Talk:Artúr Görgei

Spelling?

Isn't it spelled "Görgey"? Alensha 23:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Moreover, his first name is written as "Artúr" today. Page moved, name replaced everywhere. --Adam78 13:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he changed the spelling from Görgey to Görgei during the revolution (the former being too "aristocratic" for a revolutionary leader - the ending "y" usually indicates that the holder of the name is (was) a nobleman). The reason for using the form "Görgey" is that he did not oppose this when the first edition of his memoirs was published in 1911, under the name "Görgey Artúr". Vay 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Kosáry wrote that, Görgey had never applied for changing his name. Vince Muntag

Other aspects of his life should be added

He was not only a military leader, but a professor in chemistry, and he was the first, who succeeded isolating an industrially important organic acid. 84.2.192.236 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other suggestions

G'day, I have done a bit more copy editing following a request on my talk page. I've probably done all I can at this stage, but I have a couple of suggestions:

• there appears to be some inconsistency in naming (some "Görgey" but mainly "Görgei")
• for the citations, the titles of works not in English should be translated (some have already been done, some have not)
• the 20th century research mentioned in the lead, doesn't seem to be mention in the body?
• not all of the information in the Notes section of the Summary appears referenced
• there are a few "citation needed" tags that should be replaced with citations

Ultimately, I think that this article has good potential if someone wanted to take it to some of the higher levels of assessment (such as GAN). If you are considering this, I'd suggest putting it through peer review first. Anyway, thank you for your efforts and good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear AustralianRupert, the family name was Görgey, but Artúr (or Arthur) abandoned -y, which referred to his noble status in Hungarian language, and used -i instead, as was a faithful supporter of the "plebeian" 1848 Hungarian revolution. In Hungarian histrogiography, there were long debates about the proper use of his name. Other family members (including Gábor Görgey, who is still alive), wrote their names with -y. Anyway Artúr Görgei's case is not unique, Mór Jókai also abandoned -y in his name. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, to clarify, my concern is the way in which the lead uses both interchangeably without clarification or chronology. For instance, "In his youth Görgei" followed by "Görgey's relationship and conflicts". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit reversion

KIENGIR, I saw that you reverted the changes I made to the introduction of this article. I undid the reversion for now, as the state it was in before was barely readable. If you have any specific objections to the changes I made, let's discuss them here. I would like to further improve the article at some point, and don't want there to be any issues.TGWZoldorf (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,

I don't think we should ignore how renowned he is, he is not treated just as an ordinary general (all the three praises, even the newer positive evaluation of him you removed). You removed as well "victorius" frim one battle, and the expplanation what was the reason to appoint him as military dictator, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

Not trying to ignore his renown, simply sticking to factual language. Things like 'greatest general' or 'greatest military genius' may or may not be true, but they certainly don't sound like they're sticking to an entirely neutral, factual tone. Something like 'considered the greatest military genius of the Hungarian Revolutionary Army by [historian]' with an appropriate citation would be fine. I didn't remove an explanation as to why he was appointed dictator, I rewrote it to state that he was appointed Minister of War in recognition of his successes. He was appointed dictator later, not due to his successes, but because of the state of the war and his current position as Minister of War. Overall, I didn't really remove anything except some exaggerated language. Every bit of factual information is still there, just rewritten in a more readable format. I think we should go back to the way I had it, and simply find appropriate sources for the positive comments. What do you think? TGWZoldorf (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should find the solutions of the things I drawed the attention, attribute it, or just write like he is considered a very important/significant general, as well you may expand in details about the appointment to minister (even he had more posts), or when he got full power, the same could go to the details of the Spring campaign.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

I'm just copy editing, I don't know anything about him. If you want to add details about his posts, feel free. Details about the Spring Campaign should go further down in the article, in my opinion. The excessively positive descriptors of him are not neutral as they currently are, and I can't exactly rewrite them in a proper tone without any sources to cite. The version you insist on reverting to is not, in any way, better than the one I submitted. I feel we should get a third opinion on this, what do you think?TGWZoldorf (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think by my advices you may find a middle solution. Go on with editing, it's not a big issue we could not solve together.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC))