This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Croatia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hungary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

He wasn't Hungarian soldier. He was Croat in service of Austrian Empire military. There is no reason to call him Hungarian becaouse he was born as a Croat in famous Croatian noble family Šubić, later called Zrinski. The batlle for Kiseg happend on Hungarian teritory defending Austrian Empire which Hungary, as Croatia, was a part of. That doesn't mean he was Hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.5.51 (talk • contribs)

In medieval times, being a Hungarian was not referring to ethnical descendance (they were called Magyars), but membership of the country's nobility. Please correct me if you feel I'm wrong. --V. Szabolcs 15:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Austrian Empire that time. The Habsburg Empire was a complex set of different states connected by the dinasty. Zrinski was a magnate of Croatia within the Hungarian realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.252.145 (talk • contribs)

Nikola Šubić Zrinski was a Croat. Kingdom of Croatia was in the Habsburg Monarchy at that time, since January 1st 1527 @ Cetingrad Sabor to be exact. Why dont funny Hungarians call Josip Jelačić a Hungarian. In the time of Šubić-Zrinski Croatia made personal union with Hungary and only that. But in the time of Jelačić, the bonds between the two states were much stronger! Croatia and Hungary(Ungria back then) formed unio realis inequalis, with Hungary's dominance.

Why would Jelačić be called as a Hungarian?? However the answer you find about Zrínyi also in this and the next section. No doubt of his Croatian roots and being Croatian, but also his participation, alliance and loyalty to Hungary and other relations made him a very respected person, so you can regard it as "honorary" Hungarian in our point of view which does not exclude his Croatian being. V. Szabolcs, partly yes, but Hungarian was not referred NECESSARILY to ethnical desdendance, and not EXCLUSIVELY the membership of the Hungarian nobility, but to everyone who was born/resident/citizen in Hungary. I have to pinpoint being Hungarian does not exclude being Magyar - of course - but the cause of my pinpoint some Slovak nationalist play that game recently if someone is called Hungarian but not Magyar in old papers they immediately conclude he was a Slovak - but why not i.e. Vlach, German, Saxon, Serb or Ruthenian, like other resident nationalities in Hungary?? - that is a ridiculous amateur attemtp to cheat history, since also then and now an ethnic Magyar also calls himself/herself Hungarian, simply because this is how our country and nation is called in those foreign languages. Of course, it was also known how Hungarians call themselves in their own language but regarding the official i.e. Latin and German administration of course the official designation was used.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The Zrinski family was indeed of Croatian origin. However, quoting from the 1911 Britannica (article here:

"The Emperor Ferdinand also gave him large possessions in Hungary, and henceforth the Zrinyis became as much Magyar as Croatian magnates.... In 1563, on the coronation of the Emperor Maximilian as king of Hungary, Zrinyi attended the ceremony at the head of 3000 Croatian and Magyar mounted noblemen..." (emphasis mine).

It would be inaccurate to call Zrinyi simply "a Hungarian soldier", but equally unfair to leave it at simply "a Croatian soldier." For further discussion, take a look at his great grandson, also Nikola Zrinski, who was both a Croat and Hungarian patriot, and who definitely ascribed both these qualities to his great-grandfather in his Hungarian-language epic, the Szigeti Veszedelem. I can't think of a better source.
Korossyl 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the old books, Croatia was a part of Hungary, under the Hungarian (Magyar) crown. Technically, everyone under the Magyar crown were Magyars from a citizenship perspective. By birth/ethnicity, he was a Croat. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just non-neutral, irredendist Croatian in its tone, its usage of words and the selection of topics covered. This "Nikola person" keeps on "routing(?)" and "defeating(?)" the ( which(?), where(?), how big(?), who says(?)) Ottomans and when at last has a "heroic defence(?)" and "desperate sortie(?)". This is totally irredendist in its approach and tone. One could just as have stated of this "man(?)" having "small victories(?)" against "small local Ottoman forces(?)" and an "ignomonious defeat(?)" and "totally useless and abject loss(?)" of a "miniscule(?)" fort which ends with the loss of "miserable(?)" lives of him and his "very small number of misguided(?)" followers. Of course, BOTH use the same facts(?) as given and both are NON-NEUTRAL and WRONG for the English Wikipedia!!! Even the supposedly factual statements (that may be or may not be facts) are not given any references. If a irredentist wants to have a biased and non-neutral eulogy, then s/he should confine herself/himself to Wikipedia of her/his language and not to the more factual and neutral English one. I propose this article should be revised to have a neutral, unbiased, and non-racialist, factually correct neutral approach.
88.106.233.198 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your approach is a little overemotional - are you Turkish? Well, as for facts, due to Ottoman losses and the utter failure of the host to advance towards Vienna or further into the middle of the country, the siege of Szigetvár was the last major military campaign against Hungary for decades to come. I wouldn't call the Ottoman host, led by the greatest Turkish sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent himself, a "small local Ottoman force". Moreover, the importance of historical events cannot only be measured on an objective scale; feelings, traditions and the intepretations of contemporaries, misguided though they may be, all play a part. The battle was regarded by Richelieu as one "that saved civilization". Zrinski is regarded as a national hero by both Hungarians and Croatians. I think the article should reflect these facts - hiding them would be POV. (Zigomer trubahin (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your comment does not make any sense. Adverbs and adjectives make a story more interesting. Making a stand against an army of 100,000 with only 2,500 defenders deserves some sort of adjectives and the word heroic is justified.

By making the story grey & neutral leads to the creation of moral equivalence between the Croats (defenders) and the Ottomans who were the aggressors, conquerors and colonizers. According to Just War Theory, the Croats and Nikola Zrinski were just (and heroic) in their fight. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently lacks any specific citations and cites only two general references:

• Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition -- which was written when the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire still existed.
• An obscure German source.

The article offers no clarity whatsoever as to which of these sources material comes from. I therefore started placing citation templates on material to challenge it. WP:V requires that "any material challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Simply removing the tags is not acceptable. If it comes from the Britannica article then cite it to the Britannica article! If just about everything comes from Britannica, then this needs to be made clear (and the article will earn itself a onesource-template). Further on Korossyl's specific point, NO: "any map" will most likely not verify that "A square surrounding a large park in the center of Zagreb is named after Nikola Šubić Zrinski, commonly known as Zrinjevac." It will verify the name and location of the park -- not the reason for its naming -- which is the most important issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in the Zrinski park and I can confirm that it exists. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out the article is little more than a copy-and-paste of the Britannica -- the template that states that it "incorporates text from" it is a gross understatement. I have combined the copied text together into a single paragraph, with a single citation -- both for clarity of citation, and because the previous version had far too many short (often single sentence) paragraphs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is a copy-and-paste from the Britannica, which is acceptable because it's in the public domain. Acceptable, if not preferred -- if possible, the article should rely on multiple sources (as is now indicated at the top of the page). But this is the general pattern with articles based on the 1911 Britannica, because they're usually so obscure that not many other sources (or at least, not many English sources) are forthcoming. Perhaps for this reason, I have never seen such an article cite the Britannica in-line, as it is assumed that the entire page is adapted from it. I certainly did not mean any personal offense.

On the other note, regarding the map: the article is not referring to why it was named after him, but simply that it was. This, I believe, is indeed verifiable on any map -- just as we don't need a citation for the statement, "Central Park is a large park in New York City," we don't need one for "There is a square named after Zrinyi in Zagreb." No? I'm going to restore this statement. Can we discuss here before removing it? Korossyl (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the mention of the square, and coupled it with the uncited statement that Zrinski is a national hero in both Hungary and Croatia, along with a statement of the many streets named after Zrinyi in Hungary. This, again, is fact, verifiable by looking at maps of Budapest, Báta, Nyírergyháza, etc. The preceding statement, then, should count as a summary statement of the sentence following it, which in turn does not require a citation. Could we discuss here before making changes? Korossyl (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a map that states that these streets are named after this Zrinski, not some other member of this presumably quite large family, then cite the bloody thing. Otherwise quit violating WP:V by restoring this material, repeatedly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war with you, but I'd ask that you please refrain from violating WP:AGF and try to adhere to WP:CIVIL. I am going to restore this material, alongside a citation-needed tag. You will please not delete this material until having given "sufficient time to provide references." As for the substantive material: the square in the town is quite clearly, officially, and commonly known as "Nikola Subice Zrinskog." Outside of the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, the use of the full name and the middle name in particular make it totally clear that this is named after the particular hero in question. There is no precedent for providing in-line citations that places are, in fact, named what they are. The Hungarian street names could, in fact, be named after another Zrinyi -- I will modify this line to reflect the elder Zrinski's most lasting imprint on the Hungarian national spirit, namely, the Szigeti Veszedelem. Again, this will all be marked with a citation-needed tag, and I don't see (nor does WP:V officially recognize) any need to delete this material immediately. I would like to continue discussing this here until we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. No? Korossyl (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have entered an alternate universe:

1. Your statement, "I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war with you" is meaningless, as you've been edit warring on this article for the last three days.
2. Edit warring to reintroduce unverifiable information is an act of bad faith -- so WP:AGF therefore no longer applies -- and I see no reason to reward you for edit-warring to retain old unverifiable information by letting you get away with introducing new unverifiable information.
3. You are likewise acting in bad faith by stating "There is no precedent for providing in-line citations that places are, in fact" -- when I never questioned what they were named (though a reference verifying their bare existence is needed regardless --see the following). The material you inserted into the article did not state that the park was named "Nikola Subice Zrinskog", but that the "A square surrounding a large park" (i.e. the surrounding roads not the park itself) was named "Zrinjevac" -- which it seems, from the map, was false -- the four streets surrounding this park have four different names -- none of them "Zrinjevac".

I am therefore removing this material as fallacious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again that you please adhere to WP:CIVIL. With respect, each revert I have made, I have made with the reasonable expectation that it will stand -- if you'll notice, only my very first edit was a clean revert without modifying the contents of the article to bring it up to your standards; this edit, by the way, you let stand after some modification.

I ask also that you please refrain from WP:NPA. You are not in a position to offer "rewards" or "punishments," and the condescension evident in your comments is not needed for a discussion of content.

I'm sorry if I made it seem that you were questioning what the park was named -- it appeared that you were doing exactly this when the map stated the name of the park as "Nikola Subice Zrinskog" and you were arguing that it does not verify that the park is named after Zrinski. I believe, again, that this was miscommunication on our parts.

Finally, I believe it is useless and messy to cite the name of a place, as again, I believe there is no precedent for doing so. You have neither removed the information from the article, however, nor marked it as requiring further citation, so I am willing to close the book on this if you are. Korossyl (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. None of your reverts prior to this one introduced citations to any sources whatsoever into the article -- so they did nothing to bring the article up to the standards of WP:V (which are not 'my standards' as you misrepresent them to be). None of these earlier reverts did anything other than to reinsert unverifiable material and remove legitimate tags drawing attention to such material.
2. By raising WP:AGF you made your bad faith acts relevant -- 'those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'. This response neither violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA.
3. "I'm sorry if I made it seem that you were questioning what the park was named -- it appeared that you were doing exactly this when the map stated the name of the park as "Nikola Subice Zrinskog" and you were arguing that it does not verify that the park is named after Zrinski. I believe, again, that this was miscommunication on our parts." This is a gross misrepresentation of the underlying facts. The dispute was not about whether the "name of the park" was "Nikola Subice Zrinskog" but whether "square surrounding a large park" which it was purported was "commonly known as 'Zrinjevac'" was named after NSZ. You have never in fact inserted or restored text into the article stating that the "name of the park" was "Nikola Subice Zrinskog" -- so why are you now pretending that you did?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Korossyl (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently s historian from Croatia has traced the ancestry of Queen Elizabeth when the baby was born and found out that she a far descendant of Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Should it be put in the article? Here is the source: http://www.vecernji.hr/ljetna-panorama/kraljica-elizabeta-potomak-je-nikole-subica-zrinskog-588701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfanatic10 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikola Šubić Zrinski. 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/20070611131029/http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?gl=200309120000006 to http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?gl=200309120000006

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP,

it seems you are not really aware in details of the subject...I have to emphasize, regarding this not the source is the most important - or it's "nationality" - since we may find a thousand one, it is part of the general knowledge by everyone who knows the story of the Zrinski/Zrínyi family that they became the part of the Hungarian nobility and Nikola Šubić Zrinski is the first major and decisive step for it. So please do not write such ridiculous things that it would be a "propaganda" or similar that really only layman would do who do not have necessary knowlegde of the subject. FYI, Čakovec (Csáktornya) was part of Hungary then, but it does not matter since as I refereed he became the captain of Szigetvár, as well the captain of the Dunántúl district, and denying he became Hungarian higher nobility class - that does not mean any cessation being a Croatian noble, both of them mutually co-existed - would totally contradict all of these mentioned. It has nothing to do with the understanding of Croatian or Hungarian surnames, because because by Nikola Šubić Zrinski meant the entrance to the Hungarian nobility, it has no connection to it how him or his ancestors was called.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Again, dear IP you reinforced your lack of knowledge of the subject. Nobody debated his ethnic Croat being, and ethnicity never had any connection to enter to the Hungarian nobility, thus your argumentation is fallacious, consequently not I have to analyze the meaning or the word nobleman, for further reading I advice you Hungarian nobility.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Ref: Šubić family

The Subic clan was one of the Twelve noble tribes of Croatia, thus they had nobility BEFORE Croatia was taken under the Magyar crown. A Magyar king did not elevate the Subic family to nobility.

By entering the Hungarian nobility (Zrinski was Croat nobility first) does not change his ethnicity from Croat to Magyar. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@212.247.140.231: stop adding information about genealogy or "ancestry" when it is out of scope for this article. For the genealogy exists Zrinski family tree. Genealogy information found at Geni.com is not reliable for citation. Not to mention that the genealogy you cite is wrong as "genealogy.euweb.cz" does not have a correct family tree and has doubtful reliability (including for Croatian Kurjaković and Újlaki family) nor the personal names and surnames are correctly written.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@93.138.179.92: stop edit warring and violating WP:3RR and follow WP:BRD. His real name and surname was not Nikola Šubić Zrinski, he was not called like that in the sources as that is 19th-century invention of Croatian historiography and culture because of which became common in Croatia and elsewhere, but that does not make his real name to change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@93.138.179.92: please stop violating 3RR and please follow BRD. Your edit summary "What is an article called on the wikiipedia? Nikola Šubić Zrinski or IV Zrinski?" simply does not make any sense. You obviously do not understand how are articles titled on Wikipedia (I already linked you to WP:TITLE). I does not matter if the article is titled "Nikola Šubić Zrinski", that was not his real name nor does it make it his real name.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make the claim that NIkola's name was not "Nikola Subic Zrinski". Will you tell all the Croatian people, who know and love him under the name "Nikola Subic Zrinski" that they do not know what his name was?

Nikola was of the Subic family, one of the original noble tribes of Croatia. The Subic family initially used the name Bribirski (of Bribir) and later, when the family moved to Zrin, the family took the name Zrinski (of Zrin).

In am quite certain that Nikola never called himself "Nikola IV Zrinski". Just look at any letter that NIkola sent, and see how he signed himself. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, you seem to be telling Croats a lot about Croatian history. I see that you live in Italy and have a degree in Political Science. On what basis do you qualify as a subject matter expert in Croatian history and the Zrinski family in particular.

Just curious. I know that I, who am not an Italian, would ever try to "teach" an Italian about Italian history. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, what makes you an expert on the Zrinski family? You write a lot of personal opinions and then by the force of personality try to convince everyone that you are right, and then you bully people.

Can you please prove your opinions? You state that "Nikola Subic Zrinski" is a construct of historiography, but the name Nikola IV Zrinski is also a construct to identify the person. If you want historical accuracy, Zrinski signed his letters by these names:

Nicolao comiti Zriny.

Nicolaus comes Zryniensis,

Nicolaus comes de Zrinio

Nicolaus perpetuus comes de Zrynyo

Nicolaus comes perpetuus de Zrynio

Reference: Samu Barabas, Codex epistolaris et diplomaticus Comitis Nicolai de Zrinio, svezak 1 – 2, Budapest 1898-99 NikolaZrinski (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: revert to normal undisruptive revision.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person was never called or signed as Nikola Šubić Zrinski in his lifetime neither did his ancestors and descendants. This name is an invention of Croatian historiography and cultural circles from the 19th century, it's an alias, nevertheless how common and incorrect, but because of this commonality hence the article's title. He was never a member of Šubić and Zrinski noble family as the second is a branch of the first. The IP does not have a basic clue about the topic. There is no content dispute, this is a stupidity. Now I have to ask to bring down protection level. Is it so hard to notice and understand IP's disruptive activity?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove your comments? NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not an endorsement of any version, it's just a tool to stop the edit-warring. The last stable version would be this one but reverting there would not be helpful since the content dispute is with changes you introduced afterwards. As such, I will just leave it as is and hopefully all of you can quickly sort this out. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: it is indirectly an endorsement because the current revision is disruptive revision with false information and you are responsible for making it visible. I did not call for full protection, I called to stop this IP madness so other editors, including me, can continue improving the article to GA criteria, while other admin's deal with his edit warring report. I cannot sort this out if the IP simply does not understand and wants to understand - are you aware with what kind of an IP we are dealing here? I done everything I could to warn him and start a discussion, it was all in vain.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I will not consider dispute resolution ([1]) for something I simply cannot. Do you understand? There is no issue for a resolution. This is brain dead situation. It is basic knowledge that "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" is not his real name in Croatian, Hungarian, or any historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors, one of which just happens to be unregistered and the other one who happens to be you, were edit-warring about each other's preferred version. Protection merely stops this edit-warring which is why the policy calls for it. It is per policy not an endorsement of any version and all readers are informed about this by the big banner that says so. I could just have blocked you both but for edit-warring instead but I think it's in the best interest of the project if there is a discussion and hopefully a resolution. Saying "I'm right and I won't talk to people who disagree" is rarely helpful and certainly will not lead to the article being unprotected any time soon. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I did not edit-warring in favor of my preferred version yet of correct version which is bringing the article to higher quality. Why are you making this personal? The one who was edit-warring, ignoring all the warnings, ignoring the whole disucssion, having a complete misunderstanding of his real name and confusing the article's title as giving reliability to alias name - was the IP - I have done everything in my power to stop this disruption. He is not even going to show up for a discussion, we are wasting time for nothing. The only one whose actually discussing and explaining - is me. You are asking me that's for a best interest to have a discussion, true, but a discussion about what? I already explained - see for e.g. article Nikola IV Zrinski at Croatian Encyclopedia published by Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography - his name is Nikola Zrinski, as was fourth Nikola in the family like for e.g. his father was Nikola III Zrinski, he is correctly named Nikola IV Zrinski, while in the historiography he is also known as "Nikola Zrinski Sigetski" and "Nikola Šubić Zrinski". We cannot get a more reliable and trustworthy source for citation than that. It cannot be more logical and common sense. By citing that it's end of discussion. There is no issue with the content, there's nothing for a discussion or resolution. Just bring down the protection so autoconfirmed or extended confirmed editors can continue editing the article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Also for example an older encyclopedia, note "Zrinski, Nikola" (pg. 744) in Yugoslavian Enciklopedija Leksikografskog zavoda, volume 6, (1969) also published by LZMK: there's no mention of "Nikola Šubić Zrinski", he is simply named Nikola Zrinski, whose only difference from his great-grandson Nikola Zrinski is different date of birth and death.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Also for example a recent academic paper "Szigetvári Zrínyi Miklós – Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Revising Common Croatian and Hungarian History in the Twenty First Century" (2018) by Szabolcs Varga where is clearly stated that "Nicholas of Zrin (Hung. Miklós Zrínyi, Croat. Nikola Zrinski)", with no in-text mention of "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" clearly making it an exclusivelly Croatian alias name. In conclusion, never existed a historical person with the name "Nikola Šubić Zrinski". The end of discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It is basic knowledge that ...", ha ha ha, I have never heard such an absurd comment.

Big credibility ha ha ha NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no problem with Miki Filigranski's edits and improvements before the massive edit warring happened (Nikola IV Zrinski or Zrínyi IV Miklós (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈzriːɲi ˈmikloːʃ]; 1507/1508 – 7 September 1566), commonly known as Nikola Šubić Zrinski etc.), but with a little modification since in Hungarian such like Zrínyi IV Miklós is not used by any means, so simply just Zrínyi Miklós should be written. Some other's are not related to this issue of the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Additionally for Nikola IV Zrinski (which is English Nikola/Nicholas IV of Zrin) see whole 1992 book spec. pg. 13 for genealogy, book 2001, this 2011, this 2019 etc. As for Zrínyi IV Miklós it can be found in the Hungarian Wikipedia article hu:Zrínyi Miklós (hadvezér) and is not uncommon while searching on Google. Having an ordinal number is not unusual practice in historiography topics on nobility, genealogy and so on. However, it would be enough to have ordinal number alongside Serbo-Croatian name. It is understood.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is " Serbo-Croatian" ???

There is no such thing. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment. This section is titled "Real name", which is unfortunate because it steers this discussion in the wrong direction. Wikipedia does not generally care about "real names" (cf. Lady Gaga). The paramount criterion is predominant usage in English-language sources, so arguments along the lines of "correctness" are missing the point entirely. Please argue by providing supporting sources. GregorB (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is justifiably titled "Real name" because the IP argued that "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" is his real name. I already explained to the IP that Wikipedia does not care about real name in regard to the title of the article, but that is not the point of the discussion. I have already provided reliable sources, encyclopedias, in which this historical person is Nikola Zrinski in Croatian and Zrínyi Miklós in Hungarian langauge, more specifically Nikola/Miklós IV (also in English sources like this), and that is his real, correct and usually used name. His real name has priority and comes first, while other alias names under which is also commonly known but never in his lifetime is "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" and even "Nikola Zrinski Sigetski". Hence in the LEAD:

"Nikola Šubić Zrinski ... known as Nikola IV Zrinski or Zrínyi IV Miklós" - Wrong order because it makes it look like as his real name is Nikola Šubić Zrinski and that is also known as Nikola IV Zrinski or Zrínyi IV Miklós

"Nikola IV Zrinski or Zrínyi IV Miklós ... commonly known as Nikola Šubić Zrinski" - Correct order because it makes it obvious his real name is X and X and that is also commonly known as Nikola Šubić Zrinski

If you want to start a discussion about a review of English sources for a possible title change, that is another issue. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, I think in case we may agree on Zrínyi (IV.) Miklós, putting in brackets the number because regardless of the Hungarian WP, it is very uncommon even by google search compared to the name without number. About the whole case, don't worry, the IP edit without consensus will be reverted.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: as said, the usage of numerical numbers is a common practice in the sources, with or without brackets, so I don't see any issue there and agree with you. As other language variations have the number it would be rational to also have the number in Hungarian variation, while the usage of brackets (style) doesn't make any issue. Regarding the Hungarian language variation I have a question: should be used in the lead and infobox surname-name "Zrínyi Miklós" or name-surname form "Miklós Zrínyi", in other words, is it alright to have second form analogous to the Croatian, English and other language customs of writing? For example, in the chapters like "Miklós Zrínyi, Captain-General of Szigetvár (1561–1566) – His Organisational Activity and Death" from a recently published book The Battle for Central Europe: The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyi (1566) by Brill Publishers it is usually used the second form, even the Wikipedia article on his great-grandon is titled Miklós Zrínyi.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski:, no problem with the Miklós Zrínyi form. For clarity, I will add also the Hungarian variant with the "lang hu" template in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: thanks, now will go to prepare the major edit for next revision, it could take perhaps two days, but would like to see your review. I also started a consensus&request below so your opinion would be appreciated.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no Hungarian lies and a history revision for someone who says that the Croats were vassal, and not in union with the Hungarian, and so you write in the wikipedia. Hungarians were the same as the Croats, as well as the Austrians in the Habsburg Monarchy all. He is Nikola Šubić Zrinski, Šubić's family was until 1526, and Nikola was born 1507, what is not clear to you? I see you write only Zrinski and Nikola as his name bother you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.79.47 (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing nonsense and as such you are ignored.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore the truth, you have no arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.79.47 (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The person was never called or signed as "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" and what is this? You mean he doesn't even write here "Subic" where he signed himself Nikola Subic Zrinski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_IV_Zrinski#/media/File:Zr%C3%ADnyi_Mikl%C3%B3s-v%C3%A9grendelet.jpg

Kansas Bear reverted an addition that I made. I added details about the Battle of Somlyo and I referenced a book on Amazon that is apparently "self-published". Unfortunately, this is the best source in the English language and it aligns with Hungarian and Latin sources. Since this is English Wikipedia - I will not post Hungarian or Latin details.

This Wiki page does not say that self-published sources cannot be used. So, the question is WHY? Especially when there are few English sources that provide a depth of details.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

This is what I added but was reverted:

During Sultan Suleiman's campaign into Hungary in 1543, while his main army takes cities and forts, Crimean Tatars and Akınçı riders are sent across Habsburg controlled Hungary to raid and create havoc. Ban Nikola Zrinski, answering King Ferdinand's call, arrived in Győr with several hundred horsemen. While Hungarian peasants pled for protection, the Habsburg army sat near Pressburg (Bratislava) and Győr. Reports arrived in the Imperial camp at Győr about Tatars marauding and taking thousands of people taken captive, near Somló/Somlyó (Somlóvásárhely), north of Lake Balaton.  Unlike the Germans, Zrinski and his compatriots could not sit idly and they decided to act.  With an army of about 1,000 cavalrymen, Zrinski rode to the Somlyó area and surprised the scattered Tatars.  Zrinski’s army was spotted and the roving Tatar and Akınçı bands quickly coalesced into a unified force but Zrinski’s cavalrymen formed a wall and charged at the Tatars.  After a difficult fight, during which Zrinski was wounded, the Tatars were defeated, almost 3,000 raiders killed in the marshes, and only a few hundred returned to the safety of the Sultan's army at Székesfehérvár.  Zrinski received much praise for his valour in battle.

NikolaZrinski (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Željko Zidarić, does not appear to be an historian.[2] Feel free to take your concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

The previous addition was also a self-published source.

Ante Mrkonjić, does not appear to be an historian, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are confusing because

Wikipedia itself says: Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Are you a historian?

NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are starting to creep into the realm of WP:CIR.

Again, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it baffling that an article is written here about the Nikola Zrinski, but while there are plentiful references to low quality English sources, there is not a single reference to the definitive biography of NIkola Zrinski:

"Život Nikole Zrinjskog sigetskog junaka" by Matija Mesić, 1866.

How can this article, and the editors that created it, have any credibility when there is such a big omission? NikolaZrinski (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is not a single reference to

"Az első Zrinyiek" by Ferencz Salamon, 1865.

"Zrínyi Miklós" by Tibor Klaniczay, 1964

Zrin grad i njegovi gospodari by Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, 1883. NikolaZrinski (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]