![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary" Slovakia in 1848?
These were the uprising Slovaks as a nation, no State. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.102.28.249 (
talk)
17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my first target article for improvement in the WikiProject Slovakia, so it may be updated at irregular though hopefully succinct intervals. Anyone wishing to help is welcomed! Demokratickid ( talk) 18:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And I would just yet again like to reenforce that this article is very much a work in progress Demokratickid ( talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I put some template to the article on the ground that Demokratickid's edits are based on Slovak POV sources. While I am admitting that Demokratickid is very proficient in the English language, his/her addition is a drivel ,which hoodwinks the readers of Wikipedia rather than conveying them realible information. The most howling problem is that that the article triggers a false semblance that if Slovakia had existed as early as the 19th century at least in informal form. Ludovit Stúr and his chums such as Jozef Miloslav Hurban, Michal Miloslav Hodža, Janko Kráľ, Ján Francisci Rimavský were not not equal partners of Kossuth Lajos. The "Slovak militia and peasant guerrillas" name is beyond ridiculosness. In fact, the Slovaks also supported the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Ludovit Stúr's group have no many supporters, and they were hired by the Habsburg emperor without recognition and reputation even among the Slovaks. Funny to see names like Budapest and Bratislava in historical context. These addition are not possible to corroborate with Hungarian sources, and they say the opposite than what are in Špiesz's writing and the Connecticutian travel guide. In short, these sources aren't veracious, aren't trustworthy; they are good for nothing more than to promulgate Anti-Hungarian sentiment on the English Wikipedia. This addition should be deleted in whole, pursuant to Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also it is interesting to note that Demokratickid divulged a basic level familiarity of the Slovak language on his/her own user page in the meantime he/she works from Slovak sources that recall the most wildest Slovak POV.-- Nmate ( talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The newest and relatively final installment is in, though by no means is this article finished. I would still like to add more Hungarian perspective so anyone willing to help in writing that is welcomed to contact me here or otherwise. Also, in the final summation of their opinion, I removed some of the more contentious language from Anton Špiesz and Dušan Čaplovič 's summation of the era so that it would not offend Magyar reader while still maintaining the spirit of their scholarly opinion. As always, any suggestions or offers of genuine help to make this article better are appreciated! :) Demokratickid ( talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the part dealing with the Slovak perspective should somehow incorporate the fact that tens of thousands of Slovak honvéds fought for the Hungarian govenrment, including former regular batallions who could easily defect to the Austrians. In fact Slovaks contributed disproportionately larger percent of the volunteers than any other nationaly in the Kingdom of Hungary, including Hungarians.
I have moved the content of this page to " Slovak Uprising 1848-1849" and created a new disambig page as the term is easily to be confused with Slovak National Uprising during WW II.-- Stephfo ( talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the content of this discussion to the " Slovak Uprising 1848-1849" article talk page, pls. continue there in if interested to discuss the article. Thanx.-- Stephfo ( talk) 16:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary" Slovakia in 1848?
These were the uprising Slovaks as a nation, no State. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.102.28.249 (
talk)
17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my first target article for improvement in the WikiProject Slovakia, so it may be updated at irregular though hopefully succinct intervals. Anyone wishing to help is welcomed! Demokratickid ( talk) 18:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And I would just yet again like to reenforce that this article is very much a work in progress Demokratickid ( talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I put some template to the article on the ground that Demokratickid's edits are based on Slovak POV sources. While I am admitting that Demokratickid is very proficient in the English language, his/her addition is a drivel ,which hoodwinks the readers of Wikipedia rather than conveying them realible information. The most howling problem is that that the article triggers a false semblance that if Slovakia had existed as early as the 19th century at least in informal form. Ludovit Stúr and his chums such as Jozef Miloslav Hurban, Michal Miloslav Hodža, Janko Kráľ, Ján Francisci Rimavský were not not equal partners of Kossuth Lajos. The "Slovak militia and peasant guerrillas" name is beyond ridiculosness. In fact, the Slovaks also supported the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Ludovit Stúr's group have no many supporters, and they were hired by the Habsburg emperor without recognition and reputation even among the Slovaks. Funny to see names like Budapest and Bratislava in historical context. These addition are not possible to corroborate with Hungarian sources, and they say the opposite than what are in Špiesz's writing and the Connecticutian travel guide. In short, these sources aren't veracious, aren't trustworthy; they are good for nothing more than to promulgate Anti-Hungarian sentiment on the English Wikipedia. This addition should be deleted in whole, pursuant to Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also it is interesting to note that Demokratickid divulged a basic level familiarity of the Slovak language on his/her own user page in the meantime he/she works from Slovak sources that recall the most wildest Slovak POV.-- Nmate ( talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The newest and relatively final installment is in, though by no means is this article finished. I would still like to add more Hungarian perspective so anyone willing to help in writing that is welcomed to contact me here or otherwise. Also, in the final summation of their opinion, I removed some of the more contentious language from Anton Špiesz and Dušan Čaplovič 's summation of the era so that it would not offend Magyar reader while still maintaining the spirit of their scholarly opinion. As always, any suggestions or offers of genuine help to make this article better are appreciated! :) Demokratickid ( talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the part dealing with the Slovak perspective should somehow incorporate the fact that tens of thousands of Slovak honvéds fought for the Hungarian govenrment, including former regular batallions who could easily defect to the Austrians. In fact Slovaks contributed disproportionately larger percent of the volunteers than any other nationaly in the Kingdom of Hungary, including Hungarians.
I have moved the content of this page to " Slovak Uprising 1848-1849" and created a new disambig page as the term is easily to be confused with Slovak National Uprising during WW II.-- Stephfo ( talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the content of this discussion to the " Slovak Uprising 1848-1849" article talk page, pls. continue there in if interested to discuss the article. Thanx.-- Stephfo ( talk) 16:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)