Talk:Battle of Rozgony

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 no evidence provided to support a move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t understand, why does the article has name Battle of Rozgony. Google hits are not a source, are they? The name should be chandged for today´s slovak name of the village (Battle of Rozhanovce), or for the latin name, how the village was called at that times - Battle of Rozgun. There is no reason for hungarian name.--Michalides (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a slovak name, as slovakia did not exist at that time, however Hungary did exist and that's where the battle took place. Hobartimus (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungaria didn´t exists as well. There was Kingdom of Hungary and the name was Rozgun, as I wrote. That´s what both of us could deal with. Anyway, because of the today´s name of the village, Rozhanovce should be prefered before Rozgony (or Rozgonyi in hungarian?)--Michalides (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody writes the sentence "Hungary in 1320" for example it is assumed that every educated person knows that Hungary was a kingdom during that time, even if they don't phrases like the King of Hungary might give it away or they can check the relevant part of the Hungary article (this would be the history section). In other words the 1320 part contains kingdom instead of writing Kingdom of France Kingdom of England etc etc everywhere sometimes the short form is preferred. To answer your question Rozgonyi with the i would be from Rozgony, of Rozgony. The name is simply Rozgony without the i. Hobartimus (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are wrong. Today´s Hungary has nothing to do with Kingdom of Hungary. The Kingdom contained Hungaria, Slovakia and huge parts of another countries. In slovak, czech and other languages there are different names for Hungary and the Kingdom (Uhorsko). Not even one half of population was hungarian in 1900, before that it was more much less. England and France has allways been approximately the same territories, so your comparing is not correct. It is like if you would say, that Czechoslovakia is Czech republic now. Name of Rozgony is just wrong.--Michalides (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Hungary is just Hungary that is how English usage shortens it, Kingdom of France is France etc. I don't want to argue history here it's not the point but "England and France has allways been approximately the same territories" is just silly to say considering vast colonial empires etc. Kingdom of Hungary was the name of the country in 1925 1940 etc so it has nothing to do with losing or gaining territory. In 1925 the Kingdom of Hungary had about the same territory as today's Republic of Hungary, (if you want to use full names you must say Republic of Hungary every time you can't just say Hungary, similarly Republic of Slovakia every time etc). Short form is Slovakia long form is Republic of Slovakia , short form is Hungary for all government types of Hungary. Kingdom Republic whatever.Hobartimus (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Hungary in 1925 - 1940 as well as today´s Hungary has nothing to do with Kingdom of Hungary before WWI, which was a completely different country with different people, territory etc. As I mentioned, not even half of population was hungarian, in 1320 not even quarter. The Kingdom was not only hungarian, but also slovak, serbian, croatian, etc. The village is called Rozhanovce today, and was called Rozgun at 1320. Using Rozgony is, for that times, just ridiculous and strange. England and France with their colonies are unsuitable examples. Do you consider Slovakia to be hungarian colony?--Michalides (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your point is that the Kingdom of Hungary is different from the Kingdom of Hungary. Unfortunately the English language already decided that question and it is not negotiable here. There was a 9% slovak minority in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1920 but even today, after brutal Slovakization, oppression, deportation, confiscation of property, confiscation of citizenship, there is still 10% Hungarians in the territory of present-day Republic of Slovakia (down from 30%). If similar level oppression (30->10%) happened to Slovaks regarding their percentage it would have been 9-->3% which is not enough for very much. You should realize that today's Republic of Slovakia is a multiethnic state it has more % Hungarians than the Kingdom of Hungary had Slovaks. Hobartimus (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that it is different, when we are talking about the Kingdom of Hungary before WWI and the Kingdom of Hungary after. Sorry for disappointing your national passion, but the millenial rise was not only hungarian. Numbers you introduced, are probably from chauvinistically 1910 census. But that doesn´t matter anyway, because there´s no reason for Rozgony.--Michalides (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rozgony is clearly the most widely used name in English for the battle. This is the only argument here. Squash Racket (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t care about google hits, all that matters is correctness, which means the latin name of village of that times - Rozgun. There was no Rozgony in 1320 and there is no Rozgony today. Visitor will be hardly looking for Rozgony in Slovakia today.--Michalides (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC) The only correct and neutral solution is name Rozgun with redirects from Rozhanovce and Rozgony.--Michalides (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care about Google hits and you don't offer any evidence that the phrase "battle of Rozgun" was widely used in English, this debate is over. Battle of Rozgony is clearly the most widely used name in English, so the title remains. Squash Racket (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from when google is an evidence? I would expect Battle of Rozhanovce here, but I offered you a neutral and (in my opinion) more correct solution, Battle of Rozgun. Do you have any real, non hungarian sourced evidence for Rozgony? I don´t think so...--Michalides (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google Books and Google Scholar to prove that the most widely used name is "Battle of Rozgony", the current name. (There are English authors too among the hits.)
I see no evidence for any other version to be more widely used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits many books with both versions - Rozgony and Rozhanovce - from english autors: depends, from which country they draws their information. To argument by amount of the google hits, is just irrelevant. I am inspirated by an english historian, Norman Davies, who sais, that for a place we should use name, which was used at the age, we are talking about. That is a correct attitude, and also neutral here. In 1312 there was no Rozgony or Rozhanovce or anything else, but Rozgun.--Michalides (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we name an event (like a battle) on Wikipedia, we identify the most appropriate name for it by checking out what name the English sources use. Battle of Rozgony is the most widely used name for this battle.

Google has considerably more hits for "Battle of Rozgony" than for "Battle of Rozhanovce". I couldn't find a single source for "battle of Rozgun".

We use age appropriate names for places in general, but this is an article about a specific event, so we check which name the English sources use for it. Period. A reviewing admin would do the same. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we are using 19th century name (which was given to the place probably at the time of hungarization, and is not current for a long time yet), for early 14th century place, so we call it a historical hugger-mugger. Period.--Michalides (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably? Hugger-mugger? And after all that period? Squash Racket (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent point of view: historical events are very frequently identified by historical names, for example the Battle of Lepanto (never "of Nafpaktos") or the Battle of Stalingrad (never "of Volgograd"). In this article it is made quite clear where these places are and what their present-day names are. This should be enough to satisfy all reasonable people. Regrettably, it would appear that whatever name is used in this and similar cases, certain individuals' nationalist sensibilities will be offended; one may sympathise, but one cannot allow them to dictate to the Wikipedia community, which adheres to the NPOV policy. Лудольф (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.