Talk:László Mednyánszky

Name of the page

This is a new page and I'm not sure if it is named properly. At the moment it's a hodge-podge of Slovakian and Hungarian; does anyone know which it would be best to favour? The artist was born in Slovakia and has most of his collected works in Slovakia, but this was part of Hungary at the time and he is often referred to as a Hungarian artist. How he referred to himself I don't know, but if anyone could find out I reckon that would be the ideal way to name the article.

Otherwise, I hope the article is fine and that I haven't made any errors. Polocrunch 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times mentions him several times by his name, László Mednyánszky. Also here and here. Lonely Planet also mentions him by his name, the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture also.

The name can be found also in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and the The dictionary of art. Squash Racket (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Encarta does not say he is Slovak, Nationmaster copied Wikipedia basically (not a reference), the other sources' reliability is questionable (one of them is a website of a hotel which is again not a source). Squash Racket (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Polocrunch, just for precisity, he was NOT born in Slovakia, and Slovakia was NEVER part of Hungary, only the TERRITORY of today's Slovakia, a common mistake commited and rendered mostly by Slovaks also, because they refer protochronostically the territory as "Sovakia", although not even such entity, region, etc. with such a name ever existed in Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC))

Niece

A female nephew.

References

I am neither Hungarian nor Slovak, and I have no beef whatsoever with this, but using eleven (!) references just to prove someone's nationality leads to exactly nothing exept cluttering the source text. Mednyánszky was born in Upper Hungary - that should suffice imho, but I'm open to the idea of using one (1) reference each for Hungarian and Slovak. --20% 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem is - as you didn't wait for my answer, but reverted for the third time - that the Slovak sources are unreliable, only the Encarta source is reliable and should be kept. The "clutter" was caused by many unreliable sources on one side, not by reliable and English references. Now you think this looks "balanced", but it's not, as you removed reliable English sources while leaving there Slovak throwaway websites. Squash Racket (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to accuse me of breaching 3RR, I don't care. Encarta is, in fact, not a valid source - it's on the same level as Wikipedia articles. I've left the "verification needed" tag for the Slovak sources strictly alone, so don't tell me we need more than four on the "Hungarian side". --20% 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Encarta is an accepted source written by scholars. Why do you think "it's the same level as Wikipedia articles"? Otherwise I'm fine with the present version now. Squash Racket (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's another encyclopedia, and not in any way peer-rewiewed. Besides, the Encarta text does not mention Mednyánszky's nationality, but rather implicity the area (=Upper Hungary, or present day Slovakia) where he was active during his formative years. --20% 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin and ethnicity

We have to be careful in connection with this subject, however If I am right, Baron Mednyanszky was in relationship with the Hungarian Szirmay, Erdődy, Bezerédy families -on his mother's side- and polish families on his father's side. He worked against Pan-Slavism (He was involved in that deeply). Can we consider him for Slovak? I had to fix this page up, because somebody mixed the sources up.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good information but.. Szirmay was Hungarian noble family but not ethnicaly Hungarian. There were a lot of Slovaks in this family, probably majority (http://books.google.com/books?id=R43P5vJQDkoC&pg=PA43&dq=szirmay+slovak&hl=sk&ei=XBJ3TqbnLc32sgbTnZTLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=szirmay%20slovak&f=false). Its considered as Slovak/Hungarian noble family. It exists corespondention of Laszlo in Slovak language. He told that he is a painter of Slovak folk - so his work is connected with Slovaks. Almost all Hungarian nobles of Slovak ethnicity were against panslavism - they were members of Natio Hungarica, political nation and they were Slovaks by culture (ethnicity). His parents were Slovaks - Hungarian nobles, its sourced. And he did not claim his Hungarian ethnicity like Petrovic. Btw, his ancestors probably were Poles but they came to Slovak speaking teritory 300 years before his birth - so they were Slovakized a long time ago before his birth. --Samofi (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1, They (Mednyanszky family) did not consider themselves Slovak.

2, They (and usually all of the nobles) had 'mixed' origin because of their 'distinguished noble-rank'(German, Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Croat, Serb etc. ancestors). The high percentage of Hungarian nobles was married to other European noble families.

3, Natio Hungarica lost its meaning by the beginning of the 20th century, we can not use it in reference to Mednyanszky.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1, do you have a source about this?

2, i agree but a lot of Hungarian noble families were not ethnic Magyars (case of Mednyanszky and partialy Szimray)

3, it lost meaning after Trianon.

But okay, we cannot ask about his national feelings and his ethnicity, but Slovak origin of his parents is proved, his work is connected with Slovak folk, culture and landscape. He was ethnically mixed in the ethnically mixed kingdom, so its natural that a both nations claims him. I did not say, that he is not Hungarian painter - hungarian noble, from hungarian kingdom. So I am gonna to remove part with ethnicity.. --Samofi (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian sources

If you want to use a Hungarian sources, than translate it. In one from the sources was written this in Hungarian: "Anton C. Glatz, a nagyőri állandó kiállítás rendezője szerint a Mednyánszkyak különben híres 48-as famíliája nem lengyel–magyar eredettörténettel büszkélkedhet, hanem ősi Vág menti szlovák család leszármazottai." and user Fakirbakir wrote there that he is of Polish-Hungarian origin. Translate this to english, coz according to google translate its: "Anton C. Glatz, a large permanent exhibition is organized according to the audit MEDNYÁNSZKY otherwise known as 48-Familia Polish-Hungarian origin story does not boast, but the descendants of ancient Považie Slovak families." I understand that his polish-hungarian origin is fictive and he is a descendant of Slovaks from Povazie region. Thanx for the translate. --Samofi (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a Polish-Hungarian theory. I only wanted to demonstrate another possibility and that source mentioned it. I wrote 'according to others' (and not according to Anton C. Glatz). I did not manipulate the source, because I did not want to cite Anton's. Why do not you translate and cite it yourself from Hungarian If you understand it? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And YOU ARE who manipulates the source. The full article is about his Hungarian patriotism and this Anton C. G. theory is just an example for the opposite speculations.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on László Mednyánszky. 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://archive.is/20130418163924/http://www.webumenia.sk/web/guest/home/-/simpleSearch/au/Mednyanszky to http://www.webumenia.sk/web/guest/home/-/simpleSearch/au/Mednyanszky

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) 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)