Talk:Esterházy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Eszterhas[edit]

What about the Hollywood scriptmaker Joe Eszterhas of Basic Instinct fame?

Fertőd[edit]

It might be interesting that Eszterháza is now called Fertőd (NW-Hungary), renamed by the Communists in the 50s.

Query concerning abolition of noble titles[edit]

Hello 138.251.234.149,

Before taking this dispute further, I'd like to get clarification on the purpose of your edits. Is it your judgment that noble titles were not abolished in Hungary in 1945? If so, please cite a legitimate scholarly source for this, and I will leave your edit untouched. However, if you are simply expressing your own personal objection to the abolition of noble titles (perhaps you are an unhappy Esterhazy descendent?), then I will have to call in help from other editors to get this situation under control. We are an encyclopedia, and our job is to present the facts, irrespective of what we think about them.

Sincerely,
Opus33 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liszt[edit]

I wasn't sure if this was worth mentioning in the article and if so how to work it in. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link in Hungarian[edit]

Hello,

This concerns the controversy/edit war seen on this Talk page above, concerning whether the Hungarian government ever passed a law abolishing noble titles. During this edit war, I was frustrated by the fact that I couldn't find any reference source on this point. User:Aetil has succeeded in finding a reference to the actual Hungarian law, and I have added a link to this reference (along with a correction of the date, to 1947). I realize that this reference is in Hungarian, and will be unintelligible to many readers (myself included). However, since the point at hand led to controversy, I think it would be much better to have a Hungarian-language reference than no reference at all; and the text of the law itself is after all a pretty good thing to have, even if only some readers can understand it. For reassurance that the Hungarian page really is what I'm saying it is, please see Aetil's entry on my own talk page, User talk:Opus33. Thanks for listening, Opus33 15:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

I just wondered if someone thought renaming the article's web address to something simpler (eliminating the signs and numbers in the name) would be worth it? I don't know, but I thought I'd suggest it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjames1986 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess you're referring to the accent mark? If so: the way around this is to add redirect pages, which I have just done. Now, when the reader looks for House of Esterhazy, House of Eszterhazy, or House of Eszterházy, (s)he will be taken directly to the correct article. Thanks for spotting this, and I hope my change addresses your concern. Opus33 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duplicated article[edit]

There is another page of Esterhazy. I am going to start a deletion process there. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I simply redirected that page here. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on House of Esterházy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot II<assmall>Talk to my owner:Online 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some help with a revert war?[edit]

We've got some editor newly arrived on the scene who is dumping a big pile of text, in German, into the article. My German is not perfect but I think it's pretty clear that the newly added family members are not notable (in contrast to, for example, the famous author or the famous soccer player). So I am reverting this. I feel that this article should not be some kind of total directory of people who bear the Esterhazy name; rather, they should either represent the main line of princes (which has historical significance) or have some claim to fame in their own right. See WP:NOTABLE. Opus33 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,... here is the "SOME" new editor for you. I am not dumping (again: how so incredibly rude of you ! ) But adding a historically relevant Esterhazy Family member here. Who in the world are you to discredit the only almanac relevant and accurate , the GOTHAISCHER HOFKALENDER ? I will re add this very crucial Family member again, and follow up with your account here . The only reference which is respected by Historians is this almanac , and it's in german , not in english. So may be you should start learning how to speak german, before you start meddling around anywhere in the german aristocratic History. My ancestors are mentioned on this page, so refrain with insults as "SOME" new member is dumping stuff, and keep your famous soccer player attitude out of WIKI here altogether .
Hello, and sorry to be rude. However, the fact of being your ancestor does not qualify someone for being discussed on the Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTABILITY and abide by it. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. . Comment from this "SOME" new editor:

She was a direct descendent to 2 families, her Mother and her grandmother were "born" Princesses of Esterhazy of Galántha Princesses (see fact check reference to a weblink to GOTHA below), these 2 families are mentioned clearly in a section of this article where these branches are being declared as relevant to the article itself:

I quote from this page here:

Lines of the family[edit source] The first prominent member of the family was Ferenc Zerházy (1563–1594), who was elevated to the title of baron of Galántha (an estate his family had held since 1421) and took the name Esterházy. Family history since this time is described according to three lines of descent, each originating in one of Ferenc's sons: the Fraknó (or Forchtenstein) line, the Csesznek line, and the Zólyom (or Zvolen) line.[7]

Her Grandfather was the heir (Erbgraf) to Castle Fraknó (Forchtenstein), although castle Forchtenstein shows up here several times , he, the heir to the castle is not even mentioned here. soo.. Factcheck right here:

https://archive.org/details/gothaischesgenea1890goth/page/298/mode/2up

On this very page 298 to paragraphs :

A. Älterer Zweig. Nicolaus Josef Maria Hubert Graf von Esterházy Freiherr zu Galántha, Erbgraf von Forchtenstein, geb. 5. Dezember 1839

Let me translate: "ERBGRAF" means, he is the actual Owner of the castle Forchtenstein , a castle which has been mentioned numerous time in this article.

A soccer player is more relevant now, really ?

And this "Nicolaus Josef Maria Hubert Graf von Esterházy Freiherr (Freiherr = Owner) zu Galántha, and Erbgraf (ERBGRAF = inherited from his father) von Forchtenstein," is not mentioned anywhere.

Yet someone cloned information from a flawed private family website, of one of the 3 Branches of Esterházy, a website well known to be incredibly incomplete, rather than look the individual people up in historical documents.

Funny Fact: I have an email correspondence with Moritz Esterhazy, The maker and owner of this Esterhazy family website , where he states to me, that his family website is based 99% on WIKI Pages, namely this one here. Now this puts the article here into a whole new perspective: For now the article is basing 90% of its content here to the Esterhazy family website, and the family website is basing 99% of their won content to this article here.

This makes this very WIKI page here somewhat a fabrication of itself.

Wiki should never become a clone copy of a private family website ... right?

Here , if You prefer, from that "family" Website... is the Owner of Forchtenstein, and Grandfather of my granny (who then became the heir to his Family fortunes):

http://de.esterhazy.net/index.php/Graf_Mih%C3%A1ly_Antal_K%C3%A1roly_M%C3%A1ria_Esterh%C3%A1zy_de_Gal%C3%A1ntha_(1853_-_1906)

And YES, I did indeed state the fact She was a Princess , and in addition this fact coming from the most relevant source there is in History, the Gothaische Hofkalender. I stated the edition, in which year it was issued, and the page number where it can be found.

You state as your reverse argument that only being a Princely members as being of relevance, and only then that member should be part of this article ? ...Well, ?!.. here we go!... She was a " born" Princess Esterházy of Galantha,... that differs greatly to the Princesses who were "only" married into a Prince family ... (as a side-note again for you.)

Here a direct link to Princess and Countess Josephine-Marie-Theresa-Vera Amalia Esterházy of Galántha, born In her Esterházy Castle Tallós:

https://archive.org/details/almanachdegotha00unse_94/page/500/mode/2up (see Page 501, line 4 and 5.)

The German word "Fürstin" is PRINCESS in English. (Google it, or go here on WiKI : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial,_royal_and_noble_ranks)

As a FYI, here a few "WIKI facts check" on the GOTHA for You:

==> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almanach_de_Gotha

==> http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Gothaischer_Genealogischer_Hofkalender

==> http://wiki-en.genealogy.net/German_Nobility#High_Nobility

Wiki uses this Encyclopedia /Almanach of Nobility "the Gothaische Hofkalender" tens of thousand of times as a Reference Source, .....So who are You "again" to dismiss this "FACT" Source in this matter here?

Please state exactly, where and why, You are under the impression/(obviously) and seem to have this/your "personal opinion", that I claimed my grandmother being part of this family, would be a good enough reason to be mentioned here ?!?

I have given precisely and solely the source of Encyclopedia /Almanach of Nobility named GOTHA as a qualification, and never did I state here :..."Because She is my family "...

Seems You are intentionally putting words in my writings here. Thats exactly what is "NOT" needed on WIKI.

The standard series of books on European nobility is the Gotha series.

I have not only read your Notability page, buy found all of these requirement fulfilled,... and then some !..

FACT CHECK : The only "verified" nobility source since 1760 is the Encyclopedia /Almanach of Nobility named GOTHA.

Only if a King or Emperor , (in later times consulates and embassies), would confirm the nobility status of a family to the "GOTHA" Publishing House Justus Perthes, only then a Family or a member of Nobility, would be entered or remained in the yearly Almanach of All Almanach of Nobility. There is absolutely no Nobility information source that was able to provide such hard facts in the last 500 years.

So..i stated a verified FACT, but you simply write there is "no" fact here ?

-- Awaiting YOUR "exact points' and "detailed arguments", and all "facts" why this "born" Princess Esterházy of Galántha, who was the last of 3 "born" Princesses of the entire Esterházy of Galántha Family left, would not be fulfilling your now clearly "personal" guidelines.. Why now suddenly certain Princesses should "NOT" be part of a "neutral" Esterházy page ?

This page is incomplete by far. I merely add one person, and there are dozens of them who must be mentioned here, before this page becomes somewhat a serious source.


There are many Esterházy Family members mentioned in this WIKI Article , which are of utter irrelevance to this Wiki article's claim of being accurate . The family tree "graphic" is greatly incorrect, and leaves out dozens of Princely Family Members, and dozens of heirs to hundreds of castles and lands beyond your imagination. Yet they are not in this Family tree Graphic.

Here a very accurate depiction of the Esterházy family on the Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Esterhazy-family

This is NOT a revert war, this is about exactly those "FACT checks and professional guidelines set by WIKI, which you seem to be throwing out of the window here .... and which I certainly provided here.

No Pun intended here,...but come forward what your exact arguments are here,.... but never dismiss sources accepted by WIKI as FACTS ! .. in this matter, the reference to GOTHA, in which edition and on which page this information can be found.

To add to article[edit]

To add to this article: the etymology of the name "Esterházy." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esterházy&oldid=1216544335"