This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I proposed, relying on History of Bratislava, the following discreet addition: The present name of the city was adopted in 1919; it had been revived as its Slovak name, from earlier Slovak forms, by Pavel Jozef Šafárik in the 1830's.
What's wrong with it? The official name under the Habsburgs was Preßburg, although I do not think we need to make any more than this out of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The transcription of pronunciation should list both variants, with -ti- and -ci-. Jakub.marecek ( talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix the problem? Red lettering announces "Expansion depth exceeded" in my browser. Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This page appears to be one in a large number of articles which are involved in disputes regarding Hungarian and Slovakian issues. A centralized page to discuss these matters has been setup at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please bring up any further disputes, or concerns about the editors involved in those disputes, at that page, thanks. -- El on ka 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting the change of date in Names section as there is no source documenting change given and there is ongoing discussion on Hungarian and Slovak geographical names at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Names and this article is within its scope. Please, discuss changes of this kind before making them, you are welcome to join the discussion there. -- Ruziklan ( talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like some of you think that Bratislava has nothing to do with Hungary. May I ask you that why are you denying the fact that Bratislava (a.k.a. Pozsony or Pressburg/Preßburg) played a key role throughout the history of Hungary? Why are you disputing the fact that it was the capital of Hungary for centuries (from 1531 to 1784 to be exact), that Hungarian kings were crowned in Bratislava (at least until Székesfehérvár, the traditional Hungarian coronation town was under Ottoman rule) and many famous Hungarians were born in Bratislava? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolKoon ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The original sentence "The headquarters of many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are in Bratislava as well." was changed by 99.241.67.84 to "Many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are headquartered in Bratislava as well." It was reverted by Trusilver. I do not understand what is wrong with changed version, can somebody enlighten me, please? In my view original version is worse. -- Ruziklan ( talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wich bank? And was founded in wich country? Is this an attempt to create a legacy of a state wich was erected in January 1, 1993 (or in March 14, 1939) ? Slovakia did not exist in 1842, therefore it could not have for example a bank. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
True, since its the historical part. If you wrote "Bratislava's first bank", that would be just fine. But Slovakia, wich did not exist in 1842...is unfortunately the "creation" chapter. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 17:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The current version is good now. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was the Latin until 1844 (with the exception of the period between 1784-1790), and then the Hungarian became its offical language. Therefore, I think that Bratislava's official name was Posonium untill 1844, Pressburg between 1784 and 1790 and Pozsony from 1844 untill 1919. Borsoka ( talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we qualify 'Pressburg' or 'Pozsony' as foreign names? The former was used by most of its inhabitants for centuries, the latter was its official name from 1844 until 1919 (and the latter's latin form, 'Posonium', had been its official name before 1844 for centuries). Borsoka ( talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that Pozsony was possibly named after Božaň, an 11th-century r u l e r (1053–99) of Bratislava Castle. Could we have more information on this person? I have never heard his name and all my reliable sources suggest that Pozsony was part of the Kingdom of Hungary during these years. It would be surprising if a ruler of one of the most important towns of the kingdom had not been noticed by Hungarian scholars, yet. Borsoka ( talk) 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anchor in first paragraph (foreign and historical names) is dead/broken. Didn't see where it goes during quick scan. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Bratislavski Kraj borders Hungary, not the city. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun il ca ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't think replacing one panorama with two would be described as creating a gallery, but what the heck. I'll ask nicely. Can these images be added somewhere? I believe they illustrate excellently both the Old Town and the New Town. Thanks. ;) -- Schcambo aon scéal? 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I reject this anonymous user ?MarkBA's opinion. His hidden reasons are evident for me. It is possible that what I wrote was not perfect in English but that my all sentences were wrong it is nonsense!!! I did not write in so wrong English that my all sentences should be removed from here immediately!!!!!This article was written by MarkBA and Tankred so I think this anonymus user is MarkBA. Long ago MarkBA very often removed my all edits so edit summary that :stop Hungarization please! Because I wrote the Hungarian historical events to the article's history chapter it was very obnoxious for him. Nmate ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, would you mind to stop that name-calling and blackmouthing? It doesn't help anybody at all. Then I will be glad to jump in and discuss, however, in a nutshell, the edits weren't helpful in some number of ways. Thanks for listening, 78.99.132.221 ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Bratislava, 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC):
This sentence is unfair on top of the article, because the city's Hungarian historical roots is stronger:
Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
So this sentence would be better:
Pressburg was home many of Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
it is better crown jewels instead of crown jewels
This sentence is very one-sided also:
in 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, Presspurske Nowiny (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published.
better solution:
The first newspapers were published here in Slovak, German and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny, Pressburger Zeitung and Magyar hírmondó in the 18th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.
This sentence in not so good:As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848 in the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called March laws (also called April laws), which included the abolition of serfdom, at the Primate's Palace.
better sentence:
As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of a today's modern Hungarian constitution.
this is a wrong sentence with an anachronistic bridge name:
The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most (Bratislava), was built in 1891.
good sentence:
The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Frantz Joseph bridge, was built in 1891.
furtermore some absentee but very relevant hungarian related events from the 19th century:
In 1825 István Széchenyi offers his yearly income to establish the Hungarian National Learned Society (now Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in Pressburg. Between 1843 and 1844 Hungarian language is proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and teaching by the Diet in Pressburg. Here formed the first responsible Hungarian Ministry in 1848 on 7th of April. On 7th October in 1848 Josip Jelačić's army threatened the city with bombing but He marched away from Hungarian army who occupied the city until 19th December. On July in 1849 Julius Jacob von Haynau set up his campaign in the city. After this Pressburg became a center of military headquarters. In 1850 railway line connected Budapest and Pressburg. The city was prosperitied by mayor Henrik Justi and banker Theodor Edl in the second half of the 19th century. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 They were political opponents.
Nmate ( talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
my point of view:
1, Slovak national movement: I do not want to omit it - I would like to move it from under the headline to historical context.It would be a good solution also: this sentence remain on this place but an another one very important Hungarian related event will be inserted under this headline too.
For example:
Pray codex is liked to the city - which was made between 1192 - 1195 - that is the first known coherent literary remains of the Hungarian language. The city was the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy from 1536 to 1783. Pressburg was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
2, Newspapers:Hungarian and Slovak are together in an sentence is O.K.because the Magyar hírmondo was the first newspaper in Hungarian language.
3, It is true both : These laws meant the transition from the feudal society into the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary so these laws included the basis of today's modern Hungarian constitution. But it is true the German pattern also.
4, What You rewrote at Hungarian National Learned Society is O.K . A good clause will be find out with first responsible Hungarian Ministry. First responsible Hungarian Ministry means: the official name of the Batthyány government.
5, Bridge name is not so relevant for me.
6, What you wrote about revolutions of 1848 is O.K. I do not know exectly that railwayline connetion was at Pest or Buda.
Nmate ( talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Pray codex contain a Mortuary speech and prayer and a almanac of Pozsony , which contains the historical events from 997 to 1203. Nmate ( talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be right to wait for Hobartimus in the debate.
The first newspapers were published here in Slovak and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny in 1783 and Magyar hírmondó in 1780 - in the Kingdom of Hungary.
Is it good?
In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg.As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary. Here formed the first independent Hungarian Ministry so called Batthyány government in 1848 on 7th of April. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria although the local residents were mainly German origins in that time.
Is it good?
Nmate ( talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What kind of reference?Concrete census nothing.But this is a general sentence in Hungarian:Száz évvel ezelőtt még magyar-német dominanciájú volt a közösségi élet, még korábban pedig szinte teljesen németek lakták. [1] and in History of Bratislava#Demographic evolution :1850: Germans (75%), Slovaks (18%), Hungarians (7.5%) - Note: all population data before 1869
Nmate ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I'm reading above, I get only one impression and one opinion: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism, regardless whether being Hungarian, Slovak, German, whichever, whether for research, open or masquerading theories, and so on. From the above suggestions, only some mention about Revolutions of 1848 is worth some attention. Others are not, especially the establishment of the learned society and offering one's income to establish it - just not worth, for such and more details are separate History articles, otherwise any other could be mentioned, not excluding Slovak Academy of Sciences, established 117 yrs later. By the way, why was Etymology deleted? I hope no one of you want to destroy this article! 78.99.132.221 ( talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Hungarian National Learned Society is a very relevant information but It is good solution mentioning it without István Széchenyi: In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg
is it good?
But the "Bratislava candle demonstration" is not a very relevant information here.
This sentece is a assume bad faith in the demographics chapter with the strong Magyarisation:
From the city's origin until the 19th century, Germans were the dominant ethnic group.However, after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, strong Magyarisation took place, and by the end of World War I Bratislava was a German-Hungarian town, with Slovaks as the biggest minority.
This was a German city in that time and they in general voluntary magyarized because they saw that act as a tool (and possibility) of getting higher on the social and economic ladder.And there is not mentionig the Beneš decrees and the "Reslovakisation" process in this chapter. Nmate ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hungarian Academy of Sciences moved to Budapest because the capital moved to Budapest. This information means that this city was an important centre of the Hungarian culture. This means a huge prestige for the city , and this is a very important events for the Hungarians.But the Slovak Natitonal Movement was not an important events for the city because this city's population were German in that time and leaders of this Movement were not acknowledged leaders for the all Slovak nation.It was a smaller group which was supported with money by the Emperor Habsburg but this is important for the Slovaks.So this movement is mentioning here. Nmate ( talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I put it back my last edits without the ethnic cleansing statement because it is explain the reasons for this events. Later I am going to add sources to it. Nmate ( talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
We agreed that Bratislava would be used there, not Pressburg. Please revert. Nmate, please stop breaching consensus and stop making chauvinistic remarks.-- Svetovid ( talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I will do the revert since nobody else wants to follow the rules here it seems.-- 194.160.75.10 ( talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid vandalized this article. Also It is very probably that this anon user is Svetovid. Nmate ( talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid's behaviour is absoluly incomprehensible. Nmate ( talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only did Hobartimus breach the consensus, but he also ignored WP:NCGN: "...In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased."-- Svetovid ( talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I started this chapter from whom I remembered. Please add many others and relevant people. TomyDuby ( talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
At present, the IPA transliteration of Bratislava is stated as:
[ˈbracɪslava]
If I understand the information in the IPA page, then the symbol [r] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:
ŕ
(i.e. long r, like in Spanish perro) whereas IPA symbol [ɾ] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:
r
(like in Spanish pero).
So when transliterating the word Bratislava, we should use
[ˈbɾacɪslava]
Isn't that better?
I hesitate to change that because there are number of other pages ( Prague, Rotterdam) where IPA symbol [r] is also used while it also is inconsistent with the meaning of that symbol on the IPA page.
Kosik ( talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The form Pozsony is not attested before the late 18th century and nobody knowing the attested names of the town has ever claimed the opposite. Similar names (Poson etc.) are attested, yes, but those names can be (and probably are) Latin, Slovak, Croat etc., as well, and above all they are not the same name. In other words, claiming that Pozsony was used in the 16th century is a speculation. The situation is different for the Latin form Posonium and above all for the German and English form Pressburg, which is attested in this particular form for the 16th century (at least). Also, contemporary English (French etc.) sources use the form Pressburg, not Pozsony before the 19th century, and actually they use the form Pressburg until 1918, therefore you cannot write that the town was known as Pozsony in the 16th to 18th century, because that is plainly wrong. Uhlie ( talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is a proof that Markussep, Uhlie and so on can't accept the fact that this city was Hungarian and used a respectively Hungarian name for centuries. As for the historians using contemporary (historic) names for cities, regions, countries, etc. it is pretty common, although the modern name of the city, region or country or countries is also mentioned. ( 80.98.230.214 ( talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.230.214 ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that
CU confirmed that
User:Regardez and
User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user
User:MarkBA. (Black out comments). About the "Hungarian" origin of the name: No, Poson is definitely derived from the Slavic personal name Božan. The source is any Slovak source that exists on this issue (and note that the town happens to be the capital of Slovakia, so that there are many sources). A detailed explanation has been provided several times by Ján Stanislav, one of the best or the best expert on Old Church Slavonic, Old Slavic, Old Slovak, Modern Slovak, Old Hungarian, Modern Hungarian etc., the person after whom the Language Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences has been named, the author of the biggest synthesis on the Slavic origin of geographic names in Hungary, the author of one of the biggest syntheses on Old Church Slavonic. He also explains linguistically why the Hungarian origin theory - which was outdated as early as before WWII - is wrong. Also, at the time of origin of the name, no Hungarian archeological findings existed in Bratislava, all are Slavic and no Hungarian rulers of the town are known, all are Slavic. Also, Hungarians are explicitely mentioned as "hospites" (i.e. new colonists) for Bratislava only in the 13th! century. So, however you turn it, the primitive "pos" ethymology is wrong and that is well known.
Tamas52x (
talk)
01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday another nickname for Bratislava was added, so now we have Beauty on the Danube and Little Big City. What is the status of these nicknames, does anyone actually use them, and in what language (English, Slovak or other)? Unless they're widely used, I think they should be removed. Markussep Talk 11:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the German not be Preßburg instead of Pressburg? --As at the time of the Empire and majority German population they did not use the new orthography rules!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC) In view of the recent intensification of the long-running edit war concerning the name "Pozsony", I have protected the latest version of this article. Do not take this to imply approval of the wide use of "Pozsony": I protected this version merely because it was the most recent.
Please discuss here the relative merits of "Bratislava", "Pozsony", "Pressburg", "Poson" to describe the town at different times (and perhaps also in different contexts). Please refrain from speculation about others' motives, and from hyperbole, exclamation points, rhetorical questions, and so forth. Evidence would be welcome. Also welcome would be citations from recent, apolitical, scholarly works about the history of what is now Bratislava. I trust that you will all stay dispassionate and reasonable, for an informed and collegial discussion. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm asked on my talk page to unprotect the page. However, neither that request nor what I see above suggests to me that the edit warfare wouldn't resume.
Here's what I wrote:
There's been no discussion whatever.
None has been proffered.
Please provide reasoned suggestions, with evidence. Once you've done that, address the other suggestions. Then work toward an agreement. When there is general agreement here, the article can be unprotected, and not before.
Of course, protection is undesirable. It's an obstruction to name-unrelated improvements to this article. However, I note that nobody has asked for any such improvement (or even complained about any name-unrelated failing) during the three weeks or so of protection. Anyway, if you do have a suggestion, go ahead and make it on this talk page: some admin will then implement it. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Until the late 1650s Transylvanian observers were sent to the diet at Pozsony.
University (Jesuit), transferred to Budapest in 1777/84 and to Pozsony in 1784. Catholic.
That Bratislava is still known by three distinct names -- Bratislava in Slovak, Pressburg in German and Pozsony in Hungarian -- shows how memories here refuse to die.
It looks confusing in the city's history to have it repeatedly named with its old names, I see it's cleared up in the names section and after that "Bratislava" should be used. Just my humble opinion.
feydey (
talk)
09:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What about refering to it as "the city" instead of using disputed name? For example, instead of "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city." there will be "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it." Still readable and in line with NPOV. (Sorry for not signing myself, but don not know and do not want create another dummy account and password for this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.219.116 ( talk) 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
[OD] I am quite sure that the occasional appearance of for example "Pozsony (Bratislava)" will quickly be "amended" by partisans of one stripe or another to plain "Pozsony" or "Bratislava (Pozsony)" or plain "Bratislava" -- leading to counter-"amendments", etc. I'm not optimistic about ever being able to end this sort of thing. However, it seems a good idea to have a good and conclusive discussion about what the article should say; thereafter, variations from this (whether underinformed or partisan) can be swiftly corrected without any need to rehash the argument.
Of course it's not desirable for this page to remain locked. If you or anyone else would like some name-unrelated change, don't hesitate to say so. (In the interim, I acknowledge that a lock lasting over a month is at best highly unusual, so I'm about to ask for a second opinion on this.)
Again, I think we can assume that a scholarly book recently written in English on the history of [what is now] Slovakia and put out by a university press or similarly reputable publisher (Norton, Macmillan Palgrave, Routledge, etc) will show the fruit of informed, disinterested, apolitical thinking. So I suggest following the precedents of books of this kind. Google Books may help here. I'm purposely not looking for such books myself; I don't want to arouse any suspicion or allegation that, having locked the page down, I'm now on some hunt for sources that happen to back up my own partisan or otherwise tainted opinion.
Although there's no obligation for you to get a username and log in as this username, do please sign your comments (four successive taps on "~"). And please don't interpolate your comments within others' comments (a practice that is especially confusing if your comments are unsigned). Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments (and for signing).
Actually my purpose in locking the page was not to avoid arguments over the name but instead to avoid edit-warring over the name and indeed to kick off a serious, informed and conclusive argument about naming. (I succeeded in the former but only partly succeeded with the latter.)
Really, I believe that the city will have to be named from time to time in the context of its history. So I don't think that you have the solution here. However, I repeat that your idea of minimizing the use of names does seem a good idea.
If
then yes there will still be objections. However, we'd know how to deal with them, and would waste a lot less of our time.
There could also be objections -- either here and now, or later -- that practice among English-speaking academics is not as good a guide as some other, very different approach. Well, I'm all ears. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
current | new |
---|---|
Pozsony was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17] | The city was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17] |
Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city. | Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it. |
Pozsony flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria. | The city flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria. |
The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed in Pozsony in 1805. | The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed here in 1805. |
In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pozsony using a donation from István Széchenyi. | In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in the city using a donation from István Széchenyi. |
Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pozsony. | Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in this area. |
The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from Pozsony to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840. | The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from the city to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840. |
descent into acrimony |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please note that
CU confirmed that
User:Regardez and
User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user
User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).
The truth is, that there are slovak users, like ( user:Juro, user:MarkBA etc.) who try to push their nacionalistick POV here, on en wiki. Their main goal is to re-write history, remove any Hungary related material from the articles which are connected with Slovakia, and slovakize everything. QUOTATION:"Since deputy prime minister Robert Fico declared the "wise historism" concept, the history books are getting rewritten in a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride", which Krekovič, Mannová and Krekovičováare claim are mainly nothing else, but history falsifications. Such new inventions are the interpretation of Great Moravia as a (proto)-Slovak state, or the term "proto-Slovak" itself, along with the "refreshing" of many "old traditions", that are in fact did not exist or were not Slovak before. The concept received criticism in Slovakia pointing out that the term proto-Slovak cannot be found in any serious publication, simply because it lacks any scientific basis. Miroslav Kusý Slovak political scientist explained that by adopting such scientificly questionable rhetoric Fico aims to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification of history". "Speaking about the "wise (clever?) historism" and patriotism program proclaimed by the government on the occasion (note: 15th year anniversary of 1993) Miroslav Kusy Slovak political scientist said in an interview to Új Szó that by talking about Slovaks in Great Moravia Robert Fico prime minister adopted such -scientificly questionable- rhetoric that points to the fact that he wants to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification(lit. "false" "painting") of history" This is why we can see such things like:"the Slovak and German names were equally official in the past", although the slovak language developed in the XIX century and it was NEVER official in the Kingdom of Hungary. They continue to insert MODERN Slovak city names with modern spelling for a time when Slovak was not the official language, or the country (Slovakia) did not even exist. Mr. Regardez also forgot to tell, that although latin and german were the official languages, hungarian was used by the people. (or citizens spoke latin???) Mr. Regardez mentioned the Máté csák article: Although the Csáks were one of the oldest Hungarian families, (see Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum) the article was created under slovak name, because they lived where what is now called slovakia (or called as a slovak(!) [5]) I think it is enough to check this article: List of Slovaks or its talkpage: Talk:List of Slovaks. Thököly, Báthory, Hans Selye and other Hungarian personels are mentioned as Slovaks! Another good example is the case of the historic counties of Hungary, which were listed under Slovak names, although slovak was never official language in the KOH, and it was never used. Who cares! Reason: "This is about the Kingdom of Hungary county. The name SHOULD NOT be in Hungarian" [6] Although the latin versions are derived from the Hungarian names... Another one: The HUNGARIAN Franz Liszt, who was a proud Hungarian ("I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind...") became Slovak [7], [8]thanx to slovak nacionalists (note, that he is still slovak on the slovak wiki [9]. Of course they dont have any reliable english reference to prove their nacionalistic edits. Just have a look here. Only slovak sources. ps: dont forget about the current slovak party in charge, the Slovak National Party and its anti Hungarian statements.
instead of this is a plain lie and a nice proof of what Regardez said above, first the users you name are not the only ones, you have harrassed out, dear multiple sockpuppet,have not been active here for years, and About Pozsony: Pozsony is derived from the old Hungarian "Poson" name. It is much older than the Slovak one (which was created in 1919. march 26). The ethnic composition of the city was 80% German and Hungarian, so the name was used. The latin form (Posonium) is also derived from it. Baxter9 ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
|
As you can see, I've hidden the continuation of the discussion above. Some interesting and intelligent points are made within it, but taken as a whole it's impossibly contaminated with charges of nationalistic motivation, block evasion, and so forth.
Blocks mean what they say. Evading a block via a new username or IP is a no-no. If you have good reason to believe that somebody is doing this, you're free to put as much effort as you wish into preventing that person from writing any more. Take up the matter in the appropriate place. This isn't it.
Some authors have been charged with pushing a PoV. If you think that an editor here is primarily, offensively or recklessly pushing a PoV, take up the matter in the appropriate place. Again, this isn't it.
Perhaps almost anything that anybody writes about ways of referring to the historical forerunners of what are now indisputably Slovak towns in Slovakia is compatible with this or that more or less political, ethnically favoritist, or even "racist" PoV. The fact that something is compatible with a PoV doesn't prove the presence of that PoV. If you can't "AGF", fine, just forget about the writer and concentrate on what's written.
Now please discuss naming within this article.
If, after reading this message, you think that something you wrote within the section hidden above was a substantive contribution to an intelligent, dispassionate discussion, feel free to recycle it below, after stripping it of comments on other writers and so forth.
I look forward to an intelligent discussion leading to a reasonable conclusion, whereupon the article may be unprotected and edits that are contradicted by the conclusion quickly reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to say some infomations about the concerned languages. First of all, the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was either Latin or Hungarian, except a very short period between 1784 and 1790, when it was German. In 1784 Joseph II's decree ordered to change the official language from Latin to German. This caused a massive resistance at the Hungarian nobels and in 1790, before his death Joseph II revoked his decree about Germanisation. The Hungarian language became the officical language in Hungary in 1844, but it was used at some parts of the state affairs earlier. The text which was linked to the site by IP number 86.42.248.93 says the following: "The policy of Germanization offended and inconvenienced Hungarians who were used to conducting legal and administrative affairs in Latin or Magyar." Because of these facts it is a huge mistake to say "Latin and German were the main languages" and "the hungarian wasn't an important language". It was the most important, because it was a Hungarian city and Latin was a dead language. Secondly, if someone wants to use the slovak name, please remember, the term "Bratislava" was created in 1919. Terence75 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
May I ask you for your opinion on my proposal above (using "the city" reference)? The historical name seams to be controversial, without clear consesus and hence attempt to find correct name in short time seems to me unprobable. The discussions can follow on this discussion page, but the page will look better without the lock. -- 85.216.219.116 ( talk) 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Using "the city" term would delete the hungarian name "Pozsony" from almost everywhere. It can be done, but in this case "Bratislava" should be replaced with "the city" as well.
For example, "The city is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings." instead of "Bratislava is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings."
Or "In 2006, the city had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." instead of "In 2006, Bratislava had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." etc.
Can "Pozsony" be deleted when it was hungarian, but "Bratislava" not when it is Slovak? It is not the most consequent method. Terence75 ( talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway I could think of a solution such as the case at Istanbul e.g. in the first line "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul; historically Byzantium and later Constantinople; see the other names of Istanbul)"
the first line of the article would be "Bratislava (historically Pozsony and Pressburg see also other names) and then we use the IP-s solution of using "the city" more and eliminating some name usage, but this should be done then equally not just the IP-s preference of eliminating Pozsony everywhere. Hobartimus ( talk) 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the level of protection on the article. It was fully protected; it is now semi protected. Although people who haven't logged in or have done so with very new accounts can't edit it, regular users can edit it. I'm hoping for the best here. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life". The population did not speak latin, because Latin was/is a dead language. Here is a list (as an example) of books, letters written in Hungarian, to show that Hungarian was used before/after it became official. ps: I still dont know what is the problem, another user listed a dozen of books which proves that Pozsony is still used. Funeral Sermon and Prayer from 1192-1195, Old Hungarian 'Lamentations of Mary' 1300, Gáspár Heltai Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds [21], Jókai kodex: XIV century [22] Bécsi kódex and Müncheni kódex, XV. century [23], [24], Margareth-legend, 1510, [25], Speeches of Arnoldus de Bryennio, 1511 "Hadnagy balinth" Salamon and Markalf, 1577, [26] Bogáthi Fazekas Miklós, Aspasia, 1591 [27] Károli Gáspár, 1590, [28] 1561: [29], 1580: [30], 1598: [31], 1586: [32], 1659: [33], Peter Pázmány [34], 1685: [35], 1551: [36], 1556: [37], 1588: [38], Gabriel Bethlen, 1616, [39], Mihály Apafi, 1662, [40], Francis II Rákóczi, 1704, [41], 1705: [42] 1705, Francis II Rákóczi, [43], [44], Mihály Teleki, 1705, [45], 1836: [46], 1849: [47], Franz Joseph I of Austria (!), 1869, [48], Kelemen Mikes 1794, [49], 1590: [50], 1809: [51], 1551: [52], 1664: [53], 1785: [54], 1767: [55], 1774: [56], 1792: [57] Sources: National Széchényi Library: [58], [59] Baxter9 ( talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am really dismayed by the way the Pressburg-Poszony issue is treated. In the section Names the content and tone are about right, and I have no objections whatsoever. But the tone of the first paragraph is (purposedly?) undermining the identity of Bratislava and is also incorrect factually; it is introducing Bratislava as a city that has some name now but in fact is something else. Poszony and Pressburg are stressed (bold) TWICE in the intro paragraph, while the current name is bold once only. In an article about a city that is since 90 years called Bratislava this I feel is inapropritate, and really it really looks like someone wants to stress Poszony-Pressburg over Bratislava. Note that the same piece of information (that Bratislava was known under different names) is given THREE times (two times in the intor paragraph and then again in the section about names). I suggest to change the very first sentence and do not mention the Poszony/Bratislava issue there at all. I live in Germany, and you only hear Bratislava. I work with English texts a lot- and you see Bratislava everywhere. Generally, the way this is treated looks like someone unhappy about what happened in 1918 is meddling with this issue excessively. This is also indicated by the word "historically" in the first sentence, which I think for such kind of nationalists implies "genuinely", as they would like to create the impression, that Bratislava is in fact Poszony or Pressburg...I cut it ou here, sorry, but I hate to see this kind of nationalistic clashes. And sorry for not registering, I'm too busy for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 ( talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I just add another small comment: is the information that Bratislava was or is also known under Poszony/Pressburg really so important that it is the first piece of information about Bratislava? Is it more important that Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia, ...? Well well, I do not think so. And, In the pre-1919 period Bratislava was known under at least 5 variations of the same name: Possonium (Latin), Pressburg (D), Poszony (HU), Presporok (SK), and he Jiddish version which I am not able to type here. The importance of these versions varied with time and by ethnic group. and the last comment: Try Bratislava and Poszony and Pressburg in google in English. Bratislava: 11,900,000 hits in English texts; Poszony: 1190 hits, many of which refer to historical Poszony, not today's city, or names of people; and Pressuburg: 96,900 a higher number, but still much less than 1% of Bratislava and look at the references: none of them actually refers to today's city, there are many referring to the treaty of Pressburg, as town in Germany, or encyclopedia from the year 1911 etc....certainly this Poszony/Pressuburg issue is not the most important information about Bratislava deserving such prominence in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 ( talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Prešporok
Why is the old Slovak name not mentioned in the lead? As Bratislava has been a trilingual city for ages I think it is supposed to be there with the other two names.
Poszony/Pressburg/Posonium
If Latin was official in any period of time, Latin name should be used as it is the most neutral and it is also the proper way to call the town if you want to be historically exact.
It is not true, that Latin was not used at the time, see
Many lesser nobles wrote political pamphlets in imitation of the French: they read and supported weekly newspapers, first in Latin and German (since 1707) and later in the Hungarian language.
( http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html)
This also shows, that Hungarian was secondary from the point of view of the whole Monarchy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wladthemlat (
talk •
contribs)
14:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Or, if the English historiography uses Pressburg the most, that is the name that is supposed to be used on ENWiki. Just like
Prague is not once mentioned by its German or Czech name nor is Vienna mentioned by its German name in their respective History sections and/or History articles.
To support the latter option here is a quote from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Pressburg is picturesquely situated on the left bank of the Danube[...] Pressburg was the capital of Hungary from 1541 until 1784.
wlad ( talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I proposed, relying on History of Bratislava, the following discreet addition: The present name of the city was adopted in 1919; it had been revived as its Slovak name, from earlier Slovak forms, by Pavel Jozef Šafárik in the 1830's.
What's wrong with it? The official name under the Habsburgs was Preßburg, although I do not think we need to make any more than this out of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The transcription of pronunciation should list both variants, with -ti- and -ci-. Jakub.marecek ( talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix the problem? Red lettering announces "Expansion depth exceeded" in my browser. Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This page appears to be one in a large number of articles which are involved in disputes regarding Hungarian and Slovakian issues. A centralized page to discuss these matters has been setup at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please bring up any further disputes, or concerns about the editors involved in those disputes, at that page, thanks. -- El on ka 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting the change of date in Names section as there is no source documenting change given and there is ongoing discussion on Hungarian and Slovak geographical names at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Names and this article is within its scope. Please, discuss changes of this kind before making them, you are welcome to join the discussion there. -- Ruziklan ( talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like some of you think that Bratislava has nothing to do with Hungary. May I ask you that why are you denying the fact that Bratislava (a.k.a. Pozsony or Pressburg/Preßburg) played a key role throughout the history of Hungary? Why are you disputing the fact that it was the capital of Hungary for centuries (from 1531 to 1784 to be exact), that Hungarian kings were crowned in Bratislava (at least until Székesfehérvár, the traditional Hungarian coronation town was under Ottoman rule) and many famous Hungarians were born in Bratislava? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolKoon ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The original sentence "The headquarters of many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are in Bratislava as well." was changed by 99.241.67.84 to "Many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are headquartered in Bratislava as well." It was reverted by Trusilver. I do not understand what is wrong with changed version, can somebody enlighten me, please? In my view original version is worse. -- Ruziklan ( talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wich bank? And was founded in wich country? Is this an attempt to create a legacy of a state wich was erected in January 1, 1993 (or in March 14, 1939) ? Slovakia did not exist in 1842, therefore it could not have for example a bank. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
True, since its the historical part. If you wrote "Bratislava's first bank", that would be just fine. But Slovakia, wich did not exist in 1842...is unfortunately the "creation" chapter. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 17:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The current version is good now. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was the Latin until 1844 (with the exception of the period between 1784-1790), and then the Hungarian became its offical language. Therefore, I think that Bratislava's official name was Posonium untill 1844, Pressburg between 1784 and 1790 and Pozsony from 1844 untill 1919. Borsoka ( talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we qualify 'Pressburg' or 'Pozsony' as foreign names? The former was used by most of its inhabitants for centuries, the latter was its official name from 1844 until 1919 (and the latter's latin form, 'Posonium', had been its official name before 1844 for centuries). Borsoka ( talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that Pozsony was possibly named after Božaň, an 11th-century r u l e r (1053–99) of Bratislava Castle. Could we have more information on this person? I have never heard his name and all my reliable sources suggest that Pozsony was part of the Kingdom of Hungary during these years. It would be surprising if a ruler of one of the most important towns of the kingdom had not been noticed by Hungarian scholars, yet. Borsoka ( talk) 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anchor in first paragraph (foreign and historical names) is dead/broken. Didn't see where it goes during quick scan. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Bratislavski Kraj borders Hungary, not the city. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun il ca ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't think replacing one panorama with two would be described as creating a gallery, but what the heck. I'll ask nicely. Can these images be added somewhere? I believe they illustrate excellently both the Old Town and the New Town. Thanks. ;) -- Schcambo aon scéal? 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I reject this anonymous user ?MarkBA's opinion. His hidden reasons are evident for me. It is possible that what I wrote was not perfect in English but that my all sentences were wrong it is nonsense!!! I did not write in so wrong English that my all sentences should be removed from here immediately!!!!!This article was written by MarkBA and Tankred so I think this anonymus user is MarkBA. Long ago MarkBA very often removed my all edits so edit summary that :stop Hungarization please! Because I wrote the Hungarian historical events to the article's history chapter it was very obnoxious for him. Nmate ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, would you mind to stop that name-calling and blackmouthing? It doesn't help anybody at all. Then I will be glad to jump in and discuss, however, in a nutshell, the edits weren't helpful in some number of ways. Thanks for listening, 78.99.132.221 ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Bratislava, 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC):
This sentence is unfair on top of the article, because the city's Hungarian historical roots is stronger:
Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
So this sentence would be better:
Pressburg was home many of Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
it is better crown jewels instead of crown jewels
This sentence is very one-sided also:
in 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, Presspurske Nowiny (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published.
better solution:
The first newspapers were published here in Slovak, German and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny, Pressburger Zeitung and Magyar hírmondó in the 18th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.
This sentence in not so good:As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848 in the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called March laws (also called April laws), which included the abolition of serfdom, at the Primate's Palace.
better sentence:
As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of a today's modern Hungarian constitution.
this is a wrong sentence with an anachronistic bridge name:
The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most (Bratislava), was built in 1891.
good sentence:
The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Frantz Joseph bridge, was built in 1891.
furtermore some absentee but very relevant hungarian related events from the 19th century:
In 1825 István Széchenyi offers his yearly income to establish the Hungarian National Learned Society (now Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in Pressburg. Between 1843 and 1844 Hungarian language is proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and teaching by the Diet in Pressburg. Here formed the first responsible Hungarian Ministry in 1848 on 7th of April. On 7th October in 1848 Josip Jelačić's army threatened the city with bombing but He marched away from Hungarian army who occupied the city until 19th December. On July in 1849 Julius Jacob von Haynau set up his campaign in the city. After this Pressburg became a center of military headquarters. In 1850 railway line connected Budapest and Pressburg. The city was prosperitied by mayor Henrik Justi and banker Theodor Edl in the second half of the 19th century. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 They were political opponents.
Nmate ( talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
my point of view:
1, Slovak national movement: I do not want to omit it - I would like to move it from under the headline to historical context.It would be a good solution also: this sentence remain on this place but an another one very important Hungarian related event will be inserted under this headline too.
For example:
Pray codex is liked to the city - which was made between 1192 - 1195 - that is the first known coherent literary remains of the Hungarian language. The city was the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy from 1536 to 1783. Pressburg was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.
2, Newspapers:Hungarian and Slovak are together in an sentence is O.K.because the Magyar hírmondo was the first newspaper in Hungarian language.
3, It is true both : These laws meant the transition from the feudal society into the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary so these laws included the basis of today's modern Hungarian constitution. But it is true the German pattern also.
4, What You rewrote at Hungarian National Learned Society is O.K . A good clause will be find out with first responsible Hungarian Ministry. First responsible Hungarian Ministry means: the official name of the Batthyány government.
5, Bridge name is not so relevant for me.
6, What you wrote about revolutions of 1848 is O.K. I do not know exectly that railwayline connetion was at Pest or Buda.
Nmate ( talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Pray codex contain a Mortuary speech and prayer and a almanac of Pozsony , which contains the historical events from 997 to 1203. Nmate ( talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be right to wait for Hobartimus in the debate.
The first newspapers were published here in Slovak and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny in 1783 and Magyar hírmondó in 1780 - in the Kingdom of Hungary.
Is it good?
In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg.As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary. Here formed the first independent Hungarian Ministry so called Batthyány government in 1848 on 7th of April. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria although the local residents were mainly German origins in that time.
Is it good?
Nmate ( talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What kind of reference?Concrete census nothing.But this is a general sentence in Hungarian:Száz évvel ezelőtt még magyar-német dominanciájú volt a közösségi élet, még korábban pedig szinte teljesen németek lakták. [1] and in History of Bratislava#Demographic evolution :1850: Germans (75%), Slovaks (18%), Hungarians (7.5%) - Note: all population data before 1869
Nmate ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I'm reading above, I get only one impression and one opinion: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism, regardless whether being Hungarian, Slovak, German, whichever, whether for research, open or masquerading theories, and so on. From the above suggestions, only some mention about Revolutions of 1848 is worth some attention. Others are not, especially the establishment of the learned society and offering one's income to establish it - just not worth, for such and more details are separate History articles, otherwise any other could be mentioned, not excluding Slovak Academy of Sciences, established 117 yrs later. By the way, why was Etymology deleted? I hope no one of you want to destroy this article! 78.99.132.221 ( talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Hungarian National Learned Society is a very relevant information but It is good solution mentioning it without István Széchenyi: In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg
is it good?
But the "Bratislava candle demonstration" is not a very relevant information here.
This sentece is a assume bad faith in the demographics chapter with the strong Magyarisation:
From the city's origin until the 19th century, Germans were the dominant ethnic group.However, after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, strong Magyarisation took place, and by the end of World War I Bratislava was a German-Hungarian town, with Slovaks as the biggest minority.
This was a German city in that time and they in general voluntary magyarized because they saw that act as a tool (and possibility) of getting higher on the social and economic ladder.And there is not mentionig the Beneš decrees and the "Reslovakisation" process in this chapter. Nmate ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hungarian Academy of Sciences moved to Budapest because the capital moved to Budapest. This information means that this city was an important centre of the Hungarian culture. This means a huge prestige for the city , and this is a very important events for the Hungarians.But the Slovak Natitonal Movement was not an important events for the city because this city's population were German in that time and leaders of this Movement were not acknowledged leaders for the all Slovak nation.It was a smaller group which was supported with money by the Emperor Habsburg but this is important for the Slovaks.So this movement is mentioning here. Nmate ( talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I put it back my last edits without the ethnic cleansing statement because it is explain the reasons for this events. Later I am going to add sources to it. Nmate ( talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
We agreed that Bratislava would be used there, not Pressburg. Please revert. Nmate, please stop breaching consensus and stop making chauvinistic remarks.-- Svetovid ( talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I will do the revert since nobody else wants to follow the rules here it seems.-- 194.160.75.10 ( talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid vandalized this article. Also It is very probably that this anon user is Svetovid. Nmate ( talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid's behaviour is absoluly incomprehensible. Nmate ( talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only did Hobartimus breach the consensus, but he also ignored WP:NCGN: "...In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased."-- Svetovid ( talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I started this chapter from whom I remembered. Please add many others and relevant people. TomyDuby ( talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
At present, the IPA transliteration of Bratislava is stated as:
[ˈbracɪslava]
If I understand the information in the IPA page, then the symbol [r] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:
ŕ
(i.e. long r, like in Spanish perro) whereas IPA symbol [ɾ] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:
r
(like in Spanish pero).
So when transliterating the word Bratislava, we should use
[ˈbɾacɪslava]
Isn't that better?
I hesitate to change that because there are number of other pages ( Prague, Rotterdam) where IPA symbol [r] is also used while it also is inconsistent with the meaning of that symbol on the IPA page.
Kosik ( talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The form Pozsony is not attested before the late 18th century and nobody knowing the attested names of the town has ever claimed the opposite. Similar names (Poson etc.) are attested, yes, but those names can be (and probably are) Latin, Slovak, Croat etc., as well, and above all they are not the same name. In other words, claiming that Pozsony was used in the 16th century is a speculation. The situation is different for the Latin form Posonium and above all for the German and English form Pressburg, which is attested in this particular form for the 16th century (at least). Also, contemporary English (French etc.) sources use the form Pressburg, not Pozsony before the 19th century, and actually they use the form Pressburg until 1918, therefore you cannot write that the town was known as Pozsony in the 16th to 18th century, because that is plainly wrong. Uhlie ( talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is a proof that Markussep, Uhlie and so on can't accept the fact that this city was Hungarian and used a respectively Hungarian name for centuries. As for the historians using contemporary (historic) names for cities, regions, countries, etc. it is pretty common, although the modern name of the city, region or country or countries is also mentioned. ( 80.98.230.214 ( talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.230.214 ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that
CU confirmed that
User:Regardez and
User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user
User:MarkBA. (Black out comments). About the "Hungarian" origin of the name: No, Poson is definitely derived from the Slavic personal name Božan. The source is any Slovak source that exists on this issue (and note that the town happens to be the capital of Slovakia, so that there are many sources). A detailed explanation has been provided several times by Ján Stanislav, one of the best or the best expert on Old Church Slavonic, Old Slavic, Old Slovak, Modern Slovak, Old Hungarian, Modern Hungarian etc., the person after whom the Language Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences has been named, the author of the biggest synthesis on the Slavic origin of geographic names in Hungary, the author of one of the biggest syntheses on Old Church Slavonic. He also explains linguistically why the Hungarian origin theory - which was outdated as early as before WWII - is wrong. Also, at the time of origin of the name, no Hungarian archeological findings existed in Bratislava, all are Slavic and no Hungarian rulers of the town are known, all are Slavic. Also, Hungarians are explicitely mentioned as "hospites" (i.e. new colonists) for Bratislava only in the 13th! century. So, however you turn it, the primitive "pos" ethymology is wrong and that is well known.
Tamas52x (
talk)
01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday another nickname for Bratislava was added, so now we have Beauty on the Danube and Little Big City. What is the status of these nicknames, does anyone actually use them, and in what language (English, Slovak or other)? Unless they're widely used, I think they should be removed. Markussep Talk 11:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the German not be Preßburg instead of Pressburg? --As at the time of the Empire and majority German population they did not use the new orthography rules!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC) In view of the recent intensification of the long-running edit war concerning the name "Pozsony", I have protected the latest version of this article. Do not take this to imply approval of the wide use of "Pozsony": I protected this version merely because it was the most recent.
Please discuss here the relative merits of "Bratislava", "Pozsony", "Pressburg", "Poson" to describe the town at different times (and perhaps also in different contexts). Please refrain from speculation about others' motives, and from hyperbole, exclamation points, rhetorical questions, and so forth. Evidence would be welcome. Also welcome would be citations from recent, apolitical, scholarly works about the history of what is now Bratislava. I trust that you will all stay dispassionate and reasonable, for an informed and collegial discussion. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm asked on my talk page to unprotect the page. However, neither that request nor what I see above suggests to me that the edit warfare wouldn't resume.
Here's what I wrote:
There's been no discussion whatever.
None has been proffered.
Please provide reasoned suggestions, with evidence. Once you've done that, address the other suggestions. Then work toward an agreement. When there is general agreement here, the article can be unprotected, and not before.
Of course, protection is undesirable. It's an obstruction to name-unrelated improvements to this article. However, I note that nobody has asked for any such improvement (or even complained about any name-unrelated failing) during the three weeks or so of protection. Anyway, if you do have a suggestion, go ahead and make it on this talk page: some admin will then implement it. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Until the late 1650s Transylvanian observers were sent to the diet at Pozsony.
University (Jesuit), transferred to Budapest in 1777/84 and to Pozsony in 1784. Catholic.
That Bratislava is still known by three distinct names -- Bratislava in Slovak, Pressburg in German and Pozsony in Hungarian -- shows how memories here refuse to die.
It looks confusing in the city's history to have it repeatedly named with its old names, I see it's cleared up in the names section and after that "Bratislava" should be used. Just my humble opinion.
feydey (
talk)
09:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What about refering to it as "the city" instead of using disputed name? For example, instead of "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city." there will be "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it." Still readable and in line with NPOV. (Sorry for not signing myself, but don not know and do not want create another dummy account and password for this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.219.116 ( talk) 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
[OD] I am quite sure that the occasional appearance of for example "Pozsony (Bratislava)" will quickly be "amended" by partisans of one stripe or another to plain "Pozsony" or "Bratislava (Pozsony)" or plain "Bratislava" -- leading to counter-"amendments", etc. I'm not optimistic about ever being able to end this sort of thing. However, it seems a good idea to have a good and conclusive discussion about what the article should say; thereafter, variations from this (whether underinformed or partisan) can be swiftly corrected without any need to rehash the argument.
Of course it's not desirable for this page to remain locked. If you or anyone else would like some name-unrelated change, don't hesitate to say so. (In the interim, I acknowledge that a lock lasting over a month is at best highly unusual, so I'm about to ask for a second opinion on this.)
Again, I think we can assume that a scholarly book recently written in English on the history of [what is now] Slovakia and put out by a university press or similarly reputable publisher (Norton, Macmillan Palgrave, Routledge, etc) will show the fruit of informed, disinterested, apolitical thinking. So I suggest following the precedents of books of this kind. Google Books may help here. I'm purposely not looking for such books myself; I don't want to arouse any suspicion or allegation that, having locked the page down, I'm now on some hunt for sources that happen to back up my own partisan or otherwise tainted opinion.
Although there's no obligation for you to get a username and log in as this username, do please sign your comments (four successive taps on "~"). And please don't interpolate your comments within others' comments (a practice that is especially confusing if your comments are unsigned). Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments (and for signing).
Actually my purpose in locking the page was not to avoid arguments over the name but instead to avoid edit-warring over the name and indeed to kick off a serious, informed and conclusive argument about naming. (I succeeded in the former but only partly succeeded with the latter.)
Really, I believe that the city will have to be named from time to time in the context of its history. So I don't think that you have the solution here. However, I repeat that your idea of minimizing the use of names does seem a good idea.
If
then yes there will still be objections. However, we'd know how to deal with them, and would waste a lot less of our time.
There could also be objections -- either here and now, or later -- that practice among English-speaking academics is not as good a guide as some other, very different approach. Well, I'm all ears. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
current | new |
---|---|
Pozsony was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17] | The city was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17] |
Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city. | Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it. |
Pozsony flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria. | The city flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria. |
The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed in Pozsony in 1805. | The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed here in 1805. |
In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pozsony using a donation from István Széchenyi. | In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in the city using a donation from István Széchenyi. |
Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pozsony. | Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in this area. |
The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from Pozsony to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840. | The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from the city to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840. |
descent into acrimony |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please note that
CU confirmed that
User:Regardez and
User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user
User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).
The truth is, that there are slovak users, like ( user:Juro, user:MarkBA etc.) who try to push their nacionalistick POV here, on en wiki. Their main goal is to re-write history, remove any Hungary related material from the articles which are connected with Slovakia, and slovakize everything. QUOTATION:"Since deputy prime minister Robert Fico declared the "wise historism" concept, the history books are getting rewritten in a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride", which Krekovič, Mannová and Krekovičováare claim are mainly nothing else, but history falsifications. Such new inventions are the interpretation of Great Moravia as a (proto)-Slovak state, or the term "proto-Slovak" itself, along with the "refreshing" of many "old traditions", that are in fact did not exist or were not Slovak before. The concept received criticism in Slovakia pointing out that the term proto-Slovak cannot be found in any serious publication, simply because it lacks any scientific basis. Miroslav Kusý Slovak political scientist explained that by adopting such scientificly questionable rhetoric Fico aims to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification of history". "Speaking about the "wise (clever?) historism" and patriotism program proclaimed by the government on the occasion (note: 15th year anniversary of 1993) Miroslav Kusy Slovak political scientist said in an interview to Új Szó that by talking about Slovaks in Great Moravia Robert Fico prime minister adopted such -scientificly questionable- rhetoric that points to the fact that he wants to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification(lit. "false" "painting") of history" This is why we can see such things like:"the Slovak and German names were equally official in the past", although the slovak language developed in the XIX century and it was NEVER official in the Kingdom of Hungary. They continue to insert MODERN Slovak city names with modern spelling for a time when Slovak was not the official language, or the country (Slovakia) did not even exist. Mr. Regardez also forgot to tell, that although latin and german were the official languages, hungarian was used by the people. (or citizens spoke latin???) Mr. Regardez mentioned the Máté csák article: Although the Csáks were one of the oldest Hungarian families, (see Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum) the article was created under slovak name, because they lived where what is now called slovakia (or called as a slovak(!) [5]) I think it is enough to check this article: List of Slovaks or its talkpage: Talk:List of Slovaks. Thököly, Báthory, Hans Selye and other Hungarian personels are mentioned as Slovaks! Another good example is the case of the historic counties of Hungary, which were listed under Slovak names, although slovak was never official language in the KOH, and it was never used. Who cares! Reason: "This is about the Kingdom of Hungary county. The name SHOULD NOT be in Hungarian" [6] Although the latin versions are derived from the Hungarian names... Another one: The HUNGARIAN Franz Liszt, who was a proud Hungarian ("I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind...") became Slovak [7], [8]thanx to slovak nacionalists (note, that he is still slovak on the slovak wiki [9]. Of course they dont have any reliable english reference to prove their nacionalistic edits. Just have a look here. Only slovak sources. ps: dont forget about the current slovak party in charge, the Slovak National Party and its anti Hungarian statements.
instead of this is a plain lie and a nice proof of what Regardez said above, first the users you name are not the only ones, you have harrassed out, dear multiple sockpuppet,have not been active here for years, and About Pozsony: Pozsony is derived from the old Hungarian "Poson" name. It is much older than the Slovak one (which was created in 1919. march 26). The ethnic composition of the city was 80% German and Hungarian, so the name was used. The latin form (Posonium) is also derived from it. Baxter9 ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
|
As you can see, I've hidden the continuation of the discussion above. Some interesting and intelligent points are made within it, but taken as a whole it's impossibly contaminated with charges of nationalistic motivation, block evasion, and so forth.
Blocks mean what they say. Evading a block via a new username or IP is a no-no. If you have good reason to believe that somebody is doing this, you're free to put as much effort as you wish into preventing that person from writing any more. Take up the matter in the appropriate place. This isn't it.
Some authors have been charged with pushing a PoV. If you think that an editor here is primarily, offensively or recklessly pushing a PoV, take up the matter in the appropriate place. Again, this isn't it.
Perhaps almost anything that anybody writes about ways of referring to the historical forerunners of what are now indisputably Slovak towns in Slovakia is compatible with this or that more or less political, ethnically favoritist, or even "racist" PoV. The fact that something is compatible with a PoV doesn't prove the presence of that PoV. If you can't "AGF", fine, just forget about the writer and concentrate on what's written.
Now please discuss naming within this article.
If, after reading this message, you think that something you wrote within the section hidden above was a substantive contribution to an intelligent, dispassionate discussion, feel free to recycle it below, after stripping it of comments on other writers and so forth.
I look forward to an intelligent discussion leading to a reasonable conclusion, whereupon the article may be unprotected and edits that are contradicted by the conclusion quickly reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to say some infomations about the concerned languages. First of all, the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was either Latin or Hungarian, except a very short period between 1784 and 1790, when it was German. In 1784 Joseph II's decree ordered to change the official language from Latin to German. This caused a massive resistance at the Hungarian nobels and in 1790, before his death Joseph II revoked his decree about Germanisation. The Hungarian language became the officical language in Hungary in 1844, but it was used at some parts of the state affairs earlier. The text which was linked to the site by IP number 86.42.248.93 says the following: "The policy of Germanization offended and inconvenienced Hungarians who were used to conducting legal and administrative affairs in Latin or Magyar." Because of these facts it is a huge mistake to say "Latin and German were the main languages" and "the hungarian wasn't an important language". It was the most important, because it was a Hungarian city and Latin was a dead language. Secondly, if someone wants to use the slovak name, please remember, the term "Bratislava" was created in 1919. Terence75 ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
May I ask you for your opinion on my proposal above (using "the city" reference)? The historical name seams to be controversial, without clear consesus and hence attempt to find correct name in short time seems to me unprobable. The discussions can follow on this discussion page, but the page will look better without the lock. -- 85.216.219.116 ( talk) 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Using "the city" term would delete the hungarian name "Pozsony" from almost everywhere. It can be done, but in this case "Bratislava" should be replaced with "the city" as well.
For example, "The city is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings." instead of "Bratislava is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings."
Or "In 2006, the city had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." instead of "In 2006, Bratislava had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." etc.
Can "Pozsony" be deleted when it was hungarian, but "Bratislava" not when it is Slovak? It is not the most consequent method. Terence75 ( talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway I could think of a solution such as the case at Istanbul e.g. in the first line "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul; historically Byzantium and later Constantinople; see the other names of Istanbul)"
the first line of the article would be "Bratislava (historically Pozsony and Pressburg see also other names) and then we use the IP-s solution of using "the city" more and eliminating some name usage, but this should be done then equally not just the IP-s preference of eliminating Pozsony everywhere. Hobartimus ( talk) 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the level of protection on the article. It was fully protected; it is now semi protected. Although people who haven't logged in or have done so with very new accounts can't edit it, regular users can edit it. I'm hoping for the best here. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life". The population did not speak latin, because Latin was/is a dead language. Here is a list (as an example) of books, letters written in Hungarian, to show that Hungarian was used before/after it became official. ps: I still dont know what is the problem, another user listed a dozen of books which proves that Pozsony is still used. Funeral Sermon and Prayer from 1192-1195, Old Hungarian 'Lamentations of Mary' 1300, Gáspár Heltai Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds [21], Jókai kodex: XIV century [22] Bécsi kódex and Müncheni kódex, XV. century [23], [24], Margareth-legend, 1510, [25], Speeches of Arnoldus de Bryennio, 1511 "Hadnagy balinth" Salamon and Markalf, 1577, [26] Bogáthi Fazekas Miklós, Aspasia, 1591 [27] Károli Gáspár, 1590, [28] 1561: [29], 1580: [30], 1598: [31], 1586: [32], 1659: [33], Peter Pázmány [34], 1685: [35], 1551: [36], 1556: [37], 1588: [38], Gabriel Bethlen, 1616, [39], Mihály Apafi, 1662, [40], Francis II Rákóczi, 1704, [41], 1705: [42] 1705, Francis II Rákóczi, [43], [44], Mihály Teleki, 1705, [45], 1836: [46], 1849: [47], Franz Joseph I of Austria (!), 1869, [48], Kelemen Mikes 1794, [49], 1590: [50], 1809: [51], 1551: [52], 1664: [53], 1785: [54], 1767: [55], 1774: [56], 1792: [57] Sources: National Széchényi Library: [58], [59] Baxter9 ( talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am really dismayed by the way the Pressburg-Poszony issue is treated. In the section Names the content and tone are about right, and I have no objections whatsoever. But the tone of the first paragraph is (purposedly?) undermining the identity of Bratislava and is also incorrect factually; it is introducing Bratislava as a city that has some name now but in fact is something else. Poszony and Pressburg are stressed (bold) TWICE in the intro paragraph, while the current name is bold once only. In an article about a city that is since 90 years called Bratislava this I feel is inapropritate, and really it really looks like someone wants to stress Poszony-Pressburg over Bratislava. Note that the same piece of information (that Bratislava was known under different names) is given THREE times (two times in the intor paragraph and then again in the section about names). I suggest to change the very first sentence and do not mention the Poszony/Bratislava issue there at all. I live in Germany, and you only hear Bratislava. I work with English texts a lot- and you see Bratislava everywhere. Generally, the way this is treated looks like someone unhappy about what happened in 1918 is meddling with this issue excessively. This is also indicated by the word "historically" in the first sentence, which I think for such kind of nationalists implies "genuinely", as they would like to create the impression, that Bratislava is in fact Poszony or Pressburg...I cut it ou here, sorry, but I hate to see this kind of nationalistic clashes. And sorry for not registering, I'm too busy for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 ( talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I just add another small comment: is the information that Bratislava was or is also known under Poszony/Pressburg really so important that it is the first piece of information about Bratislava? Is it more important that Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia, ...? Well well, I do not think so. And, In the pre-1919 period Bratislava was known under at least 5 variations of the same name: Possonium (Latin), Pressburg (D), Poszony (HU), Presporok (SK), and he Jiddish version which I am not able to type here. The importance of these versions varied with time and by ethnic group. and the last comment: Try Bratislava and Poszony and Pressburg in google in English. Bratislava: 11,900,000 hits in English texts; Poszony: 1190 hits, many of which refer to historical Poszony, not today's city, or names of people; and Pressuburg: 96,900 a higher number, but still much less than 1% of Bratislava and look at the references: none of them actually refers to today's city, there are many referring to the treaty of Pressburg, as town in Germany, or encyclopedia from the year 1911 etc....certainly this Poszony/Pressuburg issue is not the most important information about Bratislava deserving such prominence in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 ( talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Prešporok
Why is the old Slovak name not mentioned in the lead? As Bratislava has been a trilingual city for ages I think it is supposed to be there with the other two names.
Poszony/Pressburg/Posonium
If Latin was official in any period of time, Latin name should be used as it is the most neutral and it is also the proper way to call the town if you want to be historically exact.
It is not true, that Latin was not used at the time, see
Many lesser nobles wrote political pamphlets in imitation of the French: they read and supported weekly newspapers, first in Latin and German (since 1707) and later in the Hungarian language.
( http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html)
This also shows, that Hungarian was secondary from the point of view of the whole Monarchy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wladthemlat (
talk •
contribs)
14:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Or, if the English historiography uses Pressburg the most, that is the name that is supposed to be used on ENWiki. Just like
Prague is not once mentioned by its German or Czech name nor is Vienna mentioned by its German name in their respective History sections and/or History articles.
To support the latter option here is a quote from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Pressburg is picturesquely situated on the left bank of the Danube[...] Pressburg was the capital of Hungary from 1541 until 1784.
wlad ( talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)