Talk:Matthias Bel

Bel in his own words....

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.... let's keep this very simple. In his own words, Bel described himself as follows:

"Lingua Slavus, natione Hungarus, eruditione Germanus", 

that is: "in terms of language a Slovakian, in terms of political identity an inhabitant of the regnum hungaricum and in terms of learning a German"

... nothing Magyar-Hungarian there, is there? No Hungarian-magyar national conscience there whatsoever....Don't even try...natione hungaricus in the 18th century does not mean "ethnically-nationally a Magyar". Have a look at "Nationalism: Rethinking the paradigm in the European context" by Andrew Bell-Fiallkoff and Andrei S.Markovits, especially around page 29....(http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=uciaspubs/research)

It's a bit sad, these desperate attempts to hijack people by hook or by crook ("shared ethnicity!", mother a hungarian gentlewoman!yes, he's certainly somehow somewhere hungarian-magyar...Hungarian national conscience...!!!") when they left nice and absolutely clear instructions as to how they saw themselves...ah well, it's only wikipedia....

I have to say, the breathtaking incapability of these English wikipedia aticles about Hungary to understand the difference between the Latin "hungaricus" in its pre-19th century meaning and the English "Hungarian" in it's 21st century meaning is turning into something of an all-wikipedia embarassment.....sad...really, really sad....

--Atlanticvalues (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From the article:

"...besides many nationalist passages in his works (especialyl in the Notitia Hungariae novae historico geographica in many places) this can be seen e.g. in the introduction he wrote in Doležal's Grammar of the Czech-Slavic language: „...I both love and know the Czech-Slavic language ..only our language can compete with and exceed the beauty of all European languages" (Doležal, Pavel: Grammatica Slavico-Bohemica, 1746).

this thing proves that he liked CZECH-slavic language.... so why SLOVAK? LOL. Anyway, who can prove, that this quotation is not false? BTW, the lines were cut next to each other, so I do not see wich language is called "ours". --91.120.92.221 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC) - Slovaks were called in that time "Slavs of Hungary", its reason

The name "Alzbeta Cesnekova" is clearly out of place for a person who had been born in Veszprém (Hungary). In this light, the Slovak ethnicity of Bél should also be deemphasized (he was at least half Hungarian) and there is no wonder that his major work was "Notitia Hungariae..." and not "Notitia Slovaciae..." Árpád 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is strange. "Grammatica Slavico-Bohemica" is correctly translated as "Grammar of the Czech-Slovak language", but Bel should have mentioned "SLAVIC-czech language". He wrote it in latin language and i suppose, that he used the word "slavico-", which could mean both "slavic-" and "slovak-". Since we talk about introduction to slovak-czech grammar, i think, it is quite logical, that he meant slovak-czech language. I made correction in the article. --89.173.46.196 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not consider this sentence a declaration of his ethnicity (Slavic? Czech?). Squash Racket 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to sources he had shared ethnicity (Slovak and Hungarian parents), shared identity (he spoke Hungarian and Slovak, even German and Latin), he contributed to both the Hungarian and the Slovak culture. Claiming either that he was Slovak or that he was Hungarian would be misleading. Squash Racket 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! --Koppany 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could anybody please put the original Latin text? It's not on the web, only translation. There is a lot of mistranslation of latin scripts from other topics, too. Abdulka (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to accept that people can have mixed origins? Majority of hungarians, if not all, are of mixed origins and this leads to confusion. To say the least hungarians are confused about itself. What then about others. Béls father was actually Bél-Funtik. Funtik is slovak, but Bél is also turkish! Bel is such a name that could have either slav ( slovak) or turkic origins.Hungarians have a lot of western-turkic names. Cseszneky is without a doubt a magyar family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.129.150 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Please have a look in Wikipedia after the name Bél. There is even a hungarian place-name Bél. Hungarian names have predominantely finno-ugric or turkic origin. Some names are by some schoolars claimed to have sumerian origins, but this is insecure area. BNevertheless there is Bel place-name in what earlier was supposed to be sumerian territory... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.137.201 (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 to Matthias Bel. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• strong support: according to English-language sources (e.g. http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/wagner/wagner17.htm, http://www.fmed.uniba.sk/index.php?id=3947), the English version of his name was Bel, not Bél PeterRet (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, generally we have different subset of rules for the uses of letters such as é. Many people did not have é on their keyboards or typewriters so they simply stripped the correct letters and replaced them with e. In Wikipedia it's costs nothing to have the correct letter, it was always a big debate here, not so simple as checking the usage at one place. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but his last name is spelled Bel/Bél in various languages (as per the article), so it's difficult to tell which is "the correct one". Moreover, English as such doesn't use accents at all (with the exception of ï and ë in older spelling), so it seems unlikely that the English version of his name would be Bél. In addition to that I wasn't really able to find English sources for Bél - I found some for Bel, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRet (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think moving the article to Matej Bel is a good idea. This is an English-language Wikipedia and if there is a valid English version of his name, that is what should be used. Example: Master Paul of Levoča. PeterRet (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found that Oxford University Press reference:

The literature on this man variously known as Matej or Mátyás or Matthias Bel or Bél is correspondingly diverse:(...)

(Bolding mine.) I changed the title of that section to "Requested move" as the proper procedure asks for that. Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I note that Evans and John themselves use Matthias Bel in their text, and suggest that we do likewise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against the "Matthias Bel" version. Seems to be more common in English than "Matthias Bél". We will present both versions in the lead anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the controversial move by Wizzard for the original Matthias Bél for the time being. Hobartimus (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is purely OR but it seems the article should be at Mátyás Bél or Matthias Bel but not a hybrid of both. — AjaxSmack 03:01, 9 January 2009 (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.

"He never edited a Slovak language book though"

This sentence may be technically correct (it comes with a reference) but is nevertheless misleading. According to the German article, he translated Johann Arndt and some songs by Johann Anastasius Freylingshausen into Czech, as well as the New Testament.

Back in the 18th century there can hardly have been a concept of seperate Czech and Slovak languages, just as Serb and Croat were usually seen as variants of the same language up to the breakup of Yugoslavia. So Bel saw Slovak probably just as the variant of Czech spoken in Hungary.—Graf Bobby (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference meant "a language book in Slovak". If that's easy to misunderstand, it may be corrected. He translated books into Czech/Slovak, but didn't edit a book dealing specifically with the language. Squash Racket (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthias Bél is incorrect in any language. The first title of the article was Matej Bel and this is what is correct. Or, Matthias Bel, but not Bél or anything else. --Wizzard (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a new topic, but I'll answer here as the relevant section is closed now. Both versions are German and the above English reference says he is known in English as Matthias Bel or Bél. I accepted the move to "Matthias Bel", because this is the more common version (I guess because "é" is not part of the English alphabet), but we can mention the diacritics version in the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names for places before 1867

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [1], using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names.Wladthemlat (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I can find the latin names. Do I have a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.137.201 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We often meet with this improper claim mostly by anti-Hungarian trolls about the so-called "official language latin", etc., because they are even frustrated if they see an original Hungarian placename on a territory today belong to other countries. Let's make it clear, as more of us did in many pages: according to Wikipedia consensus and agreement contemporary names can be used at the first place, and the present-day placenames should be indicated also. Latin was for centuries the official "language" of administration, but it does not mean people really used it to call placenames, cities, etc. We never meet any claim where in i.e. historical German/Romanian areas the original German or Romanian placenames should be ignored, because the administration was Latin or Slavic, anyway the Latin names are mostly the transliteration or the phonetic transcription of the original placenames. The relevance between the modern official language in the new age and the language of administration the medieval age should be distinguished since they measure and evaluation are not the same. Anyway, in under some circumstances like a king from a different house, like an union or alliance, or vassal status can cause interesting situations in a country's life where the country's nation, ethnicity, name, ruler or administration is not the same at the time, to say nothing of any special or individual circumstances. Just read my answer for the same claim in the Anton Bernolák's discussion page for special details. All in all, Hungarian placenames on the territories belonged to Hungary at the time contemporarily can be used, since they were original names used by the majority, and the Latin derived from them without any mass usage and also these names were known by outsiders. Here only one addition is needed since it is the English Wikipedia, those non-Hungarian placenames can be used on the first place that for any reason historically were used in in the contemporary English lanugague/sources, as i.e. the German version like Pressburg. So I will add the necessary Hungarian placenames, but for now only on the second place as a special politeness.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

Maybe I can help? + Pozsony

About this problem [2], I believe that User:CoolKoon is right about this edit because in the year of 1735 (in this historical context) the official name of that state should be used, in this case Hungarian name Pozsony for Bratislava. The usual "formula" is in this case "Hungarian (today: Slovakian). I believe if we examine other articles we can find examples that proper name is used as an official of that time in history. Adrian (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that User:CoolKoon is right about this edit. Pozsony - official name used since 1808 (along with Posonium, Posony, Preßburg, Pressporek) "should be used" and why not form Pozsony / Bratislava or Pressporek, older name than Pozsony? The "formula" is wrong, because it was not Hungarian city, but multiethnic city. "Kingdom of Hungary" was never homogeneous Hungarian political structure and this debate ended in 1920. Now we live(most people) in the 21st century...--Omen1229 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence (we live in the 21st century) and with the idea you are stating, but we are talking about history here and following the historical time-line. Take for an example any other historical article, ex: Sándor Petőfi - take a look at the infobox, how are the place names arranged. In practice, here on wikipedia we use official names of places from that period of time. I don`t have any special knowledge about this(so I don`t know which language names was official then), and as you say from 1808 this name was used, but was was the official name in the year 1735 for Bratislava? Adrian (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In 1735 Latin was the official language. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then according to this source the Latin name of Bratislava is Posonium, Wratisslaburgium - I don`t know which one of this 2 should be used.Adrian (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This source [3] states Latin name Posonium, I guess we should use this name for this period of time. Adrian (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In 1735, the administrative language was Latin, which is not the same as the modern concept of official language. The Hungarian name is much older than the 19th century (it was written as Poson earlier). Nevertheless, all these are not that relevant, since the German Pressburg is quite widely used in English sources and according to Elonka's naming conventions, which directly mentions Pressburg, this should be used. That guideline states: "For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence.". The relevant alternative names that we should mention, along with the current modern name, are probably both Pozsony and Pressporek, since Matthias Bel wrote about himself that "by language a Slav, by nation a Hungarian, by erudition a German", so all name variants seem relevant. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I did`t know about this consensus. Thank you. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for coming here as a potential mediator; such a neutral, good faith approach is always appreciated. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that Elonka's experiment (to reach consensus) has failed, as can be clearly seen from the experiment's talk page. It was clearly stated by Elonka herself, that her experiment was not aimed at reaching majority-vote based decision, but to achieve consesus. The part of experiment's major protagonists (such as [[User::Tankred]]) claimed the consesus not reached. That means we can not talk of guideline in any sense of the word. In other words, naming disputes remain unresolved. Rachotilko (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Still crap...sorry.... / Bel called himself "by languge a Slovakian"

OK folks, I see that you translate Matej Bels famous description of himself as being "de lingua Slavus" as "by language a Slav". That is wrong. In the 18th century, there was no unified Slavic language anymore of which Matej Bel could have been a speaker. When writing about themselves in Latin in the 16th, 17th, 18th and at the beginning of the 19th century, Slovakians always used the expression "Slavus". Even the first generally recognized grammar books of the Slovakian language published by Anton Bernolak at the end of the 18th century used in their Latin titles the expression Slavica, f. ex:

Slowár Slowenskí, Česko-Laťinsko-Ňemecko-Uherskí, seu Lexicon Slavicum Latino-Germanico-Ungaricum auctore Antonio Bernolák [Slowakisches Tschechisch-lateinisch-deutsch-ungarisches Wörterbuch, seu …] I–VI, Ofen (heute Budapest), 1825–27

You see: the expression "Slowar slovenski" is translated as "lexicon Slavicum" and "slovenski" until this day of course means "Slovakian" and not "Slavic" (that would have been "slovAnski").

Other examples of Bernolaks books codifying the Slovakian language:

Dissertatio-critica de literis Slavorum (Bratislava 1787) Gramatica Slavica (Bratislava 1790), sie ist im Schloss Topoľčianky aufbewahrt.[2] Etymológia vocum slavicarum (Trnava 1791)

All these books are not works about a (non existing) unified slavic language but codifications of the Western Slovakian dialect as a written language and still they use in their Latin titles the expression "Slavorum", "Slavica", "slavicarum".

Another example would be Juraj / George Thurzo, palatin of the regnum hungaricum at the beginning of the 17th century: he used in his Latin correspondence the expression "nostra natio slavica" and translated it himself as "nasa slovenska nacija" that is "our Slovakian nation". So you see: when speaking about Slovakians in Latin, Slovakians used the expression "Slavus" or "Slavicus".

I cannot help but notice that the German wikipedia calls a spade a spade and Matej Bel "ein slowakischer Historiker, lutherischer Theologe, Pädagoge und Geschichtsschreiber".

So just do yourselves a favour and call Matej Bel what he called himself: "de lingua Slavus" in this context absolutely clearly means: "by language a Slovakian".

The English wikipedia pages about "Hungarian" history are generally known to be a bit of a magyar joke.No one ever quotes wikipedia articles in serious grown-up academic discussions but still: get a grip on those internet-magyars manufacturing mysterious Hungarians who in reality thought of themselves as Slovak / Slovakians, will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerplay1000 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The main question is: do you have some reliable and verifiable sources which translate the sentence "lingua Slavus, natione Hungarus, eruditione Germanus" as "by language a Slovak[ian] ..."? German Wikipedia, of course, does not count as a reliable source. You may also want to read about original research. Note that there are reliable and verifiable sources for the current English translation, for example: [4][5][6]. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Brief answer to Koerte - the texts you quote call Matej Bel a "Slovak scholar" resp. "of Slovak origin"

I don't seem to be able to react directly to your comments to my post so I have to open a new section...

I disagree with you. The main question is this: the texts you quote in footnotes 5 and 6 themselves describe Matej Bel as "Slovak scholar" resp. as "of Slovak origin". So why doesn't the wikpedia entry take this scholarly consensus up? Odd. You have just proven that Bel is considered to be a Slovak - and that is what he should be called: Slovak.

Original research? I dont think so. The linguistic peculiarity that Slovakians called themselves "Slavus" when talking in Latin about Slovakians between the 16th and then beginning of the 19th century is well known and well documented - in Slovakia. How Wikipdia allows people to write about things Slovakian without knowledge of Slovakia and the Slovakian language is beyond me. It merely proves the limitations of the whole project.

Also, pointing out that in the 18th century, when Bel was speaking about himself and his language, there was no unified Slavic language anymore (it having disappeared some 700 to 800 years earlier), is also hardly original research but a simple fact of common knowledge - so basic it almost pains me having to point it out in the first place.

Anyway, having read your footnotes 5 (Geopolitics of the Central European Region - the view from Prague and Bratislava by Krejci and Styan) and 6 (Rise of the Nansburg Empire 1526 - 1815 by Mamatey), all that is now neither here nor there. The texts you quote yourself are calling Bel a "Slovak scholar" resp. scholar "of Slovak origin". As far as I am concerned, the issue is hereby settled. If grown-ups can call Matej Bel what he really was - a Slovak scholar - , then so should Wikipedia. It's not rocket science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerplay1000 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He had a typical "Hungarus" identity and was of mixed origin (Slovak father-Hungarian mother). If you read the article you will see that your viewpoint is mentioned there "According to some Slovak sources, he considered himself an ethnic Slovak". There are older discussions about the proper translation of the Latin quote. There is a very good comment by user:Squash Racket, cited "Well, according to sources he had shared ethnicity (Slovak and Hungarian parents), shared identity (he spoke Hungarian and Slovak, even German and Latin), he contributed to both the Hungarian and the Slovak culture. Claiming either that he was Slovak or that he was Hungarian would be misleading.". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

First, just two technical remarks to Powerplay1000: (i) you do not have to open a new section to answer, just simply use the "edit" tab (second option among the top-right tabs in my setup); (ii) end your comments with four tildes (~), which will automatically generate a signature for you.

About the article: your original problem was with the translation of a quotation, not with his ethnicity. Nobody denies that he was of Slovak origin, since his father was Slovak. It is clearly stated in the first paragraph of the article (Section: "Origin, life"). He was also of Hungarian origin, since his mother was Hungarian. Hence, he was partly Slovak and partly Hungarian [7]. What's the problem with that? What would you like to change in the article? (besides the translation of the quotation, since for this you should provide some sources). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: Meanwhile Fakirbakir has also answered and I agree with him. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I m afraid that is not quite good because not quite clear enough. You see, when Bel calls himself "de lingua Slavus" he desribes his native tongue, the language of his mind and therefore his personal inner identity and there is nothing Hungarus about that. Pointing out his mother was of a Hungarian noble family is not an information about ethnicity or language but an information about his social background and that is not the same. Powerplay1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerplay1000 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually her noble origin gives us a good chance to presume that she had Hungarian origin (the Hungarian nobility -partially- derived from the conqueror Hungarian clans -clans as Bána/Bana, Kürt, Hermány, Aba, Jenő, Szák, Szalók, Örsúr etc...- the Cseszneky family originated from Clan Bána (Bána genus). Moreover Erzsébet Cseszneky, Matthias's mother, belonged to the Transdanubian Cseszneky line. But I think this debate is futile. Matthias was grown up in Upper Hungary and surely this circumstance played a significant role in the formation of his identity. I could say that his father's origin is also obscure because 1, a part of his surname "Bél" means "intestine" or "inner" in Hungarian. 2, we know nothing about his ancestry as opposed to Erzsébet Cseszneky 3, just for the fun the "Bél" genus was also a Hungarian clan in the past. What is sure he had shared identity and was keen to contribute to both nations (just read the legacy section). Fakirbakir (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa, I fail to realize why you went back to previous version. You labelled that book as a "reliable and verifiable source". Why do you disregard it at present? All I see here is a an addle conversation, and it looks like what you sent me: "original research". We are forbidden to raise conclusions based on our own thoughts. Does any person have a "reliable and verifiable source" which declares Matej Bel of other ethnicity, to counter mine? Irji2012 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I again agree with Fakirbakir and think that the debate about his ethnicity is futile, even a bit childish. He had a mixed ancestry and identity, thus we should not label him simply as either "ethnic Slovak" or "ethnic Hungarian". That's why I have reverted Irji2012's addition to the lead. But, since (s)he has asked for "counter sources", I list some which state that Matthias Bel was Hungarian: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. And, of course, there are works which claim that he was both Hungarian and Slovak [15][16][17]. Therefore, I see two options (i) we do not talk about his ethnicity in the lead, or if we do (ii) we mention both of his ancestries. I prefer the first option. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Bél

What you are doing looks like WP:SYN.

This is also an Irish name Bél - see Eógan Bél, by your reasoning we should mention this too. 79.117.141.87 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Hungarian meaning is more important than the Irish one. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't base our articles on personal opinions. We could discuss the inclusion your statement as long as a possible Hungarian origin suggested by the name would be affirmed by a reliable author, but in this case it is just original research, I hope you can agree with that 79.117.214.211 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

meaning of Bél (Bel)

Why we can not have name etymology section in the article? I thought etymology is the study of the origins of words. It could deserve a section somewhere in the article. So, it is a well known fact that the Hungarian "bél" has Finno-Ugric origin.[18]. If you study about medieval Hungarian clans you will also know that the the domains of the Bél (or Bel, Ugh, Ug) clan[19] were situated northward from city of Eger, region of present-day Bélapátfalva. I think the Bél (or Bel) family name from Upper Hungary in the 17th century is quite interesting if we have a medieval clan bearing the same name from the northern territories. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"bél" has Finno-Ugric origin > And what do you think about surnames Biely(check this word in Slovak dictionary), Bil, Biel, Beel... from Očová? Or what do you think about writing in Očová church from 1696 - "Matthias Biel alias Funtik"? Or what do you think about this [20] :-D? Or what do you think about Bel :-DD? --Omen1229 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bel" is not "Biel". If it was Biel or Biely they (I mean the scholars) would use that form. Or he had 5 different names in Slovak? Pls introduce it in the article. I admit that etymology is a bit tricky and leads nowhere sometimes.....(but wiki, because it is an encyclopaedia, quite likes to use it). I think not I am the first one who noticed the sameness of the names. Actually, Očová is reasonably close to the medieval centre of the Bel clan. This genus was populous and had 16 branches. I think it is quite interesting and maybe it is not just coincidence. That is all. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted some etymology from Matthias's biography writer. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts about NPOV your cited source. I ask you to provide a translation: "Ha számba vesszük a Bél Mátyás életéhez, munkásságához kapcsolódó irodalmat, akkor bizony tekintélyes betûtengeren kell keresztülásnia magát annak, aki igazán tájékozottnak akarja érezni

magát ebben a témakörben. 1984-ben (Bél Mátyás születésének 300. évfordulójára) jelent meg (1500 példányban) a Matica Slovenska kiadásában egy 375 tételes, 78 képmellékletet tartalmazó, annotált személyi bibliográfia (Matej Bel 1684–1749. Szerk. Bla�ej Belák). Az utóbbi negyedszázadban nem készült újabb összegzés, de aligha tévedünk, ha azt állítjuk, hogy a „teljes” Bél Mátyás-irodalom tételszáma alighanem már ez ezres nagyságrendhez közelíthet." and "Az 1984-ben megjelent imént említett szlovák személyi bibliográfia már Bel-Funtík néven említi az apját, s anyja mint Al�beta Èesneková jelenik meg ugyanott. Bél Mátyás nevét csakis Matej Bel alakban említik a szlovák kiadványokban, mint ahogy a történelmi magyar család- és személyneveket is kizárólagosan szlovákosított alakban hajlandók leírni (viszont példá- nak okáért a németországi tudósok nevét nem szlovákosítják). Nevezzük nevén a dolgot: ez nem más, mint a magyar múlt kisajátítása, primitív, ámde hatásos és látványos megrablása. A jámbor szlovák(iai) olvasó ezeket látva szentül meg lehet gyõzõdve, hogy egy igazi szlovák tudós géniuszt ismerhet meg „Matej Bel” személyében. Az említett, 1984-meg megjelent bibliográfia 78 illusztrációjának latin könyvcímei és szövegrészletei alapján sem éledhet gyanú a szemlélõben, és az öt magyar nyelvû oldalt látva sem kételkedhet Bél „szlovák voltában” a jóhiszemû átlagolvasó. Igaz ugyan, hogy ha valaki a bibliográfia egyes tételeit is átböngészi, akkor a latin címek mellett már szembeszökõ a magyar túlsúly. S még föltûnõbb az arányeltolódás, ha az újabb Bél-szövegkiadásokat vesszük sorra. Éppen ezért megdöbbentõ, és elképesztõ, hogy az internet magyar nyelvû Bél Mátyás szócikkében (Wikipédia) a következõket olvashatjuk Bél Mátyás megjelöléseként: „szlovák és magyar író”. Mivel Bél Mátyást a szlovákok magukénak vallják, nem csodálkozhatunk azon, hogy a besztercebá- nyai egyetem is „Matej Bel” nevét vette föl. Szülõhelyén, Ocsován látható Bél Mátyás emlékszobája és szobra. Mit tudunk mi fölmutatni? Utcát neveztek el róla Budapest XVII. kerületében. Bél Mátyás legnagyobb szabású vállalkozása a XVIII.. század elsõ felének Magyarországát bemutató könyvsorozata: a „Notitia Hungariae”. Ennek nyomtatásban megjelent kötetei zömmel a mai Szlová- kiához tartozó területeket tárgyalják. Ezek után azt gondolhatnánk, hogy ha már kisajátította magának derék polihisztorunkat a szlovák „tudomány”, akkor monumentális hasonmás kötetek és kétnyelvû (latin-szlovák) kiadványok formájában teszi láthatóvá ország-világ elõtt azokat a mûveket, amelyeknek az európai tudományosság a XVIII. században osztatlan elismeréssel és csodálattal adózott. Csakhogy a helyzet egészen más! Ezek a kiadások mindmáig bizony váratnak magukra. Csupán néhány kisebb közlés, „szemelgetés” jelent meg szlovákul Bél Mátyás életmûvébõl. Mi ennek a magyarázata? Végtelenül egyszerû! Természetesen nem a pénzügyi fedezet hiányzott a monumentális, reprezentatív szövegkiadásokhoz, hanem az a felismerés gátolja máig a közzétételüket, hogy a derék „szlovák tudós” mûveinek szövege éppen hogy nem a szerzõ szlovákságának, hanem magyar voltának bizonyítéka. Még akkor is, ha elismerõen ír mûvében a szlovákokról (miért is szidalmazta volna õket?). Vagyis mûveinek mind történeti, mind más részei letagadhatatlan bizonyságai annak, hogy az északi (felföldi) megyék a magyar királyságnak integráns részei voltak. Így azonban ezek a mûvek teljességgel alkalmatlanok arra, hogy a szlovák államisághoz való „történeti jog” perdöntõ bizonyságául szolgáljanak." Thanks!

Also please dont delete cited content. What's this - you deleted Matej Bel Funtík, changed Matej Bel-Funtík > Matej Bel-Funtik and added Mátyás Bél-Funtik [21] with no results? And do not worry, I also translate (reliable) Slovak sources - biography writer Ján Tibenský [22]. --Omen1229 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire text (what you copied here) is against his Slovak origin. It questions the Slovak researchers. I agree it is a Hungarian POV, however the article also contains Slovak POV. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Csaba Csorba in 1928 the Slovak scientific elite still considered him to be " harm for the Slovak case" or "harm for the Slovak interest" („szlovák ügy ártójának”). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Please provide me a translation of text above of this strong Magyar POV unreliable essay. You agree it is a Hungarian POV, but what Slovak POV do you mean? German source (Sohn eines slowakischen Fleischenhauers)[23]? "The second part of his father's surname, the cognomen "Funtik" which derives from the Slovak inhabitants of Ocsova, does prove nothing about his father's vernacular and ethnicity." > Dispute about his ethnicity has only Csorba Csaba. "According to Matthias's biography writer, the historian Csaba Csorba, his surname "Bél" as a family name first occurred in Transylvania (1550, 1640) and its meaning "domestic person/domestic servant" (belső cseléd)." > Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. This is really obscure original research in connection with Transylvania. In fact first member (in the sources) of the Bel family was mayor of Očová Šimon Bel (Simon Beel dictus) in 1465. --Omen1229 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think these sources below are reliable sources? This sentence is also strong Slovak POV. Do you think that we should leave it in the article?

"According to some Slovak sources, he considered himself an ethnic Slovak,"

Fakirbakir (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you thnik that "sentence is also strong Slovak POV"? Did you read these cited sources? Or you think that only for nationality of authors? the Slovak scholar Matej Bel-Funtik > http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/hunspir/hsp30.htm or [24][25][26][27] etc.

And in the lead is "natione Hungarus" and some authors claim "by nation a Hungarian", but in fact the latin term "natione Hungarus" does not mean "by nation a Hungarian"[28][29][30][31][32], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity.[33],[34]--Omen1229 (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An "ethnic Slovak" who wrote a Hungarian grammar book :) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC

Hmmm, yeah that's a POV. If you take a look at my last answer here Talk:Matthias_Bel#Brief_answer_to_Koerte__the_texts_you_quote_call_Matej_Bel_a_.22Slovak_scholar.22_resp._.22of_Slovak_origin.22, I have listed 7 sources (and not just Hungarian ones!) which claim that he was Hungarian. So there are other opinions (counter-POVs?), which we may consider including if that POV remains there. I would prefer leaving these out altogether, since very likely he had a mixed Slovak-Hungarian ancestry. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? So Bartok was Slovak, because he collected Slovak folk songs? Research interests hardly determine one's ethnicity. We do have the quote, he was a Slav by language, and judging by his place of birth it's safe to assume it was Slovak, not Polish or Croatian. Of course he was a Hungarian, he lived in Hungary, so he was politically a Hungarian. But that has nothing to do with ethnicity (see Natio Hungarica). Could you please leave at least the articles about people, who are quoted describing their ethnicity, at peace? Wladthemlat (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If we leave Slovak POV (e.g. "ethnic Slovak") in the article we will have to mention the Hungarian POV as well. Like this: According to Matthias's biography writer, the historian Csorba Csaba, his surname "Bél" as a family name first occurred in Transylvania (1550, 1640) and its meaning "domestic person/domestic servant" (belső cseléd). His mother tongue was possibly Hungarian as Rezső Szalatnai's study shows us. The second part of his father's surname, the cognomen "Funtik" which derives from the Slovak inhabitants of Ocsova, does prove nothing about his father's vernacular and ethnicity. On his mother's side Matthias unequivocally came from a Hungarian family. Even the Slovak sources until the 1930s considered him thoroughly Hungarian. http://www.hnm.hu/honismeret/folyoirat/2009-5honismk.pdf Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

He considered himself an ethnic Slovak (lingua slavus), language was the main way of determining ethnicity up until 20th century, what's more there to discuss about this?Wladthemlat (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, "by language a Slav" does not mean the same as "ethnic Slovak". Since this statement of his can be interpreted several ways, we should leave it as it is and simply provide the quotation. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the quote should suffice, but it's not in conflict with the info added. I'd very much like to know how else would you interpret the quote, than that he was an ethnic Slovak - his mother tongue was indeed Slovak (hence the quote). That he was an ethnic Italian perhaps? Wladthemlat (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The mother tongue of Terence Chi-Shen Tao is English. Do you think that he is an ethnic English? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it? Because the article doesn't say so. Digression anyway. How would you interpret the quote? Wladthemlat (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another interpretation is that "by language a Slav" simply means that [one of] his mother tongue[s] was Slav, very likely Slovak. I wrote "one of", since his mother was Hungarian and there are academic sources which claim that Hungarian was also his mother tongue, e.g., "His father was a Slovakian butcher, and his mother a Hungarian; as proven by his enthusiasm towards the Hungarian language and the research work done later on its past, his mother tongue was Hungarian." [35]. He obviously felt that it was important that [one of] his native language[s] was Slav, that can explain the quotation, but speaking Slovak does not necessarily imply that he considered himself exclusively ethnic Slovak (especially, since he also wrote "natione Hungarus", which can also be interpreted in several ways). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthias Bel. 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/20110216074829/http://www.quark.sk/matej-bel-slovensk-polyhistor to http://www.quark.sk/matej-bel-slovensk-polyhistor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Slavus (again) + some other comments

• I hope that we already understand that the Latin name of Slovaks is "Slavi", "Sclavi" - the name consistently used also in Doležal's Slovak-Czech grammar about Slovaks (Slavi), Czechs and their languages (Bel wrote the preface). Also in the original book, dialectum Sclavorum is not "a Slavic language", but the Slovak language. Very specifically, it is the language of educated people in Skalica (Moravian valley Western Slovak).
• The name "Bel" is not necessarily "Hungarian". The name of the family is recorded as Bel, Bil, Biely - the transcription was dependend on writer. I removed the statement.
• The statement that he did not edit any book in Slovak, because it was codified only later makes absolutely no sense. The fact that there was no society-wide standard does not mean that people did not wrote in Slovak (what Catholic and Calvinist inteligentsia definitely did, contraty to Lutherans who wrote in Czech - after the anti-reformation cca 15% of Slovaks). This type of work was ussualy written in Latin. I removed this illogical statement.--Ditinili (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili: I've restored the qualification as consensus by default. Please feel free to argue the point with other editors. I'm uninvolved in the matter, and am only here in good faith, but I see that this has been a point of contention. Please follow WP:BRD and wait for other editors to have time to pick up on your comments. Thank you for your patience. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir: As you're the only active editor who seems to have been involved in this, it would be appreciated if you were to chime in on the issue. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just for the clarification. The information that the quote "Slavus/Hungarus/Germanus" is from his preface to Slovak-Czech Grammar seems to be my mistake. It seems to be from another work.

@Fakirbakir: it makes no sense to play on Slovak and Hungarian POVs (see your last comment). It would be better to explain his Hungarian patriotism (that was common also among Slovak intelligentsia and nobility in the 18th century), to correct some innacurate information, i.e. that he was an editor of Nova Posoniensia and others. In the case of his allegedly half-Hungarian origin, it would be more constructive to explain the origin of this hypothesis that is surrely not a fact and it is not generally accepted by the scientific community (althought it is mentioned by some authors).--Ditinili (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd still like Fakirbakir to just make a brief appearance here, but I'm not going to revert his/her latest removal of badly sourced and, it appears, WP:UNDUE text, (i.e., Jozef Fraňo, for example, was a geographer, not an academic with any credible academic grounding on the subject of Bel). Wikipedia represents mainstream tertiary thought via reliable sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I'm also not going to revert last removal, the second reference ("Ľudové noviny", http://www.luno.hu/) is not an academic journal.--Ditinili (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)