Talk:Bratislava

BRD

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)

Although I did not delete your sentence, I do not think it should be part of the lead. This information can be found (in more detail) right in the next paragraph. On the other hand, I am fine either way. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Two paragraphs after, after the section break; which is why I didn't see it. Surely this is, like Brasilia, one of the more notable facts about the city; it is rare for such name changes to take. 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The transcription of pronunciation should list both variants, with -ti- and -ci-. Jakub.marecek (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

infobox issue

Can someone fix the problem? Red lettering announces "Expansion depth exceeded" in my browser. Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the "part_fold" field, which shows and hides the text/links. I've removed it. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

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. --Elonka 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)

Bratislava as a part of the Hungarian WikiProject

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 edit-warring about the WikiProject template stops, now. The next person to change it gets blocked. --Elonka 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Headquarters

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)

"Slovakia's first bank was founded in 1842"

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)

The bank was Prešporská sporiteľňa, účastinná spoločnosť. I will not comment on the "political" part of your comment because it has nothing to do with this article. Tankred (talk) 23:26, 14 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)

I favour Rembaoud' opinion.Nmate (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version is good now. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava's official name

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)

Bratislava's foreign names

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)

Just in-a-hurry: why don't you rewrite it then? By the way, I think slapping many tags (sometimes just right next to a citation) doesn't help much, I think we should exercise more caution on articles like this one. I will comment later on your points The Autobahn (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by The Autobahn a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

Borsoka, I left your citations and added some of mine, however, I dispute the nature of some of your tags. I couldn't find any reference to any local nobleman Braslav right now, so I removed it, as well as mention about "official name" until it'll get resolved. But I must ask: what do you dispute in the name Istropolis? I assume either that: you dispute that Renaissance documents called it or that it was ever called Istropolis in Ancient Greek. However, you seem to have fairly good knowledge about Central European history (so far I've seen you're working in the Middle Ages), so if we will discuss this, it's possible we will work out a solution. What do you think?

P.S.: I assume you mean readding foreign names in the lead. I don't know if that's the best idea if we want a short, "clean" overview in the introduction, besides, a link links to Names already. The Autobahn (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by The Autobahn a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

Božaň

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)

Broken anchor

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)

Bratislava itself borders Austria only

Bratislavski Kraj borders Hungary, not the city. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun il ca (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Panorama of the early morning sunshine over Bratislava's Old Town, to the left, and the New Town, to the right. Bratislava Castle is visible to the far left.

Panorama of the same area after a snowfall.

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)

Since the image only shows parts of 2 out of 17 boroughs, I don't think it should be in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit much in all fairness; how about you find me an image that shows all seventeen boroughs in any great detail, and then we replace it with that?! It shows a large part of what are probably the two most well-known of its boroughs, including the castle, and one can't argue that it shows far more than the image it replaced (Bratislava Panorama 01.jpg). --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

anonymous user(MarkBA)'s edits

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)

Nmate: Firstly, if there is an article at Bratislava Castle, then that is how it appears here. If you wish to move it, go to WP:RM. Secondly, if you believe that to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA's, then make a case at WP:CHECKUSER. Otherwise, don't make the allegation here. Simple. Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter who the anonymous user is, some of Nmates edits were not very helpful, for instance the repeated "today's old part of Bratislava" and the complete removal of the Slovak name of Devín castle from the history section. He's surely not claiming that the Slovak name wasn't used before 1918? Markussep ^Talk 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's far from "no matter" it matters quite a bit who the anonymous user is. Banned users have no right to edit. This means that their contributions are reverted as per wikipedia policy WP:BAN. What's more it is also forbidden to edit on behalf of banned users per the same policy. The IP used in this case is a known confirmed range of banned user:MarkBA. Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 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)

Back to the content of the article: could you (=Nmate and/or Hobartimus) indicate what you think is missing relevant information w.r.t. this article, current version, so we can discuss it? Markussep ^Talk 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Additions about city history

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 comments, point by point:

• Slovak national movement: it would be very strange to omit this, it was very relevant, and it was for a large part based in Bratislava/Pressburg and surroundings. This doesn't deny the importance of the city for Hungary, does it?
• crown jewels: OK, not controversial IMO, probably collateral damage of the revert war.
• The Presspursky Nowiny was (apparently, I don't know it) the first newspaper in the Slovak language, that's relevant. The other newspapers are mentioned in the article History of Bratislava. The German one was definitely not the first one in German, if the Hungarian one was the first in Hungarian, it's worth mentioning here.
• I don't understand the fuss about March or April. If the 1848 law served as the basis for the present constitution of Hungary, that might be worth mentioning, but the article Politics of Hungary says that it's based on the 1949 constitution of Germany. Who's right?
• It's quite common to use the present name for a bridge or other landmarks. A better wording may be: "The Starý most, built in 1891, was the city's first permanent bridge over the Danube."
• Your "absentee" paragraph is rather poorly written. Let me rephrase the first part like this: "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."

• I'm not sure what to do with your "ministry" line (what does "responsible" mean here?). If it evolved from the 1848 constitution, it might be better to make it a clause of that sentence. The Jelačić/Haynau part is a bit too much for this article, and also treated in the History of Bratislava article. It suffices to refer to the 1848 revolutions. The railway line to Budapest: OK (was it Buda or Pest? they hadn't merged yet in 1850). "prosperity" is not a verb, and the mayor and the banker are not so relevant IMO, the development of Pressburg in the late 19th century is already treated. Markussep ^Talk 18:19, 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)

1. What do you mean with "liked to the city"? Was it written there? And does this prayer book have a specific name? "pray codex" sounds very general.

2. OK, that's relevant.

3 and 4. I don't think the constitution is relevant enough for the Bratislava article then. The parliament (Diet) can be mentioned of course. Was it permanently in Pressburg, and when was it moved to Pest?

5. OK

6. According to German wikipedia, de:k.k. Südöstliche Staatsbahn, it was Pest, connected via Vác (Waitzen).

I don't have the time to do it myself now, but I can do the changes on Monday. Markussep ^Talk 18:09, 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)

Hmmm, that's a rather weak link. It could be mentioned in the "History of Bratislava" article, but then for the almanac ("an early source for the history of Pressburg is the 13th century almanac in the Pray codex"), not for the sermon. Markussep ^Talk 12:29, 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)

My suggestions:

• The first newspapers in Hungarian and Slovak were published here, resp. Magyar hírmondó in 1780, and Presspurske Nowiny in 1783.
• In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. <skip part about official language and April laws, that's not specifically about Bratislava> During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria, and the first independent Hungarian government was formed here under Lajos Batthyány. <do you have a reference that the 1848 Pressburgers were mainly of German origin?> Markussep ^Talk 17:53, 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)

Hmm, I think I told you before I can't read Hungarian. Markussep ^Talk 18:45, 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 etymology is already treated in detail at History of Bratislava. That article definitely needs major cleanup BTW. I agree about Szechenyi's income, feel free to discuss more details that aren't worth mentioning in the main article in your opinion. Markussep ^Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? As far as I can see no or little part of the original etymology section has been incorporated into Etymology there; I can see only original untouched version. But I agree that it needs quite an extensive clean-up to be of some good value. However, I got bit strayed so let's return: from the original list, I can say: leave only Revolutions of 1848 and related with the laws, in a brief detail, discard the rest. The national learned society doesn't belong into brief overview, otherwise any other institute of same or higher level could be included. Railway connections are to be limited into milestones, that means its current form: horse-cars in 1840, steam locomotives in 1848. As said, the industrial revolution is already covered. I'm not quite sure of relevance of forming the first government, ministries or however it is called; IMHO it strays from neutral point of view a bit. And only one suggestion: when you have deleted Etymology, you could leave at least the first mention, as Brezalauspurc in 907. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right that information that was in the "Etymology" section of the Bratislava article is not in the corresponding section of the current History of Bratislava article (which is rather fragmentary and poorly sourced). I have just copied the section to the HoB article, removed some obvious duplications, and mentioned Brezalauspurc in the Bratislava article. Markussep ^Talk 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Markussep. To the comment just below me: sorry, but I still don't see why any learned society or academy or whatever should be mentioned in a brief overview. Let's keep it brief; otherwise, any academy or university from whichever period could be mentioned. As for the "Magyarization" point - sad but true; I guess it's bit tedious to repeat this fact again and again. So why from a German city became a German-Hungarian one (with other examples)? And everyone knows that Germans and Jews were the easiest targets for these policies. And this article does not omit that Slovakisation took place as well; both History and Demographics do that, and even mention Beneš decrees, though, in demographics in an indirect way ("accused of cooperation with the Nazis"). Otherwise, my standpoint remains the same: only Revolutions of 1848 + related, nothing else. PS1: the candle demonstration is connected with the Velvet Revolution, though both happened in different years, as said, it anticipated the fall of the communists; it would be strange to omit this. PS2: please don't delete my comments! 78.99.132.221 (talk) 12:16, 18 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)

We're not going to discuss Magyarization again, are we? I think Talk:Trnava#Strong Magyarization and User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 3#Nové Zámky, Levice‎, Komárno‎ were more than enough. About the academy: how much impact did it have on Bratislava? From what I read at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences website, it first convened in 1831, and "Attendance was compulsory for full members residing in Budapest" in its early days, so I suppose it moved to Budapest soon after its foundation. In that case, its relevance for this article is small. Markussep ^Talk 13:29, 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)

The capital was already in Buda since 1784, only the diet (Landtag) was in Pressburg in 1825 (and stayed there until 1848). That might be the only reason the academy was founded there. If the first academy meeting was in 1831 (and probably in Buda), I suppose it wasn't so much prestige for Pressburg. It never had a building or library in Pressburg, right? The importance of Pressburg for Hungarians has already been covered, for instance the long time Hungarian capital, the coronations, the first Hungarian newspaper. Let's not exaggerate Hungarian presence in Pressburg/Bratislava, they were never the majority AFAIK. Mention the academy in the history article, not here. Markussep ^Talk 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said for both comments, Markussep. The key is to keep our agendas in check, showing only glimpse of it. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary about what to include and what not:

• Slovak national movement: (still?) disputed by Nmate
• crown jewels: OK (implemented)
• first newspapers: OK (implemented)
• 1848 revolution, April laws: could be expanded a bit, Bratislava chose the Hungarian side, something about military conflicts in/near Bratislava? Revolutionary government may have been formed in Pressburg, but it resided in Pest. Link with current Hungarian constitution is too weak
• starý most: solved
• academy of sciences: probably limited relevance to Bratislava
• 1843 official language: not specifically about Bratislava
• 1850 Pressburg-Pest railroad: OK with me
• mayor Justi and banker Edl: not notable enough
• Pray codex: limited relevance to Bratislava
• 1988 candle demonstration: relevant as a prelude to the velvet revolution
• Magyarisation: that's a fact, maybe it wasn't extremely brutal and partly voluntary (assimilation, influx of Hungarian civil servants), but it would be silly to omit it. Markussep ^Talk 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point: 1. IMHO relevant, don't get the point of dispute. Yes, there were fractions (FYI over religion) but that doesn't diminish anything from its relevance. 2. ok 3. ok 4. keep it in a brief detail (choosing the KoH side but captured in Jan. 1849). 5. ok 6. belongs into history article 7. I agree with your comment 8. Seeing only one relevance: connection with the then capital, or at least with the Pest part 9. so I say 10. ditto 11. yeah, that gets the point - prelude 12. silly to omit, maybe softening the wording by deleting "strong", and adding "policies". 78.99.132.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line about the revolutionary events, and about the railway to Pest. Markussep ^Talk 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. Though I made a mistake when I said it fell to Austrians in 1/1849 - it did in Dec. 1848. Buda and Pest were captured in January, so I corrected it. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The foundation of the learned society is trivial to history of Bratislava in this main article.--Svetovid (talk) 23:40, 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)

Please revert the breach of the consensus

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)

Hmm, must have been in one of the archives, I missed that. It seems a bit strange to me to use Bratislava in pre-1919 context, like saying that Istanbul was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. I agree with you that Nmate's edit was out of line. Looks like he's on the Magyarisation / Slovakisation warpath again. Markussep ^Talk 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've used this example before: London is also referred to as London even in times when it didn't have that name. It's a matter of convenience.--Svetovid (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a counter-example: Saint Petersburg consistently uses Leningrad for the years 1924-1991. Markussep ^Talk 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a special case for obvious reasons. I am talking about a habit, also professed by historians, to use current names of cities (or any other geographical locations) when talking about their distinct past.--Svetovid (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you meant distant past? 1918 is not so long ago, you can't really compare Pressburg/Bratislava to the Londinium/London case. Markussep ^Talk 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Distinct too if you think about that ;).
Yes, I can. The current reader of English Wikipedia (and other general sources) knows Bratislava and not Pressburg (in general).--Svetovid (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew Pressburg, maybe I'm not general enough. I just read in the archive that there has already been an elaborate search about how the place is called in historic context in modern reference works, that more or less resulted in a draw. The thing is I've seen many editors complain about anachronistic names. BTW you said yourself that Pressburg is the historically preferred name, or was that only in combination with "county"? Markussep ^Talk 18:22, 23 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)