![]() | 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 |
Device (CoA) of socialist (communist) Slovakia in 1960 - 1990 and of the Slovak Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1968 - 1990:
This article seems to be in desperate need of some neutral phrasing :) The Middle Ages section in general is rather terse when it comes to actual information, compared to the length of the period it is describing. -- Shallot 22:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The whole article is quite strange in some points and is even a copyright infringement in most of its parts. But it is better then nothing. I am presently working on a version for the German wikipedia, because there they have almost no text at all and will then (hopefully) try to rewrite the English article - because it is the best thing that can be done about it instead of correcting every second sentence. -- Juro 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Juro told: cleared from the nationalist mess. I think there are some still there. How do you think the Hungarians disappeared from Slovakia 1918? If you don't delete this sentence I will do it soon. I understand Slovakia needs a history. But please, you won over Hungarians all the battles of the 20th century. You still have some of the mainly Hungarian territories like Komárno, Zitny ostrov, Stúrovo, Lucenec, Královsky Chlmec. Why do you write a history, which changes the real one? What's the purpose? Why do you need that? Why do you think that the border drown in the Trianon Palace of Versailles during 1919, existed in the Middle Ages???
I am NOT the author of the article. Nobody disappeared from anywhere. And do not want me to start editting the Hungarian History which is terrible after the last edits - but I let it be. And stop your vandalism in the English and German encyclopedia.
Sorry, I was new to wikipedia, I didn't intend to make any vandalism, sometimes it's just funny to see the reactions. Otherwise as you probably know, there are large differences between the Slovakian, Hungarian and even the German look at the same history. In wikipedia I think, we should respect the facts preferably without emotions. (I think our history books both the Hungarians an the Slovakians are full of emotions.) I will try. Janos
I'm also NOT the author of the History of Hungary. I only had small contributions, as centuries were missing and I even deleted one gossip based sentence of mine now. The Slovak History page is much better and I hope somebody will totally rewrite the Hungarian one. You are also free to edit all the Wikipedia pages including the History of Hungary. Janos
The Slovak history is rather bad then good as well, and I am trying to write a new one since one year or so, but it is terribly time-consuming...
Until the Turkish times about 80% of the population of Hungary(including Slovakia) was Hungarian. After the Turkish wars in the 16th and the 17th centuries almost 50% of the Hungarian population was annihilated and since that time the proportion of Hungarians was only around 50% of Hungary. However until the end of the 18th Century the importance of belonging to a nationality was not so high, than after and the official language was latin. The survival of the Slovaks under 1000 years of Hungarian rule is a clear proof itself, that there was no "magyarization" before the late 19th century. Janos
This has nothing to do with magyarisation (and your last sentence is absolutely correct), but with the figures you use - they contradict even the official Hungarian (!) figures. Presently, I am too busy to deal with this complicated issue, I will look at it later. But - for the time being - I remember one thing from the official numbers: there were only 50% Magyars at the end of the 19th century (or even only in 1910). Juro
Shouldn't the parts about Czechoslovakia be moved to another article, called maybe "History of Czechoslovakia"? The parts before and after this failed "Wilsonian" experiment can be directed to the entries on Czechia and Slovakia, I'm thinking.
Um.......no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.35.142 ( talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
at Joy: I did not forget this article ... Juro 17:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The new version of the article achieved neutral phrasing, however missed focus on Slovakia as a separate and independent nation, as opposed to an appendage to previous political formations. Nevertheless I edited only a few clumsy English constructs. Palo.
De facto, the kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist??
yes, with foundation of czechoslovakia
Slovakia, rich in raw materials and fairly economically developed
yes see selmecbánya, körmöcbánya, szepes ... Speaking about Slovakia before 1918 ... pantaloonery
first royal privileges to Slovakian cities??
yes, cities (today in slovakia) and occupied to Middle Ages by forefathers of slovaks, germans, hungarians, jews ...
-- Mt7 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The capital of Slovakia, Bratislava, in 1550 ... Funny. What a dilletant wrote this artice, or this is the official Slovakian history ?-- fz22 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute ... -- Mt7 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) good idea ...-- fz22 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your objections are all wrong, hypernationalist and you do not know elementary facts (like always), Fz22, but since this article contains many other errors, I agree with adding the tag. On the other hand, that will not help the article. Juro 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A wise Japanese man once said something that could easily solve this puzzle. When one hates a minority, his hate can be justified. But, when a majority hates him, his hate will never be rewarded from justice. Justice rewards the deserving. Slovak people largely hate only two groups of people in Europe: Czechs and Magyars. Hungarians hate everyone: Romanians, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, Slovenes, Austrians, Russians, Germans, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Macedonians, Czechs ... [a series of insults follows]
??. The day you appeared in the wikipedia, I knew you should be blocked forever from this project. Unfortunately, nobody listens to me here and the admins do not care, it is always just an "opinion", right?!. Juro 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wake up Juro. [a series of insults follows]
Juro, you wrote: "it is always just an "opinion", right?!." Hello, Juro. You really are [a series of insults follows]
I do not want to get involved in the shouting match going on here between some editors but the reference to Magyars as "an invading Asian nomadic tribe" is simply inaccurate. I am neither Hungarian nor Slovaks but know enough about this issue to say that statement must be removed. For one the defintive place of origins of the Magyars is not known. Most scholars tend to beleive they lived in and around the Urals before migrating to areas in modern Ukraine and eventually into the Carpathian Basin. Either way it is historically inaccurate to label the Magyars an invading Asian tribe as there is no definitive evidence to conclude their origins lie entirely or mostly in Asia. Also it is inaccurate that the Magyars arrived in Europe at the end of the 9th century. They may have arrived in Central Europe at this time but before they came to the Carpathian Basin they had lived in areas of present-day European Russia and Ukraine for some time. And where they originated before that as I said is still not known for certain. -- 84.153.12.219 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You do not have to explain such obvious edits (summary comments are enough) and are free to make further edits. The problem with this article, as mentioned above severel times by me, is that it is (was) a copyright infringement and has to be rewritten completely, so that any such small changes might be useless in the long run. Juro 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should consistently draw a distinction between modern states and historical territories.
The use of the English name, Hungary, should be more specific in this context, to avoid confusions. I suggest the following names for consideration: 1.The historical Kingdom of Hungary (Uhersko) (1001-1920), refering to the multiethnic political formation before the WW1, 2.The Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1944) refering to the period between the WW1 and WW2, 3. The modern day Hungary, from 1944 onward.
On the otherhand, in some cases, the English name Slovakia could be misleading. Unless someone wants to suggest a political continuity in the Slovak history, there should be a difference made between historic Slovak lands(territory) and the state of Slovakia(political formation). The application of the term Slovakia during the medieval period, suggests the existence of a Slovak state inside the multiethnic kingdom. Therefore I recommend to use the term, the Slovak lands or the lands of the present-day Slovakia during the period of Uhersko(the historical Kingdom of Hungary). -- Kukorelli 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In certain context I beleive the use of "Slovak lands" is more appropriate. The exclusive use of "the lands of the present day Slovakia" might be misleading since it lacks reference to the dominant Slovak ethnicity of the region.
Sorry to say Juro, but what you wrote I just can not comprehend: "with broadcasts for school about borders of Great Hungary, for which people would be imprisonned in countries like Germany", what does this sentence imply? Do you mean if a Germany TV station would broadcast a program about historical German borders, THAN the responsible editor would be imprisoned? Do you mean that?-- kuko 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Poor devil, Germany this is why at the end of the century ... nevermind, this is far beside the point ... however can you clue me up which Hungarian TV stations are we talking about? -- fz22 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In 1920 there were around 1.9 million Slovaks and 1.05 Magyars in Slovakia ... this is what you call "dominant" Slovak region?-- fz22 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I consider these 16th c. estimations more like speculations, hence not appropriate in this dispute. The result usualy depends on who estimates/speculates...It does not help this topic.
My point was to differentiate Slovakia (modern statehood) to territory habited by Slovak ethnicity. I hold on to the notion of a predominantly slavic(Slovak) region within the historical KoH. The formerly used Hungarian expressions "Totfold" or "Totorszag" (Slovak land) are in support to this, in my belief. Therefore I still think "Slovak lands" or "Slovak land" are a relevant terms. I also note that the predominantly "Slovak lands" were not neccessary overlapping the "lands of the present day Slovakia". That is the principal difference between the two names.-- Kukorelli 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, and Czechoslovakia was no "multiethnic" state after 1945. And do not transfer your personal problems with the Kingdom of Hungary article to other articles. Juro 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So Czechs were representing approx. the same percentage than Magyars in the KoH (1910). In fact I beleive most of the societies are multiethnic (even todays Hungary).-- kuko 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I was suggesting the use of "The historical Kingdom of Hungary" NOT "The Multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary". Read carefuly.
Cechoslovakia could be rightfuly described as a multiethnic political formation. Although it was never officialy called like that:) But here in Wikipedia we can call it like that:)-- Kukorelli 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Until 1106, the Slav territories kept a special status in the principality — Tertia pars Regni ("the Third part of the Kingdom") — with Nitra as its capital.
1. What about Slavonia? Though it was later addition to the Kingdom, but it was a Slav populated area and did not belong to the TPR.
2. Tertia Pars Regni. It is practically Nitra and Bihar. Was Bihar a Slav populated land?
In this respect the above sentence would go like: " Until its full integration (1106), the Nitrian Principality (with its capital Nitra) was a highly autonomous region of the evolving Kingdom."
But anyway, as user Juro has mentioned that before, this all article needs a comprehensive rewrite. I hope he will have time to do it in the near future. Until than it still makes sense to improve it and use the conclusions for the new, more professional one. kuko 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about that. I just did not relised, there was a separate articel on the NP. It is mentioned further up in the article with a link. Though I think it is more accurate to mention it again in the KoH section. kuko 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made numerous clean ups and minor changes in this section. Please, anyone interested, have a look at them. If you have any objectives, let us discuss it. kuko 11:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. I hope we will clean up other sections at one point too. Tankred 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your supportive words. There is an interesting line in this section, which goes like: "The Magyars adapted numerous Slavic words connected to the organization of the state and the hierarchy, the judicial system, the Church and religion, agriculture, the trades, social relations, etc." I think we should give here some examples to improve the credibility. I am aware of many assimilated words (day names, fruit names, tools, objects etc). If any of you know samples for state organisation (maybe court: dvar-udvar?), hierarchy, judical sytem, church etc., please let us know. kuko 08:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Vajko, the ruling prince of Nitra (997AD)" conflict with "Slovakia became progressively integrated into the developing multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary by the end of the 11th century." isn't it? -- fz22 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Hungary integrated elements of the former Great Moravian state organization."
For example? I am Hungarian, but I do not know any. 195.38.101.234 15:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have found few hungarian articles on the topic. Here are some examples: king-kiràly(h)-kràl(slavic), county-megye(h)-meďe(south slavic) , pawn-zálog(h)-zaloha(cz/sk), gaol/cell-tōmlōc(h)-? Can any of you check/tell the slav/slovak meanings?
Maybe the whole sentence should be simpler and more neutral like that: "The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages began. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, in relation to state organization e.g. király(king) from the Slavic král, county(?)..." kuko 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This would require some "research", for which I have no time. If you change the text the way you are proposing, the result will be correct, but as far as I know, we will lose more or less correct information. Juro 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages became more intense. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, for example in concern with statehood, kràl(slavic)-kiràly(magyar) meaning "king" or with agriculture, sena?-szèna(magyar) meaning "hay".
If the name for "hay" is something like sena...than I think this line is acceptable. kuko 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made here slight reorganisation and I added some more detail. Any objection? kuko 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Slovaks sided (en bloc) with the Austrians is not accurate, in fact a large number of Slovaks were fighting along with the Hungarians in the Honvéd army, one notable battle in which Slovak Honvéds participated in large numbers was the victory at Branyiszkó. 81.182.209.35 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There was a difference between common Slovak speaking people and conscious Slovak patriots or nationalists. It is undestandable that the Slovak history accentuates the importance of the later. Regarding my knowledge (weak on the topic), I have read that, initialy Slovaks were supporting the anti-feudalist principles of the revolution (abolition of serfdom and censorship, broaden civil rights etc). The turning point was the disagreement between Stur and Kossuth about ethnic rights. The Magyar and the Slovak nationalism could not find a common ethos. kuko 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some text that reflects the history from Slovak perspective, eliminated some offensive adjectives and provided som context for the period following 1918. I would also like to ask contributors from Hungary and Czech Republic to kindly stick to contributions to their own history. After all, it would be inapropriate for Slovaks to modify history of their nations to fit the Slovakian view. Paul.
Hi, I had a quick look at this article and was rather surprised.
-- KIDB 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It is disputed among historians where exactly the Moravian state was established. Some experts affirm, this state was in the territory of ex-Yugoslavia. -- Koppany 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No it is not, Vince B, there were 3 authors claiming that (compared to all other -i.e. thousands of - historians), and the core of their claims has been easily refuted years ago. But above all this is not the article about Great Moravia and this is not enough for a disputed tag for the whole article. Juro 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of this era, only written. Anybody can fake written evidences. Where are the castles or tombs? None. This is corresponding to the theory that 7-8-9 century was artifically inserted into our history.
Interesting, yet astylistic and unsourced material from an IP contributor must be reverted, for re-inclusion with proper references (in the English language of course). Actually, I thought Slovak culture originated when Könyves Kálmán decreed that all Magyars with one leg shorter than the other should go live in the mountains where contstant stooping and leaning wouldn't be noticed. Put that up too when you can find the ref. (just pulling your leg) István 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Your sense of humor seems to be back in gear....myself, I always thought the Slovaks were just particularly grouchy Czechs who got banished to the mountains over their obnoxious habit of singing Hungarian folk songs all day long... K. Lásztocska 04:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:D Btw, thanks for reverting those strange edits both here and at History of Hungary. Tankred 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the complete article is that its totally biased. The one who wrote this article is brainwashed from politicians trying to conserve the present day borders without compromise. Let's face it: Slovakia is still struggling to proove its origin but its not so easy to proove, as most historical "facts" stated here are based on written chronicles, books. The easiest way to bias history is to write a book, isn't it? Where are the archeological sites (castles, buried bodies)? You will only find Celtic, Avaric, and Hungarian. It is fairly expensive to bury a Slovak castle for 9th century...
I have some thought-provoking questions, also: Slovaks have the language since ... ? nobody knows exactly, Slovaks have been settled in North Carpathians since ... ? nobody knows facts. They might have came from Empire of Moravia or from East? What about the culture of Slovakia? Do they have folk tales from long history? Mythology? Do they know what does it mean, the double cross inside the Shield? It is in Hungarian (Scythian) ancient writing, called "rovásírás" which existed before Christ, and is thought to be the successor of Sumerian writing (though disputed). The double cross with slight angle on one cross is 'gy' meaning 'egy'='one' but also 'god' (see 'egyhaz'=Christianity, this also relates to monotheism), BTW, it is in Hungarian shield also. Slovakia stole it from Hungarians, this is one proof as Slovaks never had ancient history. In Hungarian shield, it is on three gren hills (Tatra, Matra, Fatra mountains, in this strict order, two of them in present day Slovakia), with small crown, representing Sacred country. In Slovak shield, Slovaks have put it on blue, do they know, what it means? It means that the cross is built on water, be careful, it will be washed away. Sorry I might sound biased also, but the heritage is clear and is undisputable!
But the main problem with this article is not that the country is trying to proove a tradition which is from Slavic roots, but Slovak people agressively tend to hold on to this stolen heritage, stolen history. I am not saying Slovakia doesnt have a culture -- yes, but Slovaks need accept other cultures. Hungarians have made a lot of horror and sadness to Slovaks, I believe it, because Slovaks would not wanted to have so much independence. I am not saying Hungarians should Magyarize all Slovaks, it is still stupid. Both have lived together in peace for (almost) 1000 years, and even if it was under Hungarian reign, the Slovaks did not die out, but rather prospered - there is a proof of democracy. If this is not true, then why didnt Slovaks make their own revolution before?
I am also surprised that my comment on Slavic tribes are deleted. Please check this in latin Slavus = slave, Servilis = servant (Serbian). This is not oppression of a nation, because for Hungarians the Huns, or Hsiung-nu in Chinese, it means "common slave". So what? This doesn't mean anybody is slave now (except slaves of the "fixa idea"). This I wanted to point out that in the time of Great Moravia, the Slavs are mentioned by King of Byzantine, Porphurgennetos Constantine VII. But this is not proven, that these Slavs are the Slavs today: they may also be a layer of society, producing a country, speaking ... who knows what language? The only written Slavic documents are from Cyrill and Method, from later times.
To put final thoughts, if someone is writing a politically biased article, then the truth will be much disputed. Why dont the Slovakian nationalists accept some facts, they will be much welcomed on other issues, also by Polish and Czech?
Can someone re-edit the part about the Slavs being in Panonnia for thousands of years BCE! This is pseudo-science led by Slavic nationalism and presented as mainstream knowledge. ALERT ALERT! Biased point of view.
Can someone tell me where does the herald and flag of Slovakia come from? From what heritage? Abdulka 09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one theory - that it dates from a scene from the Simpson's Episode "Those Wacky Árpáds" (1991 AD) where Marge walks in front of a coat of arms hanging crookedly on Béla III's dungeon wall. Although mainstream historians have yet to agree on a single theory of origin, it must be noted that the Simpsons predate Slovakia. István 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And btw, "Hungarians were Christian before 1000AD". So because they were christians in 1000AD there was war between Stephen and other clan leaders which were pagans? And Slovaks, or if you want proto-Slovaks (but than we must speak about proto-Magyars instead about Magyars) had christian church in 828. I expect that about saint Cyril and Methodious you heared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 ( talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (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 |
Device (CoA) of socialist (communist) Slovakia in 1960 - 1990 and of the Slovak Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1968 - 1990:
This article seems to be in desperate need of some neutral phrasing :) The Middle Ages section in general is rather terse when it comes to actual information, compared to the length of the period it is describing. -- Shallot 22:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The whole article is quite strange in some points and is even a copyright infringement in most of its parts. But it is better then nothing. I am presently working on a version for the German wikipedia, because there they have almost no text at all and will then (hopefully) try to rewrite the English article - because it is the best thing that can be done about it instead of correcting every second sentence. -- Juro 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Juro told: cleared from the nationalist mess. I think there are some still there. How do you think the Hungarians disappeared from Slovakia 1918? If you don't delete this sentence I will do it soon. I understand Slovakia needs a history. But please, you won over Hungarians all the battles of the 20th century. You still have some of the mainly Hungarian territories like Komárno, Zitny ostrov, Stúrovo, Lucenec, Královsky Chlmec. Why do you write a history, which changes the real one? What's the purpose? Why do you need that? Why do you think that the border drown in the Trianon Palace of Versailles during 1919, existed in the Middle Ages???
I am NOT the author of the article. Nobody disappeared from anywhere. And do not want me to start editting the Hungarian History which is terrible after the last edits - but I let it be. And stop your vandalism in the English and German encyclopedia.
Sorry, I was new to wikipedia, I didn't intend to make any vandalism, sometimes it's just funny to see the reactions. Otherwise as you probably know, there are large differences between the Slovakian, Hungarian and even the German look at the same history. In wikipedia I think, we should respect the facts preferably without emotions. (I think our history books both the Hungarians an the Slovakians are full of emotions.) I will try. Janos
I'm also NOT the author of the History of Hungary. I only had small contributions, as centuries were missing and I even deleted one gossip based sentence of mine now. The Slovak History page is much better and I hope somebody will totally rewrite the Hungarian one. You are also free to edit all the Wikipedia pages including the History of Hungary. Janos
The Slovak history is rather bad then good as well, and I am trying to write a new one since one year or so, but it is terribly time-consuming...
Until the Turkish times about 80% of the population of Hungary(including Slovakia) was Hungarian. After the Turkish wars in the 16th and the 17th centuries almost 50% of the Hungarian population was annihilated and since that time the proportion of Hungarians was only around 50% of Hungary. However until the end of the 18th Century the importance of belonging to a nationality was not so high, than after and the official language was latin. The survival of the Slovaks under 1000 years of Hungarian rule is a clear proof itself, that there was no "magyarization" before the late 19th century. Janos
This has nothing to do with magyarisation (and your last sentence is absolutely correct), but with the figures you use - they contradict even the official Hungarian (!) figures. Presently, I am too busy to deal with this complicated issue, I will look at it later. But - for the time being - I remember one thing from the official numbers: there were only 50% Magyars at the end of the 19th century (or even only in 1910). Juro
Shouldn't the parts about Czechoslovakia be moved to another article, called maybe "History of Czechoslovakia"? The parts before and after this failed "Wilsonian" experiment can be directed to the entries on Czechia and Slovakia, I'm thinking.
Um.......no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.35.142 ( talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
at Joy: I did not forget this article ... Juro 17:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The new version of the article achieved neutral phrasing, however missed focus on Slovakia as a separate and independent nation, as opposed to an appendage to previous political formations. Nevertheless I edited only a few clumsy English constructs. Palo.
De facto, the kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist??
yes, with foundation of czechoslovakia
Slovakia, rich in raw materials and fairly economically developed
yes see selmecbánya, körmöcbánya, szepes ... Speaking about Slovakia before 1918 ... pantaloonery
first royal privileges to Slovakian cities??
yes, cities (today in slovakia) and occupied to Middle Ages by forefathers of slovaks, germans, hungarians, jews ...
-- Mt7 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The capital of Slovakia, Bratislava, in 1550 ... Funny. What a dilletant wrote this artice, or this is the official Slovakian history ?-- fz22 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute ... -- Mt7 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) good idea ...-- fz22 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your objections are all wrong, hypernationalist and you do not know elementary facts (like always), Fz22, but since this article contains many other errors, I agree with adding the tag. On the other hand, that will not help the article. Juro 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A wise Japanese man once said something that could easily solve this puzzle. When one hates a minority, his hate can be justified. But, when a majority hates him, his hate will never be rewarded from justice. Justice rewards the deserving. Slovak people largely hate only two groups of people in Europe: Czechs and Magyars. Hungarians hate everyone: Romanians, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, Slovenes, Austrians, Russians, Germans, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Macedonians, Czechs ... [a series of insults follows]
??. The day you appeared in the wikipedia, I knew you should be blocked forever from this project. Unfortunately, nobody listens to me here and the admins do not care, it is always just an "opinion", right?!. Juro 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wake up Juro. [a series of insults follows]
Juro, you wrote: "it is always just an "opinion", right?!." Hello, Juro. You really are [a series of insults follows]
I do not want to get involved in the shouting match going on here between some editors but the reference to Magyars as "an invading Asian nomadic tribe" is simply inaccurate. I am neither Hungarian nor Slovaks but know enough about this issue to say that statement must be removed. For one the defintive place of origins of the Magyars is not known. Most scholars tend to beleive they lived in and around the Urals before migrating to areas in modern Ukraine and eventually into the Carpathian Basin. Either way it is historically inaccurate to label the Magyars an invading Asian tribe as there is no definitive evidence to conclude their origins lie entirely or mostly in Asia. Also it is inaccurate that the Magyars arrived in Europe at the end of the 9th century. They may have arrived in Central Europe at this time but before they came to the Carpathian Basin they had lived in areas of present-day European Russia and Ukraine for some time. And where they originated before that as I said is still not known for certain. -- 84.153.12.219 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You do not have to explain such obvious edits (summary comments are enough) and are free to make further edits. The problem with this article, as mentioned above severel times by me, is that it is (was) a copyright infringement and has to be rewritten completely, so that any such small changes might be useless in the long run. Juro 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should consistently draw a distinction between modern states and historical territories.
The use of the English name, Hungary, should be more specific in this context, to avoid confusions. I suggest the following names for consideration: 1.The historical Kingdom of Hungary (Uhersko) (1001-1920), refering to the multiethnic political formation before the WW1, 2.The Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1944) refering to the period between the WW1 and WW2, 3. The modern day Hungary, from 1944 onward.
On the otherhand, in some cases, the English name Slovakia could be misleading. Unless someone wants to suggest a political continuity in the Slovak history, there should be a difference made between historic Slovak lands(territory) and the state of Slovakia(political formation). The application of the term Slovakia during the medieval period, suggests the existence of a Slovak state inside the multiethnic kingdom. Therefore I recommend to use the term, the Slovak lands or the lands of the present-day Slovakia during the period of Uhersko(the historical Kingdom of Hungary). -- Kukorelli 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In certain context I beleive the use of "Slovak lands" is more appropriate. The exclusive use of "the lands of the present day Slovakia" might be misleading since it lacks reference to the dominant Slovak ethnicity of the region.
Sorry to say Juro, but what you wrote I just can not comprehend: "with broadcasts for school about borders of Great Hungary, for which people would be imprisonned in countries like Germany", what does this sentence imply? Do you mean if a Germany TV station would broadcast a program about historical German borders, THAN the responsible editor would be imprisoned? Do you mean that?-- kuko 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Poor devil, Germany this is why at the end of the century ... nevermind, this is far beside the point ... however can you clue me up which Hungarian TV stations are we talking about? -- fz22 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In 1920 there were around 1.9 million Slovaks and 1.05 Magyars in Slovakia ... this is what you call "dominant" Slovak region?-- fz22 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I consider these 16th c. estimations more like speculations, hence not appropriate in this dispute. The result usualy depends on who estimates/speculates...It does not help this topic.
My point was to differentiate Slovakia (modern statehood) to territory habited by Slovak ethnicity. I hold on to the notion of a predominantly slavic(Slovak) region within the historical KoH. The formerly used Hungarian expressions "Totfold" or "Totorszag" (Slovak land) are in support to this, in my belief. Therefore I still think "Slovak lands" or "Slovak land" are a relevant terms. I also note that the predominantly "Slovak lands" were not neccessary overlapping the "lands of the present day Slovakia". That is the principal difference between the two names.-- Kukorelli 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, and Czechoslovakia was no "multiethnic" state after 1945. And do not transfer your personal problems with the Kingdom of Hungary article to other articles. Juro 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So Czechs were representing approx. the same percentage than Magyars in the KoH (1910). In fact I beleive most of the societies are multiethnic (even todays Hungary).-- kuko 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I was suggesting the use of "The historical Kingdom of Hungary" NOT "The Multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary". Read carefuly.
Cechoslovakia could be rightfuly described as a multiethnic political formation. Although it was never officialy called like that:) But here in Wikipedia we can call it like that:)-- Kukorelli 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Until 1106, the Slav territories kept a special status in the principality — Tertia pars Regni ("the Third part of the Kingdom") — with Nitra as its capital.
1. What about Slavonia? Though it was later addition to the Kingdom, but it was a Slav populated area and did not belong to the TPR.
2. Tertia Pars Regni. It is practically Nitra and Bihar. Was Bihar a Slav populated land?
In this respect the above sentence would go like: " Until its full integration (1106), the Nitrian Principality (with its capital Nitra) was a highly autonomous region of the evolving Kingdom."
But anyway, as user Juro has mentioned that before, this all article needs a comprehensive rewrite. I hope he will have time to do it in the near future. Until than it still makes sense to improve it and use the conclusions for the new, more professional one. kuko 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about that. I just did not relised, there was a separate articel on the NP. It is mentioned further up in the article with a link. Though I think it is more accurate to mention it again in the KoH section. kuko 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made numerous clean ups and minor changes in this section. Please, anyone interested, have a look at them. If you have any objectives, let us discuss it. kuko 11:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. I hope we will clean up other sections at one point too. Tankred 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your supportive words. There is an interesting line in this section, which goes like: "The Magyars adapted numerous Slavic words connected to the organization of the state and the hierarchy, the judicial system, the Church and religion, agriculture, the trades, social relations, etc." I think we should give here some examples to improve the credibility. I am aware of many assimilated words (day names, fruit names, tools, objects etc). If any of you know samples for state organisation (maybe court: dvar-udvar?), hierarchy, judical sytem, church etc., please let us know. kuko 08:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Vajko, the ruling prince of Nitra (997AD)" conflict with "Slovakia became progressively integrated into the developing multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary by the end of the 11th century." isn't it? -- fz22 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Hungary integrated elements of the former Great Moravian state organization."
For example? I am Hungarian, but I do not know any. 195.38.101.234 15:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have found few hungarian articles on the topic. Here are some examples: king-kiràly(h)-kràl(slavic), county-megye(h)-meďe(south slavic) , pawn-zálog(h)-zaloha(cz/sk), gaol/cell-tōmlōc(h)-? Can any of you check/tell the slav/slovak meanings?
Maybe the whole sentence should be simpler and more neutral like that: "The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages began. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, in relation to state organization e.g. király(king) from the Slavic král, county(?)..." kuko 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This would require some "research", for which I have no time. If you change the text the way you are proposing, the result will be correct, but as far as I know, we will lose more or less correct information. Juro 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages became more intense. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, for example in concern with statehood, kràl(slavic)-kiràly(magyar) meaning "king" or with agriculture, sena?-szèna(magyar) meaning "hay".
If the name for "hay" is something like sena...than I think this line is acceptable. kuko 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made here slight reorganisation and I added some more detail. Any objection? kuko 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Slovaks sided (en bloc) with the Austrians is not accurate, in fact a large number of Slovaks were fighting along with the Hungarians in the Honvéd army, one notable battle in which Slovak Honvéds participated in large numbers was the victory at Branyiszkó. 81.182.209.35 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There was a difference between common Slovak speaking people and conscious Slovak patriots or nationalists. It is undestandable that the Slovak history accentuates the importance of the later. Regarding my knowledge (weak on the topic), I have read that, initialy Slovaks were supporting the anti-feudalist principles of the revolution (abolition of serfdom and censorship, broaden civil rights etc). The turning point was the disagreement between Stur and Kossuth about ethnic rights. The Magyar and the Slovak nationalism could not find a common ethos. kuko 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some text that reflects the history from Slovak perspective, eliminated some offensive adjectives and provided som context for the period following 1918. I would also like to ask contributors from Hungary and Czech Republic to kindly stick to contributions to their own history. After all, it would be inapropriate for Slovaks to modify history of their nations to fit the Slovakian view. Paul.
Hi, I had a quick look at this article and was rather surprised.
-- KIDB 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It is disputed among historians where exactly the Moravian state was established. Some experts affirm, this state was in the territory of ex-Yugoslavia. -- Koppany 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No it is not, Vince B, there were 3 authors claiming that (compared to all other -i.e. thousands of - historians), and the core of their claims has been easily refuted years ago. But above all this is not the article about Great Moravia and this is not enough for a disputed tag for the whole article. Juro 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of this era, only written. Anybody can fake written evidences. Where are the castles or tombs? None. This is corresponding to the theory that 7-8-9 century was artifically inserted into our history.
Interesting, yet astylistic and unsourced material from an IP contributor must be reverted, for re-inclusion with proper references (in the English language of course). Actually, I thought Slovak culture originated when Könyves Kálmán decreed that all Magyars with one leg shorter than the other should go live in the mountains where contstant stooping and leaning wouldn't be noticed. Put that up too when you can find the ref. (just pulling your leg) István 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Your sense of humor seems to be back in gear....myself, I always thought the Slovaks were just particularly grouchy Czechs who got banished to the mountains over their obnoxious habit of singing Hungarian folk songs all day long... K. Lásztocska 04:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:D Btw, thanks for reverting those strange edits both here and at History of Hungary. Tankred 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the complete article is that its totally biased. The one who wrote this article is brainwashed from politicians trying to conserve the present day borders without compromise. Let's face it: Slovakia is still struggling to proove its origin but its not so easy to proove, as most historical "facts" stated here are based on written chronicles, books. The easiest way to bias history is to write a book, isn't it? Where are the archeological sites (castles, buried bodies)? You will only find Celtic, Avaric, and Hungarian. It is fairly expensive to bury a Slovak castle for 9th century...
I have some thought-provoking questions, also: Slovaks have the language since ... ? nobody knows exactly, Slovaks have been settled in North Carpathians since ... ? nobody knows facts. They might have came from Empire of Moravia or from East? What about the culture of Slovakia? Do they have folk tales from long history? Mythology? Do they know what does it mean, the double cross inside the Shield? It is in Hungarian (Scythian) ancient writing, called "rovásírás" which existed before Christ, and is thought to be the successor of Sumerian writing (though disputed). The double cross with slight angle on one cross is 'gy' meaning 'egy'='one' but also 'god' (see 'egyhaz'=Christianity, this also relates to monotheism), BTW, it is in Hungarian shield also. Slovakia stole it from Hungarians, this is one proof as Slovaks never had ancient history. In Hungarian shield, it is on three gren hills (Tatra, Matra, Fatra mountains, in this strict order, two of them in present day Slovakia), with small crown, representing Sacred country. In Slovak shield, Slovaks have put it on blue, do they know, what it means? It means that the cross is built on water, be careful, it will be washed away. Sorry I might sound biased also, but the heritage is clear and is undisputable!
But the main problem with this article is not that the country is trying to proove a tradition which is from Slavic roots, but Slovak people agressively tend to hold on to this stolen heritage, stolen history. I am not saying Slovakia doesnt have a culture -- yes, but Slovaks need accept other cultures. Hungarians have made a lot of horror and sadness to Slovaks, I believe it, because Slovaks would not wanted to have so much independence. I am not saying Hungarians should Magyarize all Slovaks, it is still stupid. Both have lived together in peace for (almost) 1000 years, and even if it was under Hungarian reign, the Slovaks did not die out, but rather prospered - there is a proof of democracy. If this is not true, then why didnt Slovaks make their own revolution before?
I am also surprised that my comment on Slavic tribes are deleted. Please check this in latin Slavus = slave, Servilis = servant (Serbian). This is not oppression of a nation, because for Hungarians the Huns, or Hsiung-nu in Chinese, it means "common slave". So what? This doesn't mean anybody is slave now (except slaves of the "fixa idea"). This I wanted to point out that in the time of Great Moravia, the Slavs are mentioned by King of Byzantine, Porphurgennetos Constantine VII. But this is not proven, that these Slavs are the Slavs today: they may also be a layer of society, producing a country, speaking ... who knows what language? The only written Slavic documents are from Cyrill and Method, from later times.
To put final thoughts, if someone is writing a politically biased article, then the truth will be much disputed. Why dont the Slovakian nationalists accept some facts, they will be much welcomed on other issues, also by Polish and Czech?
Can someone re-edit the part about the Slavs being in Panonnia for thousands of years BCE! This is pseudo-science led by Slavic nationalism and presented as mainstream knowledge. ALERT ALERT! Biased point of view.
Can someone tell me where does the herald and flag of Slovakia come from? From what heritage? Abdulka 09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one theory - that it dates from a scene from the Simpson's Episode "Those Wacky Árpáds" (1991 AD) where Marge walks in front of a coat of arms hanging crookedly on Béla III's dungeon wall. Although mainstream historians have yet to agree on a single theory of origin, it must be noted that the Simpsons predate Slovakia. István 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And btw, "Hungarians were Christian before 1000AD". So because they were christians in 1000AD there was war between Stephen and other clan leaders which were pagans? And Slovaks, or if you want proto-Slovaks (but than we must speak about proto-Magyars instead about Magyars) had christian church in 828. I expect that about saint Cyril and Methodious you heared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 ( talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)