Talk:Hont-Pázmány

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)

Not sure if it counts as Hungarian book but the deed of foundation of Pannonhalma abbey written in year 1001 which contains first reference to both nobles names them as Poznano and Cuntio Bublimuf 11:09, 09 September 2017 (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)

Actually, there is. Name "Poznano" (together with Cuntio) is used in the deed of foundation of Pannonhalma abbey from year 1001, which is already referenced in the article. This source predates Gesta Hungarorum, which used the name "Pazman" by several centuries.Bublimuf (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2017 (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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

Merge

I suggest that this article should be merged into the article Hont-Pázmány and the family's Great Moravian origin could be mentioned as an alternate theory. I think that maintaining two articles on the same subject is unnecessary. And why alternate theory:

• all medieval sources mentiones that they are of German origin;
• all medieval sources mentiones that the Hont-Pázmány was o n e family descending from t w o brothers; therefore, mentioning the existence of two families contradicts to the primary sources;
• the medieval Hungarian society (similarly to most of the medieval societies in Europe) was a society full of MCPs (male chauvinist pigs), therefore suggesting that the double name of the family derives from intermarriages of the presumed two families contradicts to the costums of the kingdom; it was only in the 14th century (not in the 12th century), when King Charles I, who had been born in Italy, entitled, exceptionally, daughters to inherit the possessions of their father, but this "innovation" was sharply opposed by the barons of the kingdom, therefore this innovation, the so-called "fiusítás" ("puting her into a boy's place"), became extremly rare even during the later centuries.

Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)