nikola VII Zrinski (mostly in Croatia and in some English sources), but also as Nicholas Zrinsky and Nicholas VII of Zrin in many English sources. One of the reasons for use of his Hungarian name is that he wrote a Hungarian epic poem "Peril of Sziget" (Szigeti Veszedelem), and he lived a good part of his life in today's Hungary. On the other hand, he was an etnic Croat from today's Croatia, and a 'Ban of Croatia'. Also, he was a warrior and statesman above all, and than a writer. It is very difficult to decide what name is more appropriate, especially having in mind that the final soultion will be a target of new wiki members. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We should use the English Nicholas Zrinsky or the Latin form, Nicolaus de Zrinio, in this case, because it would be a problem if either of the nations monopolized his name. He is mutual legacy. However I disagree with this ethnic Croat statement. He was from the nobility, this was the most important thing at that time, He was Croat and Hungarian noble, moreover from his mother's side, he came from the Hungarian Széchy noble family. He had 'mixed' ethnicity (and nationality) if we wanted to emphasize his ethnic background.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

English sources use a lot of Nicholas Zrinyi forms as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Nicholas Zrinyi is acceptable. Just one more remark, he wrote not only one poem in Hungarian, but for example he wrote a book in Hungarian with the title "A török áfium ellen való orvosság". I would like to emphasize that his Croatian background and his brother's role in the Croatian literature cannot be denied. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can editors involved in the above discussion also comment here in the RfC? If so: I'd like to put in a pitch, again, for leaving this page as it is.

First, the name: this was formed out of a consensus. Consensuses change, as it appears this one is in the process of doing. However, this was just one part of the larger consensus, the deal that made this article "Miklos Zrinyi" and his great-grandfather's article "Nikola Subic Zrinski." If the part of the consensus dealing with this page is modified, then the other half of it must be reconsidered as well. I don't mean to be petty, and say, "if the Hungarian side loses something, the Croatian side should have something taken away as well." No: rather, if the other article retains the Croatian spelling, and this article takes on English or Latin spelling, then is that not a de facto emphasis of the family's Croatian-ness over its Hungarian-ness?

Second, of course, the Zrinski family was both Croatian and Hungarian. Nationalist editors of both sides want to have the world believe that they were completely one or completely the other, such as the merge-proposed article's section on "Croat, first and foremost." Fact is, the elder Zrinyi was a noble of both Croatia and Hungary; the younger Zrinyi was the same, but his statements in the Szigeti Veszedelem (see, for instance, its dedication), and most of all in the Török áfium ellen való orvosság ("Antidote for Turkish opium," a treatise on how his people -- the Hungarians -- need to rise up and fight the Turks, rather than trying to befriend them), show where his heart lay. His brother Petar, described in the Szigeti Veszedelem as "all Croat, all Magyar," produced works exclusively in Croatian, demonstrating his own nationality. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the elder Zrinski was Croat-Magyar, the younger Magyar, and Petar Croat, regarding their self-identification (if not their bloodline, which was also mixed). These are also the respective nations for whose service they are most famous today.

This is not an uncomplicated issue. There is no easy solution. All of the above named used about 20 different forms of their own names. Wikipedia editors chose to use nationally-based names in balance with each other, so that the family's complex multiethnicity was preserved. If that broad-balance consensus is to be changed, then (a) it must be done across the board, and (b) the merge-proposed article must be vetted very, very carefully.

What would I suggest? Leave everything as is; or, change the younger, elder, and Petar to their Latin forms, and leave Silverije's article -- already deleted by an admin once as a bad-faith POV fork -- out of the issue altogether.

Korossyl (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am OK with Nicholas Zrinsky, as it is common name in English and neutral compered with Hungarian and Croatian name, but as Korossyl wrote above - what about other Zrinski members? I agree with Fakirbakir that he is a mutual legacy to both Croatia and Hungary, although as Borsoka have said, his Croatian background cannot be denied. One thing that bother me is that his grandfather who was born cca. 100 years before is far more known. Thus, in the most of the sources when is written Nicholas Zrinsky, this applies to Nicholas Subich Zrinsky, not to younger Nicholas Zrinsky. Also, changing all other Zrinsky's will awake a great resistance from Croatian side, as they don't look at only these couple Zrinsky members, but at others before them, as well as to the House of Šubić, since Zrinski are a branch of the Šubić family, one of the oldest Croatian noble families. There was a interesting discussion about Zrinsky name at Talk:Siege of Szigetvár/Archive 1#Names of Zrinsky/Zrinski/Zrínyi. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think that that the articles on Nicholas/Miklós Zrinyi's ancestors should not be changed, they should stay as Zrinskys. I think, for us, this is not a surprise: Petőfi and his father, Petrovic, or several members of the Hatvani family and their ancestors whose name was Deutch. So I think Nicholas/Miklós Zrinyi is a special case: he is from a noble family of the Croatian part of the Kingdom of Hungary who, in contrast with his brother, wrote his two most significant works in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with almost everything said above and also would suggest a careful vetting of the paralel article before the merge. What I can't accept is the Nicholas Zrinsky form. It gives 92 Google hits, most of them are wiki mirrors. He is simply not known under that name in English either. We are editing an encylopaedia, using well.established sources and facts and not inventing new names for the sake of compromise. He be either Miklós Zrínyi (as explained above and I support this option), but I can accept Nikola Zrinski as well as a legitimate option, but please no Zrinsky.--Csesznekgirl (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose per WP:NAME the most common name used in English sources should be used. Not that google is authoritative on this issue, but if it is used as a pointer - Nicholas Zrinsky returns 263 results, Nicholas Zrinski returns 462, Miklos Zrini returns 15 (both as first-last and last-first, combined total), while Nikola Zrinski returns 1610 results. The search was performed in English language documents only. If the last one is restricted to US and UK and English language the total is reduced to 958 - still double the next on the list.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Nicholas Zrinyi would be the best because it has 4060 results.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually if the search is also limited to US/UK and English language it's 2360 but it's still the most frequently found name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting entirely different figures. For Miklos Zrinyi (note the "y" -- I think you left that out in your search), English language only results are 81,500 for "Miklos Zrinyi", 19,600 for "Nikola Zrinski".

Moreover, this issue is complicated by the fact that there are two individuals with the same name, so the results would have to be picked through, one by one, to find out who is most often referred to as what in the English sources. Korossyl (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not a simple matter, these are just statistics which are to be interpreted this way or another. If the "Miklos Zrinyi" search is repeated in quotes (otherwise the documents include either name or surname) and filtered (as the above ones) to US/UK and English language only it yields 1631 results (UK:251+US:1380) - which is also a considerable number.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the US/UK filtering is intended to filter out Croatian and Hungarian written articles in English which are more than likely to include the name in its national form - simply to provide a better picture of what happens in English language written generally by native speakers. This by no means implies that those are reliable sources, but I suppose the figures may serve as pointers for further research on the topic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Korossyl: My results are completely different from yours, because you didn't put the quotes which you should, "Nicholas Zrinsky" gives 17 results in googlebooks and "Nikola Zrinski" gives 509 results in google books. However I would favor Miklos Zrinyi because it gives me 2,040 results in googlebooks, so it seems to me like the current name is the best! -Cul Pepperage (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason your results are different is because you used Google Books, rather than a regular Google search, which is what I did. And I'm not sure if Google Books is better in this case -- while non-scholarly sources are inappropriate for citations, what we're looking for here is the basic fact of which name is more commonly used. And despite our searches disagreeing, we both found Miklos Zrinyi to be the most popular name. And all of this is relevant only assuming that we wish to base the article title on WP:NAME, while there are other considerations as well (not necessarily more important). Korossyl (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

content unfork

Apparently Silverije (talk · contribs) has created a content fork a while ago, and then persisted in undoing the unforks. I personally feel the Croatian name for this person would be just as acceptable as the Hungarian name (like I said many years ago), but what is not acceptable here is blatant Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Edit warring. I will now merge the two article histories, leaving it at the Hungarian title, with no prejudice to the article content merging. Silverije, you're this -><- close to getting banned for a total failure to act in good faith. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain a bit more, in case it was unclear - all users who can technically use the Move function on this article are indeed still allowed to use it. This was just enforcement of the rule that a single person has a single article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pejacsevich/Pejačević

We have a somewhat similar problem with the two articles about the Pejacsevich/Pejačević families. An article (Pejacsevich) already existed when Silverije created another one (House of Pejačević). The Pejacsevichs are again a typical Croatian-Hungarian noble family who belong to both nations. I could accept here the Croatian spelling, but the fact that family members living today use the Hungarian spelling variant should be emphasized. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have put a merge tag on both of them as well, but no progress was made since then. Although main users of both articles did have some comunication on thear talk pages related to this problem. BTW, there are also family members in Croatia that use the Croatian spelling variant, and probably same goes for Bulgaria. Kebeta (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In Croatia might live some untitled members of the family, but they are not known in the genealogical literature. The titled branch noted in nobility registers uses the Hungarian spelling and most of them live in Western-Europe. [6] Here you can find all living members who bear the title of Count Pejacsevich de Verőcze/Grof Pejačević Viroviticki. The ancestors of this branch used Croatian spelling in Croatia and Hungarian spelling in Hungary, but as they emigrated after WWII with Hungarian passports they kept using their Hungarian name.--Csesznekgirl (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

POV Template and Information Removal

User Silverije has removed some information from the infobox (Kingdom of Hungary) and introduced a POV template. I would like to kindly ask him/her to explain the removal of this information and to identify those points which (s)he thinks are not neutral in the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Čakovec and Gornji Kuršanec were in the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) at that time...--Kebeta (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Kebeta, I am afraid you are wrong. Čakovec and Gornji Kuršanec historically belonged to Zala county which never was part of the Kingdom of Croatia. It was attached to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovanes only after WWI. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about that....historically is very vague term...look at the map on the right...it's 200 yeats after Miklós Zrínyi but it denies your "historically" and "It was attached to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovanes only after WWI."--Kebeta (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe your map is inaccurate. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not mine...I just drag it from the article Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). --Kebeta (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see the historical facts. Between ca. 1000 and 1848 the area was part of Zala county within the Kingdom of Hungary and had no legal or administrative ties whatsoever with the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. In September 1848 during the conflict with the Hungarian government, Ban Josip Jelacic occupied Muraköz/Medjimurje region and by a declaration attached it to Croatia. However, he lost it within a month. In 1849 it King Franz Josef decided that Muraköz/Medjumirje temporarily be administered by Varasd county, but from 1861 it was administered again by Zala county. So Kebeta's map might be OK for the the period between 1848/49 and 1861, but certainly not for Zrínyi/Zrinski's time. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that Csáktornya / Čakovec was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH), in that time. Even Encyclopedia Britannica claims this [7]. An editor-made map does not seem like a reliable source that proves the opposite. Hence, the infobox should be updated accordingly. Cheers. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't true, Cakovec became part of Zala county in 1719, after acquisition of Johann Michael von Althan Duelhawk (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't f***ing belive how far hungarian fascism goes today. You imbeciles are serious in renaming people?? This is an utter digrace... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoutofthevee (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Emoutofthevee, tell me are you serious or what kind of aim should be suspected for your primitive provocation? What kind of "hungarian fascism", what "imbeciles" and "renaming people" are you hallucinating about? You make speculative and offensive charges without good faith, this is a real utter disgrace! Shame! (KIENGIR (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC))