| Revision as of 14:34, 21 April 2008 editRembaoud (talk | contribs)634 editsm →Sources, possibly renaming the article← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:40, 1 May 2008 edit undoSquash Racket (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,116 edits →Sources, possibly renaming the article: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ::: Are both Kovac and Luckacka reliable sources? If so, then you might want to rework the article to say, "According to Lucacka, the descriptor 'Slovak' is appropriate for these families; however, according to Kovac, the term is not justified until at least the 15th century." That lays things out in a very neutral way, and gets both viewpoints out there, so the readers can decide. I think our readers would benefit from hearing how different scholars refer to the matter, rather than for us to try and decide which one is "right". --]]] 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ::: Are both Kovac and Luckacka reliable sources? If so, then you might want to rework the article to say, "According to Lucacka, the descriptor 'Slovak' is appropriate for these families; however, according to Kovac, the term is not justified until at least the 15th century." That lays things out in a very neutral way, and gets both viewpoints out there, so the readers can decide. I think our readers would benefit from hearing how different scholars refer to the matter, rather than for us to try and decide which one is "right". --]]] 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Ethnogenesis of the Slovaks is kind of complicated because the English name (and the Slovak word for a Slovak male - ''Slovák'') is slightly different from how their ancestors were called in the 9th century (''Slovene''). The old name is still retained in the words for a female Slovak (''Slovenka'') and the country (''Slovensko''). Since the word ''Slovák'' is recorded for the first time later than the original term ''Slovene'', there is an ongoing debate between historians to what period formation of the Slovak nation should be really placed. Both Lukacka and Kovac are leading mainstream historians and they often clash with their nationalistic counterparts, who use the term Slovaks even for the 5th century. I have read the interview with Kovac that Squash Racket referred to. In that interview, Kovac argued that the Slovak nation was constructed more or less in the 15-16th century. On the other hand, his most authoritative published work (''Dejiny Slovenska'') uses the term "Slovaks" for earlier periods as well. This whole debate reflects a broader debate between ] and ]. Constructivists basically argue that all the existing nations were socially constructed in the Modern Era, while primordialists see them as continuation of older ethnies. The constructivist argument is really strong, but it would mean that any use of the terms Slovak or Hungarian for medieval persons is meaningless. So it is not about whether Slovaks are older/younger than Hungarians. It is about how scientists define nations. ] (]) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ::::Ethnogenesis of the Slovaks is kind of complicated because the English name (and the Slovak word for a Slovak male - ''Slovák'') is slightly different from how their ancestors were called in the 9th century (''Slovene''). The old name is still retained in the words for a female Slovak (''Slovenka'') and the country (''Slovensko''). Since the word ''Slovák'' is recorded for the first time later than the original term ''Slovene'', there is an ongoing debate between historians to what period formation of the Slovak nation should be really placed. Both Lukacka and Kovac are leading mainstream historians and they often clash with their nationalistic counterparts, who use the term Slovaks even for the 5th century. I have read the interview with Kovac that Squash Racket referred to. In that interview, Kovac argued that the Slovak nation was constructed more or less in the 15-16th century. On the other hand, his most authoritative published work (''Dejiny Slovenska'') uses the term "Slovaks" for earlier periods as well. This whole debate reflects a broader debate between ] and ]. Constructivists basically argue that all the existing nations were socially constructed in the Modern Era, while primordialists see them as continuation of older ethnies. The constructivist argument is really strong, but it would mean that any use of the terms Slovak or Hungarian for medieval persons is meaningless. So it is not about whether Slovaks are older/younger than Hungarians. It is about how scientists define nations. ] (]) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Well, Dusan Kovac in with Hungarian ] ] very clearly says: there were only Slavs in Great Moravia, the word proto-Slovaks can not be found in any serious scientific publication because this usage lacks any scientific basis, this kind of self-identification dates from the 15th century. And according to Ján Steinhübel Slovak archaeologist only Milan Durica, who praises ] (president of the Slovak Nazi puppet state) and some amateurs (he actually said "dilettáns" (), I try to translate it moderately) use the phrase "old Slovaks". | |||
| ⚫ | ::::: |
||
| :::::There is no mention of a broader argument and/or Hungarians. ] (]) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::::That's the kind of thing that I'd love to read about in a Misplaced Pages article, and the kind of thing that makes our project really great. If sources disagree, say so! Lay 'em out. :) --]]] 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| It is a "bit" more complicated than this constructivist-primordialist debate, since first the term "]" should be defined. After it was done, can we start discussing whether they were invented before and during the French revolution by liberalism, or they have existied well before, and for example ] and such ancient leaders and certain groups of people (notably Greek city-states) (may) have thinked in (and acted like) a "nation" on their own, well before the Slovaks or Hungarians. --] (]) 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | It is a "bit" more complicated than this constructivist-primordialist debate, since first the term "]" should be defined. After it was done, can we start discussing whether they were invented before and during the French revolution by liberalism, or they have existied well before, and for example ] and such ancient leaders and certain groups of people (notably Greek city-states) (may) have thinked in (and acted like) a "nation" on their own, well before the Slovaks or Hungarians. --] (]) 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:40, 1 May 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hont-Pázmány article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Name
All right, let's talk about it. I am no vandal. I looked up the name, and it seems that even Hungarian sources cite it as 'Hunt-Paznan', most notably a 1910 book, which seemsto have been written during the days of the Monarchy. So it should be left this way. But still I would very much appreciate if someone could provide some English info about this new theory concerning the family's origins, because I don't beleive, that it should be stated as obvious. 82.141.174.131 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which Hungarian book exactly names the Pázmány family Poznan?? I am very curious now, dear IP address. Squash Racket 09:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Problematic
Some ambiguities probably due to mis-translation, but it is unclear if or when the Patzzmans became Poznans; at one point it appears they are NOT related, at another that they ARE. Shir-El too 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an RfC would help this article. Squash Racket 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Request for Comments going on at Talk:Hunt-Poznan. Please join. Squash Racket 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Slovakian chauvinism and "historical-revisionism"
There isn't any contemporary source (diplomats, chronciles, epigraphical monument etc.) for "Poznan". The first Pazman was a Swabian knight who fought with St. Stephen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.122.139 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
As a reminder to all working on this page, if there is a dispute, be sure to discuss it on the talkpage, and not just in edit summaries. --Elonka 03:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources, possibly renaming the article
Sources say these families came from Swabia (hence the name Patzmann) or Italy (Karácsonyi's research) and settled in Hungary. I also recommend using West Slavic or Slavic, because the term Slovak first appeared in sources in the 15th (or the 16th?) century.
Note: these articles were written by User:Juro almost word by word based on a "source" of low quality. The site Angelfire.com doesn't look like an academic source. Squash Racket (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lukacka's book uses the term Slovak and Lukacka is a leading expert on the aristocratic families during the times of the Arpad dynasty. The book is cited in the article. Tankred (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Other leading Slovak experts (like Dusan Kovac) say using the term "Slovak" is not justified before the 15th/16th century. And what does Lukacka think about Patzmanns? I just hope they were not Germans from Great Moravia or something like that. Squash Racket (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are both Kovac and Luckacka reliable sources? If so, then you might want to rework the article to say, "According to Lucacka, the descriptor 'Slovak' is appropriate for these families; however, according to Kovac, the term is not justified until at least the 15th century." That lays things out in a very neutral way, and gets both viewpoints out there, so the readers can decide. I think our readers would benefit from hearing how different scholars refer to the matter, rather than for us to try and decide which one is "right". --Elonka 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ethnogenesis of the Slovaks is kind of complicated because the English name (and the Slovak word for a Slovak male - Slovák) is slightly different from how their ancestors were called in the 9th century (Slovene). The old name is still retained in the words for a female Slovak (Slovenka) and the country (Slovensko). Since the word Slovák is recorded for the first time later than the original term Slovene, there is an ongoing debate between historians to what period formation of the Slovak nation should be really placed. Both Lukacka and Kovac are leading mainstream historians and they often clash with their nationalistic counterparts, who use the term Slovaks even for the 5th century. I have read the interview with Kovac that Squash Racket referred to. In that interview, Kovac argued that the Slovak nation was constructed more or less in the 15-16th century. On the other hand, his most authoritative published work (Dejiny Slovenska) uses the term "Slovaks" for earlier periods as well. This whole debate reflects a broader debate between primordialists and constructivists. Constructivists basically argue that all the existing nations were socially constructed in the Modern Era, while primordialists see them as continuation of older ethnies. The constructivist argument is really strong, but it would mean that any use of the terms Slovak or Hungarian for medieval persons is meaningless. So it is not about whether Slovaks are older/younger than Hungarians. It is about how scientists define nations. Tankred (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dusan Kovac in this January, 2008 interview with Hungarian newspaper of record Népszabadság very clearly says: there were only Slavs in Great Moravia, the word proto-Slovaks can not be found in any serious scientific publication because this usage lacks any scientific basis, this kind of self-identification dates from the 15th century. And according to Ján Steinhübel Slovak archaeologist only Milan Durica, who praises Jozef Tiso (president of the Slovak Nazi puppet state) and some amateurs (he actually said "dilettáns" (see article), I try to translate it moderately) use the phrase "old Slovaks".
- There is no mention of a broader argument and/or Hungarians. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the kind of thing that I'd love to read about in a Misplaced Pages article, and the kind of thing that makes our project really great. If sources disagree, say so! Lay 'em out. :) --Elonka 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ethnogenesis of the Slovaks is kind of complicated because the English name (and the Slovak word for a Slovak male - Slovák) is slightly different from how their ancestors were called in the 9th century (Slovene). The old name is still retained in the words for a female Slovak (Slovenka) and the country (Slovensko). Since the word Slovák is recorded for the first time later than the original term Slovene, there is an ongoing debate between historians to what period formation of the Slovak nation should be really placed. Both Lukacka and Kovac are leading mainstream historians and they often clash with their nationalistic counterparts, who use the term Slovaks even for the 5th century. I have read the interview with Kovac that Squash Racket referred to. In that interview, Kovac argued that the Slovak nation was constructed more or less in the 15-16th century. On the other hand, his most authoritative published work (Dejiny Slovenska) uses the term "Slovaks" for earlier periods as well. This whole debate reflects a broader debate between primordialists and constructivists. Constructivists basically argue that all the existing nations were socially constructed in the Modern Era, while primordialists see them as continuation of older ethnies. The constructivist argument is really strong, but it would mean that any use of the terms Slovak or Hungarian for medieval persons is meaningless. So it is not about whether Slovaks are older/younger than Hungarians. It is about how scientists define nations. Tankred (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are both Kovac and Luckacka reliable sources? If so, then you might want to rework the article to say, "According to Lucacka, the descriptor 'Slovak' is appropriate for these families; however, according to Kovac, the term is not justified until at least the 15th century." That lays things out in a very neutral way, and gets both viewpoints out there, so the readers can decide. I think our readers would benefit from hearing how different scholars refer to the matter, rather than for us to try and decide which one is "right". --Elonka 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Other leading Slovak experts (like Dusan Kovac) say using the term "Slovak" is not justified before the 15th/16th century. And what does Lukacka think about Patzmanns? I just hope they were not Germans from Great Moravia or something like that. Squash Racket (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a "bit" more complicated than this constructivist-primordialist debate, since first the term "Nation" should be defined. After it was done, can we start discussing whether they were invented before and during the French revolution by liberalism, or they have existied well before, and for example Alexander the Great and such ancient leaders and certain groups of people (notably Greek city-states) (may) have thinked in (and acted like) a "nation" on their own, well before the Slovaks or Hungarians. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)