Talk:Árpád dynasty

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

House of Árpád → Árpád dynasty — I don't see the dynasties of China, Ancient Egypt, early Germanic Europe and the Byzantine Empire having a problem with using the term "dynasty" to refer to other members of the family other than the main line of ruling kings. Dynasty like house refers to a ruling family/line. It is only wikipeida that stress the use of "House of ..." on every European ruling family. The title Árpád dynasty hasn't been changed since it was created and throughout the article the term dynasty is used more often than House. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC) --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because this article is about a royal house ("monarchs who are related to one another, as well as their non-reigning descendants and spouses"), not about a dynasty ("sequence of rulers considered members of the same family"). It is quite clear what a dynasty is and what a royal house is. The article, for example, mentions saints Emeric, Elizabeth, Kinga and Margaret of Hungary, Blessed Elizabeth and Yolanda, Stephen the Posthumous, and many other non-reigning members of the House of Arpad. Why should we then ignore the meaning of the word dynasty? Besides, if other articles are incorrect (and perhaps they are not), it does not mean this one should be too. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The terms are used interchangably and their definition are not as set in stone as you have defined them as. The daughter of monarch or the granddaughter of a monarch that never ruled can be considered a member of a dynasty. The article on dynasty mentions the Bourbons, the Habsburgs, the Stuarts, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs to say a few, yet they are all under the term House of... in their article space. Let me bring your attention to Template:Nemanjić dynasty a field you seem to be interested in. Notice the four sections after "Other ruling members".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • They are used interchangably because people can't get them right. "Heir presumptive" and "heir apparent" are used interchangably, much like "queen regnant" and "queen regent", because people do not understand the difference (which is huge). You are free to say that a daughter or a granddaughter of a monarch can be considered a member of the dynasty, but your saying it does not make it true. There is an established dictionary definition of the word dynasty - as simple as that. It is not our job to reinvent words and their meanings. Even if the definition were not set in stone, as you claim (and with which I disagree), why should we opt for a more ambigious term instead of a precise one? Of course the article on dynasty would mention the Bourbons, the Habsburgs, the Stuarts and others, as those are the names of dynasties and royal houses alike; the Stuart dynasty, for example, includes only English monarchs from James I to Anne, while the House of Stuart includes also Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, etc. I believe you do understand the difference. And what about the template? Inaccuracies such as those found in it should be corrected rather than cited as reason to spread more inaccuracies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the help. I was going to wait for a third opinion but you gave me a good argument. As your link suggest, dynasty can also mean "A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state". The matter by which the family maintains powers does not exclusively include holding the office of monarch. Dynasty, family, royal house are used interchangably to refer to the a powerful family, period. Even the Bush and Kennedy's are referred as political dynasties.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur: The fact that a "dynasty" includes a "sequence" of rulers does not mean that is all that it contains. While "House" is used more broadly than dynasty in some contexts, it is used more restrictedly in others (a family of mobsters is often described as a "dynasty", but seldom as a "house"). Until there is more reliably sourced information distinguishing between a house and a dynasty that is relevant to this article, my experience entirely accords with the usage of "dynasty" to embrace non-reigning members of a ruling family. This is especially so in the case of an article title, where we are less concerned with what is precise and more with what is widely used. That said, I don't see why "House of" should be replaced with "dynasty": there is not enough consistency in our article names on ruling families to insist that a pattern exists which we should follow here. FactStraight (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• House of Árpád is also a much more common name than Árpád dynasty. For example, there are c. 19,000 hits for House of Árpád and c. 9,000 hits for Árpád dynasty. Furthermore, if the title of this article should be consistent with any other (and I suppose it should), isn't it much more natural to have it consistent with, say, Capetian House of Anjou and House of Luxembourg than with Qin Dynasty? I remain convinced that the current title is better than the proposed one, being obviously more common in English language sources and consistent with relevant articles, if nothing else. Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems to be in very popular use in the 19th century, but if we were to use modern post-1900 sources we see the difference. 1,460 results for "House of Arpad" and 2,540 results for "Arpad dynasty" in the 20th century and 882 results for "Arpad dynasty" and 391 results for "House of Arpad" in the 21st century. I dislike the consistency card but if you think more outwardly there is Jagiellon dynasty, Přemyslid dynasty and more for the Arpad dynasty to be consistent to. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – the article says it's about the dynasty, and dynasty seems to be what it's more commonly called in books in recent decades. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Double cross

@Dbachmann:, would you refer to scholars who challenge Bertényi's words about the symbolism of the double cross on Béla III's coins? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Suspect typo

from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click badget->badger? context: ~~~ ance of Aragon]], from the house of Barcelona, and he may have followed Barcelonese ([[Catalans|Catalan]]) patterns when he chose his [[coat-of-arms]] that would become the Árpáds' familiar badget
badget (an [[Escutcheon (heraldry)|escutcheon]] [[barry (heraldry)|barry]] of eight [[Gules]] and [[Argent]]).<ref>Bertényi 1983 ''Kis magyar'' p. 70.</ref> His son and successor, King [[Ladis ~~~

Original research

Anon, please read WP:NOR before adding content to this article. Borsoka (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Euhistoryprofessor: and @Royalhistorysociety: please read and apply our policy about sourcing because self published websites are not reliable sources. Please also read our policy about sockpuppetry. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Turul dynasty

Hi Borsoka,

I would like talk about this revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Árpád_dynasty&diff=1127769714&oldid=1127766929

Please check the historical work what I provided as sources, the modern sources say clearly "Turul dynasty" as the Árpád dynasty many times from more authors:

Published in 2022, Institute of Hungarian Research, Hungarian Ministry of Culture and Innovation:

https://mki.gov.hu/hu/e-konyvtar-hu/idegen-nyelvu-kiadvanyok-hu/tanulmanykotetek-hu/kings-and-saints

https://mki.gov.hu/assets/pdf/MKI_EN_006_kings_and_saints_B5_web.pdf

There are more, just examples:

Dr. Gábor Horváth-Lugossy (Director-General of the Institute of Hungarian Research): "Why do we Hungarians have to deal with the Turul dynasty, or the Árpád dynasty as they were called for two hundred years, as well as with the era of the Árpáds?"

Miklós Makoldi (archehologist):

"Árpád’s Hungarians: the Turul dynasty and its people – what was the purpose and route of the Hungarian conquest?" "

Árpád’s Hungarians, whose leaders, representing the royal bloodline of the Turul dynasty"

"the ruling House of Árpád, i.e. the Turul nation"

"demonstrating that the most ancient known ancestor of the Turul nation was first identified in the later Baktria"

Endre Neparáczki:

"the Árpád dynasty (or, as Simon Kézai called it, the Turul clan)"

"Now, of these captains, Árpád of the Turul clan, son of Álmos"

I also added source to the "clan of the holy kings"

Miklós Kásler:

"enriched and passed on by the clan of the holy kings, later known as the new Árpád dynasty"

"The phrase “Szent Királyok nemzetsége” [clan of the holy kings] became widely known in the 13th century, after King Stephen I and his son Prince Emeric"

"Although the male branch of the Árpád dynasty died out in 1301, the female branch lived on much longer, and our Anjou monarchs and Sigismund of Luxembourg were proud to claim themselves members of the “clan of holy kings” in their times"

Dezső Dümmerth (historian): Az Árpádok nyomában (Following the Árpáds) (Published 2003)

Please check the chapter:

"A Turul-nemzetség kibontakozása" "The development of the Turul clan"

https://www.regikonyvek.hu/kiadas/az-arpadok-nyomaban-2003-corvina-kiado

https://legeza.oszk.hu/sendpage.php?rec=li0467

"Az első fejezet a Turul-nemzetség kibontakozását, a magyarság kialakulását elemzi."

György Szabados (historian): https://arpad.abtk.hu/images/e-konyvtar/Szabados_Gyrgy_Attila-s_a_slyomforma_madr_s_a_fehr_elefnt.pdf "Árpádról jegyzi meg, hogy a Turul nemzetségből származik"

I know the official name is Árpád dynasty, but this dynasty was called Turul in the past, and as we can see still nowadays many academics use this term. I think my edit is supported by reliable sources.

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As the above list shows only one source calls it Turul dynasty, and it has been recently published by the Magyarságkutató Intézet. The leaders of the Magyarságkutató Intézet are obviously pushing this strange denomination but we are not here to accept any recentism. Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Dezső Dümmerth https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dümmerth_Dezső an another historian used this earlier in 1977-2003 in many editions in the "Following the Árpáds" books, if you see the link, and 3 different authors use this term in the marked source. Recentism? Medieval chronicles introduced this term, which means this term is older than the term of Árpád dynasty. How can be strange if this term was used before the 19th century?

If you type "Turul clan" in Hungarian google you will find that many people are using this term, which means this is not a recently term.

https://www.google.com/search?q=turul+nemzetség+&client=opera&hs=77w&ei=sp6cY-anJIKUlQfbnaPoBQ&ved=0ahUKEwjmyKKkyf77AhUCSuUKHdvOCF0Q4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=turul+nemzetség+&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzILCC4QrwEQxwEQgAQyBQgAEIAEOggIABCiBBCwA0oECEEYAUoECEYYAFDSAVjSAWDyAmgCcAB4AIABVIgBVJIBATGYAQCgAQHIAQLAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

This is also not recently: Book, another historian: 2001: Deák István: "A Turul-nemzetség" (The Turul clan") "History of our Árpád kings"

https://bookline.hu/product/home.action?_v=Deak_Istvan_A_turul_nemzetseg&type=20&id=527321

Novel 2021: "A turul nemzetsége - Árpád és fiai" "The family of Turul - Árpád and his sons"

https://www.libri.hu/konyv/nemere_istvan.a-turul-nemzetsege-arpad-es-fiai.html

You many times said, that some sources need ignore because they are old sources and not modern contemporary academic sources. I do not understand in this case, this is a new published academic work how can be not enough good? Editors in the wikipedia also always publish the recent uptoday scienctific results, such as genetics, this would be also "recentism"?

Anyway I do not plan to rename the Árpád dynasty, just to add additonal sources, because this term is already presented on the arcticle. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, clans and dynasties are different even if the leaders of the Magyarságkutató Intézet obviously do not know this distinction when writing a foreword to a publication. Secondly, among medieval chroniclers Simon of Kéza associated the minor noble Turul clan with the Árpáds, possibly based on the tradition that a turul bird was the Árpáds' ancestor (Sebők, Ferenc (1994). "Turul nem". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 603. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.). Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

They are writing "Turul dynasty" "Turul nemzetség" in Hungarian in the published book, and other variations. But I think this word play is not important regarding the content. I do not know what is the proper English translation but "Turul nemzetség" and "Turul dinasztia" would be the proper Hungarian word, both used. Anyway this term is used, and we have a lot of sources, I do not understand why should we do not add them as minor extension, even you can see the Turul is a part of the article. Then I add only the sources and I do not change the lead text, ok?

And the "holy king lineage" already in the article, so I think I did not change anything just I added a additional extension. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nemzetség" is the Hungarian term for clan or family. The article mentions that Simon of Kéza claims that the Árpád dynasty descended from the Turul clan. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)