Talk:András Hadik

Slovak

What is the problem with him being Slovak? The wording Nmate is re-adding is out of place, there is no conflict between the sources that would legitimize the use of "some sources say this, some sources say that". The source explicitly states that he was of Slovak ancestry, it's a reliable source by a Hungarian, it should be definitely in the lead. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are able to prove the importance of it, his ancestry has no place in the lead.--Nmate (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

now you're jsut being ridiculous, ancestry is always placed in the lead Wladthemlat (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

from WP:NAMES: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."--B@xter⁹ 09:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, although every single american here has their ethnicity mentioned as 'italian-american' or somesuch right in the lead. The current wording needs a grammar correction nevertheless. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit. Mention his ethnicity if you want, I just noted this rule to you.--B@xter⁹ 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and you were right, there's no point in arguing with something that is clearly stated in a policy / guideline. Thanks for pointing it out and discussing, it saves a lot of time and nerves. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not exact to use Slovak-Hungarian noble family. It was only Hungarian nobility in political sense in that time. Better is to use phrase "of Slovak origin" (Samofi (talk) 23:03, 8 May 20

It's meant in the italian-american origin-political affiliation sense. Don't think it's misleading in any way, but your proposed wording is fine. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovak II

The reference to Décsy is irrelevant as Décsy is a linguist not a historian! Distant Slovakian ancestry is possible but that not excludes Hungarian ancestry! Talking about Slovakian nobility!! means that the author lacks the basic historical knowledge as noble titles were not given to Slovakians during known history. I accept that is hard for Slovakians to have no historical figures, but this level of historical vandalism is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.59.218 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2010(UTC)

First of all - would you mind registering, so it is always clear who I am talking to?

Second - that you believe that nobility status was in any way bound to ethnicity in that time, it's your choice, but it's just a belief. The source stays, as it is clearly a reliable one. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont know who am I talking to either, it wold not be such difference if I gave myself a silly name. By the way how do you know that this source is reliable? Clearly in a historical topic the reference to a lingusit is not seem to be quite reliable, isn't it? The only belief in this article is the Slovakian etnicity of Hadik. The fact is that noble status was only gifted to respected members of Hungarian community which Slovakians were not part of as they had such a minor commune mainly consisted of mountain shepards. Try reading some international history books because the Slovakian ones tend to be quite science fictional... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.57.175 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would make a difference, as those numbers you use right now keep changing, go for an account and it will be less confusing.

I reckon you are new to Wikipedia, on the topic of reliable sources please read [1]. It is not true, that noble status was given based on ethnicity. Could you please provide a reliable source claiming that it was absolutely impossible for a person of ethnicity different than Magyar to have a noble status? It is true that Hungarian nobility was predominantly Magyar, but this does not contradict the claim in this article. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No I did not say that it was based on ethnicity I said that Slovakians had absolutely no leading class which means that no known Slovakian was able to achieve noble status. On the other hand, Croatians who had a dominant leading class during their history could achieve noble rank, as they were accepted as a mayor nation, thus they could form their own parlaiment later on. So all in all ethnicity did not make much of a difference in achieving the mentioned rank, between a Hungarian and Croatian but certain nations without the proper leading class (like Slovakians) could not be granted noble rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.57.175 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just your nationalistic misconception, unfortunately. Or would you dispute Adam_František_Kollár's slovak origin as well? That one is pretty well established, so your claim "Slovakians had absolutely no leading class which means that no known Slovakian was able to achieve noble status" simply doesn't fly. So please, do not push nationalistic prejudices on wikipedia and focus on more constructive editing. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no nationalism is involved as I am rather German:D What I said is fact! Slovakians had no leading class they also had no representation in Hungarian Parlaiment (later on) and they had absolutely no autonomous territory, unlike Croatians! They were only an unrecognised minority with a similar status as romanians (altough romanians had their own leading class who were mostly priests)"Exceptio probat regulam" Kollár was in fact a Slovakian lower nobleman so I have to correct myself! No known Slovakians were among high class nobility and they were rarely able to achive the status of lower nobleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.132.155 (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you're german as you are based in Hungary. Anyway, even if you were German, you would still have internalized some Hungarian nationalistic misconceptions. At first you have claimed that Slovaks (btw. SlovAKS / SlovAK is the correct english use, not SlovaKIANS / SlovaKIAN) had absolutely no nobles, now that there were only lower noblemen, but without any proof, just as in the previous case. How many times are you willing to correct yourself? The absence of autonomous territory and official ethnic-based political representation does not contradict the fact, that there indeed was Hungarian nobility of Slovak origin. As Hungarian "Parliament" was not ethnically differentiated until the 19th century, there may have been numerous members of Slovak origin without the Slovak minority having any official representation as such. The source cited *explicitly* states, that Hadik's family was of Slovak origin, so once again - please stop arguing nonsense and focus on more constructive editing on Wikipedia. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you heard about German minority in Hungary? Dictionary(for Beginners :D) Slo·vak (slväk, -vk) also Slo·va·ki·an (sl-väk-n, -vk-n)

a. A native or inhabitant of Slovakia. b. A person of Slovak descent. 2. The Slavic language of the Slovaks.

(I would not argue with myself in the correct spelling of English words:D) In fact you have serious misunderstanding for Central European history. First of all my mayor problem is that even if Hadik's name comes from the Slovakian word "snake" it does not exlude Hungarian ancestry! He may have distant Slovakian relatives (which I don't think to be possible) but Hungarian ones too as the linguistic reference only states that the name is Slovakian! So at lest correct the ethnicity to Slovakian-Hungarian and the nationality to Austro-Hungarian (altough Austrian-Hungarian is also correct but the most common use is Austro-Hungarian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.56.207 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way what I said was indeed true, as with such few exceptions for nobility (and absolutely having now true high class nobles) it can be said that Slovakians had no leader class during Hungarian history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.56.207 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Merriam-webster has only slovak as a keyword, slovakian is only documented improper use - first known use of Slovak dates to 1829.

With your claims like "Talking about Slovakian nobility!! means that the author lacks the basic historical knowledge as noble titles were not given to Slovakians during known history." which are absolutely wrong, it is clear that it's not me who needs to educate themselves more about history. Unless you bring some serious arguments and sources nothing will change in the article - we know for certain that he had slovak relatives, magyar ones are not mentioned anywhere, the formulation thus stays. Please, save yourself any more typing, until you start arguing with something to back your claims, I consider this futile dispute to be over, thank you. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact all English dictionaries accept the logical use of the word Slovakian so I advice you to learn the proper usage of your nations name.(because the usage of the word Slovak does not exclude the correct, logical and accepted usage of the word Slovakian) This argument seems to be pointless and also meaningless as -sadly- 99 percent of Hungarian population does not even heard the name Hadik. So I decided to leave this this one for you as it is obvious that a nation without any historical background needs to create its own heroes to have a brighter look at the past. Furthermore I advice you to read some international history books without any nationalist and science fictional background. Yes I know it is hard to accept the truth but you better try to live with it. To back my claims try to read some real history books! For exaple Slovakian writers even tried to claim that Kossuth was Slovakian:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.161.34 (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From Merriam-webster Definition of SLOVAK 1

a member of a Slavic people of Slovakia

2

the Slavic language of the Slovak people

— Slovak adjective

— Slo·va·ki·an\slō-ˈvä-kē-ən, -ˈva-\ adjective or noun

At least see for yourself on merriam before you write —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.133.141 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hadik's ancestors are more than obscure, He was not just Slovak (Slav) or Hungarian.Pure Slovak does not exist. I changed the ethnic, because He was a MIX, like almost everybody from Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Décsy (Source) is unreliable. Same book and He states opposite things. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?ei=-6yoTN--BpG7jAeum7DTDA&ct=book-thumbnail&id=XrFnAAAAMAAJ&dq=andreas+hadik+slovak&q=hadik#search_anchor

Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all opposite - it is on the same page. He was an Austrian marshal of Hungarian ehtnic origin (i.e. not an Austrian / of one of the ethnicities of KoH) of Slovak ancestry . Wladthemlat (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it, please, link it in a way that allows us to see it. Thanks. -- Koertefa (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity can not mean nationality. In ethnic context there are Hungarian (Magyar), Slovak, Rusyn, Serb etc ethnicities. Décsy used the ethnic word, it does not cover nationality. If we talk about nationality it may be Hungarian person with Slovak, Serb, Romanian ancestry, however ethnicity is narrower expression. Hungarian ethnic origin does not mean Slovak ancestry in essence.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just search for the word "extraction" within the same book, it is on the page 76, just like the "Hungarian ethnicity". It's hard to say what he meant by "Hungarian ethnicity", but his wording on him being of Slovak heritage ALTHOUGH labeled as Magyar is pretty clear. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I got about 8 times the number of google hits for András Hadik then to Andreas, but that aside undiscussed moves are fine when there is no debate or controversy at an article but here ,there is some sort of controversy to be sure, so first at least the editing, sourcing etc should be solved between Fakirbakir and Wladthemat on article content. I myself dont want to take part in that debate on article content other than saying that the current title of the article has been long established and seems to be more known as by quick google test. The problem of origin can be adequately solved inside the article body listing the various theories accompanied by the various sources supporting them. Also In my edit summary when I moved the article back I wanted to write controversial, as the adjective, it should be understood as that. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? 8 times? What google have you been using, because mine returns 4750 for andreas [2] and 4130 for andras [3] and mind you, that the Andras alternative includes all the wikipedia backlinks and mirrors. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It was this one[4] around 40 000 vs around 5 000 for andreas exactly 8 times. But it is true didn't look into it long this is why I stressed that it was a very quick test, at a glance. Hobartimus (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to show everything and to clash what we know. I disagree with one historical possibility. Pure Slovak or Hungarian origin usually does not exist and the diversity is worth.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

As English does not differentiate between Hungarian (from kingdom of Hungary) and Magyar (of specifically Magyar ethnicity) his "Hungarian" ancestry is not mutually exclusive with Slovak one. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The English "Hungarian" usually refers to either ethnic Hungarians or those who thought of themselves as Hungarians (e.g., Petőfi). I never read that, for example, Jozef Miloslav Hurban would have been Hungarian, even though he lived in the Kingdom of Hungary. But, naturally, even being ethnic Hungarian is not mutually exclusive of having Slovak roots. But this claim needs to be proven and the current source only indicates that András Hadik might have Slovak roots, based on the sounding of his family name. -- Koertefa (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For 18th century inferring ethnicity from family name is a common practice. Also, the source explicitly states that his family was of slovak extraction ALTHOUGH he is often regarded as incarnation of Magyar military genius. Thus the source states that he was not Magyar although he is often (but wrongly) labeled as one. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This theory is presented in the current version of the article. In my opinion, proving somebody's roots based just on the sounding of his family name is a bit strange. Using a similar argument: his name could as well be only Hungarian (since, e.g., "had" means "army" in Hungarian and there are many Hungarian names ending with "ik"), so the fact that his name means something in Slovakian may well be a simple coincidence. Moreover, the majority of the sources claim his Hungarian ethnicity. Nevertheless, the theory of his possible Slovak ancestry based on his family name is presented in the article. -- Koertefa (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, a reliable source states that he WAS of slovak ancestry, all the other sources say just that he was a Hungarian, which is ambiguous. Your opinion on the method the author arrived at that conclusion is irrelevant. Moreover, it's a Magyar author, bias is not at play. The current wording is too euphemistic for the wording in the book. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The very same author clearly claims his Hungarian ethnicity ("Andreas Hadik (1710-1790) was an Austrian fieldmarshall of Hungarian ethnic origin"). Additionally to the issue that proving his Slovak roots based on the sounding of his name is very suspicious (since, as I said, his name can be perfectly Hungarian, as well, it also means something), the fact that he was a noble, makes his potential Slovak ancestry even more doubtful. But, naturally, the article should present reasonable alternative theories, too, and this one is also not overlooked. -- Koertefa (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"the fact that he was a noble, makes his potential Slovak ancestry even more doubtful" - are you really trying to argue there were no nobles of Slovak origin? That is, of course, completely false, thus this has no weight whatsoever. And to your "alternative theories" - the source states it explicitly - his family was of Slovak extraction. Not "may have been", "the name suggests", "some think", "a little birdie told me", but it states it as a fact. That you can think of Hungarian origin of the name could not be less relevant - you are not a linguist, nor a historian. All I am calling for is inclusion of the sources and facts they contain in the form they contain them, not modified to suit one party in the dispute. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please, calm down, use a normal tone and do not make personal remarks. How do you know, for example, that I am not a linguist or a historian? And why should I care about your opinion if you do not care about mine? But, of course, I do care. I agree with you that there were some Slovakian nobles in the 18th century, e.g., Adam František Kollár, but it was not usual and it is another story. As a compromise I suggest inserting the sentences: "According to Gyula Décsy, András Hadik was of Hungarian ethnic origin, but the name "Hadik" is a diminutive from the Slovak appellative had 'snake'. The family was thus of Slovak extraction." I think that it is exactly what the source claims, even though it is a bit confusing. -- Koertefa (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What personal remarks? That your theories are irrelevant, because you are not an expert?! How could you possibly take anything like that personally. You are trying to speculate against the source, that is indeed irrelevant because you lack the background and your opinions and theories are not enough to undermine the source itself. Doesn't mean I don't care for your opinion, but you should express your opinion on the article's structure and content, not on the methodology of the sources, that's way out of our league.

And to your proposed wording - it's definitely better that the current one, but 1) I don't see why such specification is necessary. 2)if we were to use it, it has to be included at the beginning of the paragraph, with all the other remarks on his origin. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement was added. I hope that it is suitable, since it is precisely what Gyula Décsy claims. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said that there were not Hungarian nobles with Slovak ancestry. However the majority of the nobles did not have Slovak ancestry. They (the nobles) were rather colonists from abroad(Slavic, German, Romanian)and the descendants of the Hungarian (Magyar) clans. We can draw conclusions from this fact as user Koertefa did it before. Hadik presumed Slovak ancestry based on his name is just a theory, It may be right or It may not be right. Décsy used the word 'ethnicity'. This is also fact. "Nationality" and "Ethnicity" are not the same thing. It means he was of Hungarian (Magyar) ethnic group. Additionally the theory of his 'supposed' Slovak roots (based on his name) is demonstrated on the page. About his name, 'Had' means 'army' in Hungarian, It is also true. There is another concept about 'had'. It was a Palóc (Polovec-Cuman) Turkic surname among the people of Palóc ethnic group.[5]Of course this is also just a theory.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source[6] about his supposed Tartar-Turkic origin from Vilmos Donoszlovits. It would be good if we found a good, reliable source about this.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not supposed Slovak ancestry, the source explicitly states he WAS of Slovak ancestry, any of your theories are worthless here. And please, do not try to dispute the methodology either, this is not the place and we are not the ones to do that. That's up to experts. And being of Hungarian ethnicity and of Slovak ancestry is not mutually exclusive, so no contradiction within the book. We should quote the source properly.Wladthemlat (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even your source traces his origin to Turiec, that is an area where Magyar population has never been prevalent. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Post of the Magyar population and lands of nobles are different things.

• Nobles were not fixed to their territories as opposed to peasantry.
• Lands of Nobles often changed their owners.
• Hadik family had domain in Western Hungary as well.

Moreover, the immigrated Turkic Tartar warriors could obtain noble titles and lands from the Hungarian King as the German knights, or immigrated leaders of Romanians, Cumans or Slavic peoples etc. did it in Kingdom of Hungary. I do not understand why it is a problem if we show other options.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a single problem with that, I have missed the link to the pdf and saw only the main page, I do apologize for the revert. However, this dispute is about the reference to his Slovak ancestry. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Fakirbakir found sources about his possible Tatar roots, I agree that we should also mention those. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on András Hadik. 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/20120331102414/http://www.kfh.hu/sajtoszoba/hadik_emlekere/grof_hadik_elete.pdf to http://www.kfh.hu/sajtoszoba/hadik_emlekere/grof_hadik_elete.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722024902/http://www.kfh.hu:80/index2eng.html to http://www.kfh.hu/index2eng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on András Hadik. 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/20110126233135/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou08.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou08.htm

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) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Slovak?

His nationality was Slovak? Slovakia as a country did not exist back then. Nationality is a legal term referring to one's citizenship. Someone is confusing nationality with ethnicity. And since when is the Hungarian city of Koszeg in Slovakia? I would make the changes myself but sadly this is Wikipedia after all where disinformation thrives! 162.135.0.6 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)