Talk:Slovakia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Official Name

Cut para claiming wrong use of Slovak Republic. Especially among ethnic minorities overuse of the informal Slovakia is seen as oppressive. garryq 16:50, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The above sentence is so ridiculous in any aspect that I even hesitate to answer it. Slovakia is the official (not informal) short form for the long form Slovak Republic, just like France for the French Republic, Poland for the Republic of Poland, Romania and so on, regardless of whether there are ethnic minorities or not. There are not more ethnic minorities in Slovakia than in most other European countries.Juro 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Juro that name Slovakia is ok. For example the country information page of the Slovak government is titled Slovakia. However, I think the second paragraph of the article is too prominent place to explain some inappropriate use of the term Slovak republic by some authors of economic texts. Rather mention that Slovakia recently joined EU and NATO. One reason for using the long name Slovak republic may be to make it less similar to Slovenia.
Sorry, forgot to sign the above. Brona 23:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Without even seeing this, I edited this part of the article... should be reasonably okay now, the language should be fairly neutral and the position fairly acceptable. --Shallot 15:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I left here some solecism (xample: ehole) and link to Abov Turna instead of Abov and Turna (separated). Prešpork county was almost whole in Slovakia, but it´s impossible to edit this page now (I don´t know why). So I am sorry.--Kristo 22:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historical regions

Is it necessary to create new page for List of historical regions of Slovakia? These regions are still ,,alive" between people, you can also buy books, maps or turistic handbooks about them although they aren´t oficial regions of Slovakia. Their names are much more used among people to call their homeland than present-day regions. In my opinion, it is better and more useful to display their names and map on main page about Slovakia. --Kristo 16:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Date of independence

I recognize the independence of Slovakia as 1918 because simply put of the two nations comprising Czechoslavia Slovakia always remained the independent fragment. Vital Component..

That's what you do...This does not conform with the usual definition of independence of a state (the rise of the Byzantine Empire - if there was a particular date - is not the independence of Greece) and above all not the self-definition of Slovakia.Juro 17:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The independence of Slovakia can be recognized as 1938. Juro and his friens tend to forget about the fact that their beloved country became first time created in the history by Hitler.

External links

What about the newly added huge set of links...Is that OK? Juro 20:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean some links in particular? [--dusoft 09:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Slovakia

Surely there should be something on the history of Slovakia? It followed a distinct path from the Czech Republic (different parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and has been independent for more than 12 years. Jackiespeel 17:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you referring to, i.e. what are you trying to suggest? There is a (bad) article on the History of Slovakia Juro 04:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I keep adding the indi. date as 1918 because every time Czechoslavia would fall Slovakia would re-emerge. We saw that in WWII. They have continous heritage. Syria and Egypt merged but Egypt's independence date is still 1920 somthing.. [user:Vital Component|Vital Component]

But you are asking for an edit war. While I agree that creation of Czechoslovakia is worth mentioning, the date of Slovakia independence is indeed generally accepted as of 1993-1-1, while 1918-10-28 has more lukewarm reception. 'Division by Nazi Germany" should not be mentioned in the main floating table, since the existence of WWII Slovakia has been retroactively nullified by WWII victorious parties, and is therefore unofficial and current day Slovakia is not a continuation of WWII Slovakia (it certainly deserves mentioning in the article text, and there should be probably a separate article on WWII Slovakia). Anyway, the entries as written by you are les than clear when viewed by someone not already familiar with the matter - I tried to clarify it a bit and make a more acceptable compromise - though no doubt someone is going to revert the changes anyway :-) rado 09:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really cannot find a better word for this than "ridiculous". I mean, this is so obviuous that if you just switch on your brain for a second and look at the other country articles you cannot come to a conclusion that the independence of SK can be given in the table as 1918. The independence of SK is 1993, 1918 is the independence of CS which has a separare article; otherwise we would have to change articles on form. YU, Soviet etc. states + add the date independence of GB to the independence of USA etc. ... Most of the other country articles do not even mention the "division of Czechoslovakia" part. Juro 18:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have to mostly agree with Juro. I do not find any logic in rado's argument however. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I believe rado stated was that Slovakia doesn't exist because America says so? This is the most "ridiculous" (as Juro stated) argument ever given. Since when does it matter what America says about Slovakia. America still uses terms in books like "Czech Tatra Mountains" and "Czech city of Nitra was the center of the Great Moravian Empire." America doesn't control Slovakia (except "Gas bag" Gasparovic who sucks the dick of G. Bush). rado wrote: "Slovakia has been retroactively nullified by WWII victorious parties..." I remember seeing Russian/French/Italian/German/Spanish (btw Russia was the victor of WWII, not America like what your books in commie Bratislava write, rado) books with maps of WWII with Slovakia on them. On this particular map from French school books it included Slovakia, while the area of present-day Czech Republic was referred to as Germany. Rado, If you get out of that shithole (Bratislava) you would understand that Slovakia has a very good relation with other countries (France, Italy, Austria, Germany) who are all respectful towards the Slovak nation and totally accept Slovakia as a historic independent nation - fully acknowledge the existence of independent Slovakia during WWII. The only "WWII victor" who fails to recognize the Slovak Republic (1939-1945) as an independent state is America (which still uses Czechoslovakia instead of Slovakia and Czech Republic on World maps made in 2002!). Remember that prices for tourist books, magazines, brochures, and other souveniers are much more expensive for tourists from America, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and UK because we, in Slovakia, do not like these trash in our country (Slovakia ranks 5th in Europe as the "Cleanest Country", only behind Norway, Sweden, Austria, and France --- Most of us in Slovakia, except for those drunks from Bratislava, want to keep Slovakia clean). American books always write hate about Slovakia ("Czech Tatra Mountains," "Slovaks are stupid," "Slovaks are uneducated," "Slovaks are Czechs," "Slovakia is a Czech province"...) so we, in Slovakia, have a right to dislike America. Again, as already stated, rado, I hope you realize that your entire argument defending the Czech perspective that Slovakia doesn't exist is just an opinion. Slovakia(1939-1945) had its own government, coin minting, currency, stamp production, ministry offices, military, etc... Without these, a country doesn't exist - therefore the Czech Republic still doesn't exist because:

  • Czechs haven't decided on a name. Many want to revert back to the name "Bohemian" but Moravians threatened to join Slovakia if Prague would accept this.
  • Czechs haven't decided on a name for their young country. Most favor the name "Czech Republic," some favor "Czechia," and Moravians are demending that the name be changed to "Czechomoravia." - The current logo of the Czech Football League ( already has the name "Czechomoravia" on it.
  • The Czech government hasn't fully decided on what the flag of the Czech Republic should look like. Many think it should stay as it is, but others think it should be changed to "two equal horizontal stripes of red and white."


I'm not sure if this warrants a response, but since you seem to be sincere -- while entertaining and perhaps even enlightening, I believe your comment is way out of line for this venue. Anyway - just a sincere comment from another Czech-loving American who couldn't find Slovakia on a map even if you showed it to him. Cheers Jbetak 06:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
since the anonymous contributor did atack me directly, I am responding:
1) you replied to a half year old comment!
2) you did not understand it
3) the comment was about situation half a year ago, when the relevant topic was the legality of WWII Slovak Republic
4) and YES, it is sad but it is true, after WWII USA and USSR have sat down and decided that WWWII Slovak Republic was never legal. Yes, they had the power to do it, and the Slovaks had to agree (some willingly, some not). Again, it was not about current day Slovakia, so half of your rant is irrelevant. The other is relevant, but there is nothing (short of declaring war to USA) that you can do about it.
rado 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

WWII victorious parties? The same ones who in WWI for reasons unclear put Samoa under New Zealand's control do to them not being White enough to govern? The same allies that for reasons unclear forced Croatia back into a ethnically bias union with Yugoslavia? The same victorious allies that decided that even though SA believed in the concepts of White power it would be a pretty cool idea to give then Namibia for 45 years! The same allies that refused to stop Italy's invasion of Ethiopia but then subsequently took over Somalia in 1945 and then returned Somalia to 1950-1960 to Italy an axis power instead of all out independence? Rado I considor the ALLIES TO BE NULL! When you stop being naive perhaps the effects of the "cool-aid" will wear off.. Juro what is Gambia's independence? 1989 or 1965? Senegambia had no effect due to the fact that it was a UNION. Czechs withen Czechoslavakia insisted on trying to dominate the goverment. Ironically Slovakia continue to rise after Nazi Germany's annexation. Because of this that makes Slovakia the succesor to Czechoslavia sense SLOVAKIA was always the remaining independent half. Juro I suggest you cut the bullshit and give your newage-ism a rest. You probally were stupid enough to also think Kosovo and Somaliland would get independence through peaveful means.. Probally never lifted a fist in your life..a shame. -- V.C.

V.C, yes, the same victorious parties - we might not like the ethics of WWII outcome, but we are living in their world and their heritage, and what they said was legal IS legal by definition (we may argue about it, we may disagree with it but it is all we can do - to translate Cimrman's famous saying). Anyway, this is far off topic - go to Alternative history (fiction) if you want to discuss this. AND, what was my main point, your entry IS NOT CLEAR. For a casual reader, (s)he has no idea what "division" and "unification" are you talking about - just read the text after yourself. But, I am not going to fix it, since juro is goint to revert the changes anyway :-) rado 08:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why would a casual ready be reading a history section? To better understand Slovakia you and others should look in to Jozef Tiso. Why cater to the type a guy who'd think in his mind that when you said Prussia you accidently really mean Russia?? The final disolution is clear but to make it clear Slovakia has always heald its weight. -V.C.

Imagine a similar hypothetical entry about Egypt - if you mentioned "independence from UK", then "unification" and then "division" without further clarification, you would confuse readers to no end - not just an ordinary american idi^H^H^Hcitizen, but many other people just do not know about the United Arab Republic! (incidentaly, real article about Egypt mentions just "independence from UK" in the floating table, not the division of UAR). And I think I understand 'Slovakia' enough, thank you. rado 10:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would confuse them? Do you think Egypt cares about anyones opinions? Do you think these countries care? The UN you believe in causes them trouble to no end. Slovakia was always the last bit of resistance and should be counted as Czechoslavia itself just as Russia and not Estonia is considored the U.S.S.R. or Serbia-Montenegro id Yugoslavia. Give the liberal bullshit a rest already. Maybe it applys these days but the Slovakia I speak of lived in the age of when these (holds up fists) were used. Slovakia of the Axis predates these new age accords that try to set so many rules. Try to show some gotdamn respect for these people! --V.C.

I thought I understood your position, but now I am not so sure anymore - a piece of incoherent rant against who know what, and your entry makes little sense - I am withdrawing and letting juro deal with you - even if I might not agree with him in some points, but at least it is possible to discuss things with him in a more intelligent matter. This should be an encyclopædia, not a political message board. rado 08:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If that were the case I'd say you should disregard your Internationlismistic/UN/League of Nations believe and except things for what they are. Slovakia and Czechoslovakia are 1 in the same due to Slovakia's history of retainted independence. Oh and do you think u r cool or something using that æ?? It probally took you about ten minutes to find that character. --V.C.

Strange is, I mostly agree with your opinions and (dis)belief - but obviously, we are into personal insults by now, and you obviously are not going to listen to (any) logic anymore. And yes, I think I am cool, unlike you (took me about 0.1 seconds... <compose>ae, in case you wonder, I am typing in under X11, and btw read an entry about Encyclopedia). Have a nice day. rado 14:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh he pasted it. LOOKY LOOKY HES ONE SMART COOKIE... The point I stick by my beliefs that Czechosl. and Slovakia are the same. I believe my argument is suffient. Oh pardon me there is a whole list of characters under the window. How handy. Now if you believe there are any flaws in my continuation theories I really would like to hear them. --V.C.

Who is this pathetic facsist asshole? V.C? He must mean W.C.

Pasted? No, I used the X11 compose mechanism. OK, now in your eagerness to offend me you revealed your cluelessness and ignorance. The morale: Don't feed the trolls. Have a good time. rado 08:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I wanna say that IT is was not sure that cleric fascism was in Slovakia. So I would like to say to ADMINE of Wikipedia to correct that FIRST SLOVAK STATE was cleric fascistic. Thank you, dont write here somthing so brickle without proofs. I wish only all good. God with us, BE LOAYAL AND GO FOREWARD TOGETHER. Samo

Revert war

There currently is a revert war going on on this article. Actually, it is not a reversion war according to that page, because there are more than just two individuals involved. It rather appears to be one individual (Vital Component (talk · contribs)) against the rest.

I'm no expert on Slovakia, and I don't have an opinion on what should be the right version. However, there are some signs that make Vital Component suspect to me:

  • VC is clearly imposing his/her POV against the will of a majority.
  • In the above discussion he/she refuses to take the levelheaded attempts of other individuals seriously.
  • Several of his/her edits reintroduce typos or remove links to relevant articles – these appear to be collateral damage of rash reverting:

Sebastian 10:24, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Further, Vital Component's insults cannot be helpful. Maurreen 16:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I d not believe mu views are POV. I believe this rediculous UN rhetoric of you people must go. Why you might enjoy this age of the "international community" interfering in the rights of people on the pretext of evoiding wars which are unavoidable the case of Slovakia your cowardice and new age-ism is clearly trumped. If Russia is considored to be the former USSR THen I say Slovakia is t0o be considored the former CZECHOslovakia. Following CZ.'s fall to Nazi Germany in '38 Slovakia remained the only independent act. Now when it comes to countries invading others you ppl are all talk and not likely to do anything in defense. With that stated Slovakia's tendecy to remain sovereign clearly makes it the successor state in all regards. If anyone is bias it is to hippy/internet warriors. This is nothing mre then a mere case of realpolitik prevailing over your own naivity and ignorance and of course bias. With tha out of the way I'll address Sebastions points. He is probally right in regards to links being overedited. If everyone is happy with the current information I'll simply just changed the ind. date. V.C.--

Where was the shetl Bzenc located?...

Where was the shetl Bzenc located?...

Slovak nation

I respectfully disagree with the opinion that the Slovak nation (or its territory) existed in the 10th century. Certain parts of the Carpathian basin were populated by Slavs, but the Slav element of the Northern Carpathians can not be called "Slovaks" before the 19th century.

The nation formed in Great Moravia had common culture and written language. Do you really think it is likely that this great nation disappeared immediately after fall of Great Moravia? It is widely accepted that this nation has survived and evolved into today's Slovak nation. Ruthenian 13:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ruthenian, I would suggest to simply turn your back on this stupid, insignificant encyclopedia like any wise man with dignity would. I would not suggest lowering yourself to the level of computer nerds who center their entire life on arguing on a website. After all, these people give their viewpoints on the internet because no one in the real world would listen to such nonsense as listed by Juro, Sandius, and Pavel. In other words, who considers an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) that has articles written by nobodies as a credible source? I agree with knieza's argument in the below discussion that Wikipedia has absolutely no credibility. This encyclopedia is a last resort for propagandists to spread their lies because in real life, no one in Slovakia would listen to arguments like "the Slovak Nation does not exist." A good website to download information about Slovakia is which includes brochures made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic. I would recommend downloading the brochures and in these brochures its states specifically "The Slovak nation is more than 1500 years old,(or it is just 13? :)) ) " "Nitra was the seat of the rulers of the Great Moravian Empire," and "The Slovak language dates back to the 9th century with the works of St. Constantine and Method." I am sure that these statements in these brochures will upset these lying cowards on this website who are all denying Slovakia's history. But, they will either accept it or forever live in the shadows of Wikipedia's discussion page and may they one day suffer so much humiliation from their (Juro, Pavel, Sandius) lies that they drown in them. Mike Jirousek - Philly, USA

Knieza's edits

There seems to be a controversy concerning the validity of Knieza's contributions to this article and Great Moravia. I'd like to encourage the parties involved to discuss the issues here before editing the article. Remember: the edit summary is not the appropriate venue to make observations or complain about another user's work. Thanks, Redux 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, the opinions expressed by Knieza is typically claimed by small group of nationalists and not shared by historians or (yet) officially taught in schools (mainly because of lack of valid documents or artefacts). I think User:Juro (long term, reliable Wikipedian) would be good authority here even he doesn't have time and stamina to fight a forever war with people having lot of free time. I think best solution would be to leave the articles as is and do cleanup after few months, when the warriors turn their interest elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 14:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that this is a too important article to be left with obvious errors for "few months". Juro 18:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
All right, the anon (possibly Knieza) edited the article after I had asked him, on both talk pages, to discuss first. Seeing this, I've now protected the article. Knieza/anon contributor: Pavel and Juro have stated that you are pushing POV in the article. This will not stand. Please state a verifiable sources for your claims. Regards, Redux 22:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

To Whom it may concern:

  • The changes that I have added to the "Slovakia" article are:
  • 1) A picture of Bojnice Castle - which I see no reason for anyone to dispute to because it is a Slovak castle and is in Slovakia.
  • 2) A picture of the Tatras -which I see no reason for anyone to dispute to this picture because it is in Slovakia and the Tatras are entirely (even the small part in Poland) inhabited by Slovaks.
  • 3) A picture of Slovak folk costumes from the Orava region - which I see no reason for anyone to object because those are Slovak folk costumes and the picture was taken in Slovakia
  • 4) The section of the "Slovakia" article called "Name" lacks detail and a history of the name "Slovakia." For example, articles on Romania or Greece or other countries DO have a section dedicated to describing the history of the name of the country. My question is why you quickly deleted all evidence that the name Slovakia existed before the 11th century. For example: I wrote "The oldest mention of 'Slovakia' dates back to the early 9th century when land around the Danube was called 'Sclavorum' and later also mentioned as 'Slovacorum'." This is a fact yet, somehow you "monitors" seem to be very anti-Slovak when it comes to history, and this bias should not be allowed on an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) that claims that it is a "research tool with only neutral viewpoints."
  • 5) The name "Great Slovak Empire" should definetly be acknowledged, even though America is lacking behind and still uses the same viewpoints that communists had 30 years ago. First, there are books called "Great Slovak Empire" (for example the book called "Velkoslovenska Risa"). Second, the name "Great Slovak Empire" was used by Ludovit Stur while his visit to Devin Castle, which therefore, the name "Great Slovak Empire" is used in historic texts and should be recognized by the minority who seem to deny Slovakia has a history (American text books).
  • 6) The Kingdom of Slovakia (wrongly called by modern historians as "Great Moravia" or "Great Morava") was a Slovak state, not just a "proto-Slovak state."
  • Here is proof:
    • The "Great Moravian Empire" is mentioned in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, not in any other constitution in the world is the "Great Moravian Empire" found, including the constitution of the Czech Republic.
    • Svätopluk, Pribina, Mojmir, Rastislav, and Kocel' are all on either Slovak currency or Slovak stamps. Not any other country in the world has even one of these Slovak rulers on their currency and/or stamps, including the Czech Republic. (Since Slovakia is the only country to have these rulers on currency or stamps, these rulers are officially Slovak, no matter what websites or books claim.)
    • The only statues of rulers from the "Great Moravian Empire" are in Slovakia. The only statue of Pribina in the entire world is in Nitra, the only statue of Svätopluk in the entire world is at Devin Castle, and there are two statues of Rastislav in the entire world - both are at Devin Castle. The Czech Republic has not a single statue, square, or street dedicated to even one of the rulers of the "Great Moravian Empire."
    • The name "Slovakia" ("Slovacorum") already existed during the early 9th century, which therefore means that there is evidence that "Great Moravia," which was not mentioned in any written document until 950-955, after the empire fell, should rather be called "Great Slovakia" or at least "Kingdom of Slovakia."
    • Nitra is most commonly considered as the capital of the "Great Moravian Empire." For example, the song of the city of Nitra, which was written in the mid-19th century by Ludovit Stur, states:
      • "„Nitra, milá Nitra, ty vysoká Nitra, kde že sú té časy, v ktorých si ty kvitla?

Nitra, milá Nitra, ty slovenská mati! Čo pozrem na teba, musím zaplakati. Ty si bola niekdy všeckých krajín hlava, v ktorých tečie Dunaj, Visla i Morava. Ty si bola bydlo kráľa Svätopluka, keď tu panovala mocná jeho ruka. Ty si bola svaté mesto Methodovo, keď tu naším otcom kázau božie slovo. Včilek tvoja sláva v tuoni skrytá leží, tak sa časy menia, tak tento svet beží!”

      • The second line says: "the mother of Slovakia"
      • The fourth line says: "you (Nitra) were King Svatopluk's capital"
      • The fifth line says: "you (Nitra) were Methodius' holy city"
    • The song of the city of Nitra dates back to the 19th century, which therefore it is historic evidence that Nitra was the capital of the "Kingdom of Slovakia" (wrongly called "Great Moravia")

Here is more evidence that NITRA WAS the CAPITAL of the "Great Moravian Empire"

    • The only statue of Pribina is in Nitra
    • The Nitra museum holds the largest collection of "Great Moravian" artifacts in the world
    • The city has an annual festival called "Nitra, milá Nitra" in which the mayor of the city at the opening at 13:00 on July 1st specifically states "Nitra, the great capital of Great Morava, has risen again." Other notable guests to the festival include the Prime Minister of Slovakia and the Speaker of Parliament, Pavol Hrusovsky, who resides in Nita.
    • The "Nitra, milá Nitra" festival is the only festival in the world that is dedicated to celebrating what is known in the West as the "Great Moravian Empire."
    • Mocenok, just outside the Old Town of Nitra, has an annual festival called "GORAZDOV MOČENOK" which is dedicated to St. Gorazd and Sts. Cyril and Methodius (the only festival in the world dedicated to these figures)
    • The Pribina Square holds a replica of the Blatnica Sword, which is usually described to have belonged to Svätopluk.
    • Nitra is the largest archeological site for "Great Moravia." FIVE, LARGE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS were located on what is today the City of Nitra. For example, one was located on Zobor Mountain, another at the site of the Nitra Castle, and another at Mocenok. The site at Zobor Mountain and the site at Devin Castle are the two largest archeological sites for “Great Moravia” today.
    • Proof that Mocenok was the birthplace of St. Gorazd, the first Slovak Saint, is Mocenok today has a festival in honor of him (the "GORAZDOV MOČENOK" festival).
    • The seminary in Nitra is named after St. Gorazd
    • The Nitra museum houses the "cup of Methodius" and the "Stone throne of Great Moravia." I am fully aware that most of you like to deny every pro-Slovak fact that you read so here is a link to the “Stone seating of Great Moravia” in Nitra:
    • The city square is called Svätopluk's Square, obviously named after Svätopluk, who was a native of Nitra
    • The city has several streets that were named after Pribina, Svätopluk, Rastislav, Mojmir, Rastislav, St. Constantine, St. Methodius, St. Benedict, St. Svorad, and St. Gorazd. Simply look at a map at
    • The first known church in the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra in 828. This is evidence that the town had enormous importance.
    • The first known monastery in the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra during 880-881. This is evidence that the town was the priority for Svätopluk.
    • The first known bishopric in the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra during June, 880. This act is evidence that the town was the priority for Svätopluk, and, since the numerous churches it included, was the "holy city" of St. Methodius.
    • Nitra was the first town in the territory of "Great Moravia" to be mentioned in a written document. The document was written during 828.
    • Nitra was mentioned in more documents from the 9th-10th centuries than any other city in the territory of Great Moravia. This fact provides proof that Nitra held an enormous importance in not only the entire Slavic world, but all of Europe.
    • After the fall of "Great Moravia," Nitra was made the seat for Hungarian princes. This is evidence, since the Hungarians chose it as their seat, that the town was very developed (churches, fortifications, markets, skilled blacksmiths and goldsmiths, palaces, several bridges, etc...)
    • Nitra, like Devin and Bratislava, has a very important geographic position. It is located on trade paths and is located at the feat of the Carpathian Mountains (most famous mountain in Nitra is the Zobor Mountain).
    • Nitra also has the warmest temperatures in Slovakia and has some of the best viticulture in the world. Nitra also, of course, has the Nitra River. Slovak princes chose Nitra as their seat because of these factors. Areas in Morava held very little importance in "Great Moravia" because they don't have any significant geographic features that offer protection or agriculture.
    • The other center of "Great Moravia" was Devin, which looking at a picture of the castle, one can understand just why it was chosen as a fort to guard the western border of "Great Moravia." Devin is located at the "Devin Gate," a major trade post, and is located at the confluence of the Danube and Morava Rivers. The Slavic settlement was located at the Devin Castle, on top of the large stone which was difficult to reach, thus the reason why Rastislav was so successful in defending its walls.

My request: When I wrote "Nitra was the metropolis of Great Moravia" or "Nitra was the capital of the Great Moravian Empire," somebody always edited it and wrote "Nitra was one of the biggest cities in Great Moravia." First of all, the word "biggest" tells people who read the article that the person who wrote it is no older than 10 years old, so grow up. Second, if there was a town larger than Nitra, why hasn't anyone found it yet. Nitra was the largest city, it consisted of five settlements and twenty markets. If there was a city larger than this, we would have surely have found it already. Nitra, Devin, Uzhhorod, and Bratislava were the only towns to have been mentioned by name in documents made during the 10th century or earlier. All of them have developed over the centuries into important cities (or castles such as Devin). Bratislava is the capital of the Slovak Republic and Nitra stayed as one of the most important cities throughout the 11th-21st centuries and is today the fourth largest city in Slovakia. If there was a city larger than Nitra, what happened to it? Why did it cease to develop and how come no one can find it if it was so large?

        • Sincerely,
        • Knieza
  • P.S. If anyone wants sources on my information I would be happy to provide you with the sources. Simply post your questions, but no later than September 26, 2005. Thank You

knieza207.200.116.196 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

      • Dear Redux or any other administrator;

I apologize for not realizing the discussion page was part of the "information-gathering system" at Wikipedia, which is the reason I wasn't aware of the complaints against me. But, I think I got the hang of this website now. About the complaint that someone made because I added a song to the 'Nitra' article: that song was actually the anthem of the city of Nitra, Slovakia, and it was written in during the 1840's. I think it belongs to the article just like the Canadian anthem belongs to the 'Canada' article.

  • If you study the lyrics, you will see it is important evidence that Nitra was indeed the capital of "Great Moravia." I realize that this is not a pleasant news for Czechs who have been claiming for the last 40 years that the Kingdom of Slovakia (Great Moravia) was centered somewhere in the Czech Republic. However, they will have to stop their childish lies and swallow the facts someday and accept the fact that Slovakia existed already in the 9th century as a state (kingdom).

Since Nitra is allowed to have a festival dedicated to the fact Nitra was the capital of "Great Moravia," you can see that the question on whether Nitra was or was not the capital of "Great Moravia" has already been solved. It is already official in Slovakia that Nitra was the capital of "Great Moravia" (thanks to historical documents and the support of archeologists) and should not be allowed to be denied by the chat room users of Wikipedia. But, just like in every subject of history, there is always a chance that somebody will try to deny even the most proven and supported facts. There will always be Czechs that will claim that "the capital of the Roman Empire was not Rome, but Prague" (these people who always deny the facts will usually call everyone around them "the minority" yet they are the ones who are actually the minority and should not be paid attention to because they are irrelevant). You can also see that the Slovak Republic has also claimed that the "Great Moravian Empire" was a Slovak state, in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The users of Wikipedia should not be allowed to start replacing articles related to history with their "children stories," if they want to change something that has already been proven in history (museums, galleries, festivals, national symbols of a country such as currency, stamps, anthem, flag, and the Constitution), they should go to the Slovak National Museum and argue there, if they are really the experts they claim to be.


-"The best method to measure the importance of a city is by the number of (historic) documents that mentioned the city" Think of what this means. - If the city was important, than it surely would have been the subject of many writings. Not important settlements like Mikulcice were never mentioned in documents from the "Great Moravia" period because they held no value. That is why Nitra was mentioned in texts not only earlier than any other city in "Great Moravia," but more often than any other city in "Great Moravia." Nitra was the capital of the country and that is why the first church, bishopric, monastery, etc... were established there and not elsewhere.

  • P.S. I am requesting that an official administrator(s) observe my edits rather than kids. As it is clearly visible, the users here are Czechs and extremely anti-Slovak. No matter what, they will simply not allow any good facts about Slovakia to be written. If anyone tries to write more information on Slovakia (give an external link to the "Constitution of the Slovak Republic"), these Czechs immediately delete it. If I add a picture of Slovakia again, I ask that it be approved by an administrator, and if anyone still deletes it, I request that that user who deletes it not be permitted to make edits on the 'Slovakia,' 'Great Moravia,' 'Nitra,' 'History of Slovakia,' and ‘Bratislava’ articles again.

knieza207.200.116.196 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

People, the article is protected so that the differences of opinion can be settled through discussion. We need to work this out so the article can be unprotected as soon as possible. Does anyone care to respond to Knieza's arguments? Regards, Redux 13:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
sorry for my very harsh words, but it is not worth even responding to... his arguments are a piece of crap (Nitra was a capital of Great Slovak Empire, as an evidence he shows the words of 19th century song lyrics???!!! etc...). In fact, some of his arguments are good, but are drowned in a list of irrelevant and extremely non-NPOV babbles. rado 07:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am definitely not Czech. And I have to correct Rgrg: I see NO good argument...In fact I see not a single sentence that can be called an "argument". I do not understand how anyone can write that much non-sense at once.Juro 22:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S: But maybe I should add one important point: The basic rule of the Wikipedia (just like of any encyclopedia) is that we primarily present scientific, generally accepted and mainstream opinions here, not extremist non-sense. In other words, your and your friends' personal opinion is irrelevant here, Knieza. ...And my initial user estimate was correct (like almost always here) -in the end it will be necessary to block Knieza as a user. Juro 22:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not creating a login, I don't see any reason to go through all that trouble to post a comment. I agree with Knieza's side. Though he listed only little "scientific" facts (which are hard to do because museums hardly allow you to take pictures of artifacts just so you can post them as proof on a stupid encyclopedia discussion page) I do see he is providing you with not only scientific proof, but symbolic proof. For example, Marcus Auerilius was a Roman emperor who visited the Slovak spa Piestany. He was undoubtly one of the greatest people to live on the territory of Slovakia. However, he was not Slovak! This is why the Slovak people have no right to build a statue of him. On the other hand, Pribina was a ruler on Slovak territory and was a Slovak! Therefore, the Slovak people have an inarguable right to build a statue of him, place him on Slovak currency, write songs about him ....

No-one denies Slovaks the right to build statues of anybody. The point is, that the value of "proofs" that Knieza provided us is equal to zero. -- Sandius 17:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
yes, Imagine what, only until 15 years ago there were a lot of statues of Lenin in Slovakia... that DOES NOT constitute a proof that he was a Slovak (neither that he was a benefactor for the people) rado 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Say whatever you like Juro, but remember that your opinion has no value. The proofs I provided were proofs that the question "Were Pribina, Svatopluk, Rastislav, ... Slovak rulers?" has already been answered through debate with a "YES." Since Slovakia has these rulers on currency, stamps, etc... and no other country does, is proof that Slovakia has already rightfully (re)claimed its history, despite the 40 years of Czech propaganda stating "Great Moravia was a czechoSlovak state, etc..." Thus, it makes no difference what a book, website, article, or person says. These books and websites, without pictures and documents, are irrelevant. There are books as well as people (Czechs) in the USA that state "Famous Czechs in history: Maria Theresa, Franz Kafka, Charlemagne, Jan of Luxembourgh, Peter Stastny, Martina Hingis, Alexander Dubcek, ..." I hope you realize that the names that I listed from the book "Lonely Planet's Czech Republic" are and were not Czechs.

P.S. Why have my opposition argued with only immature language and childish attacks rather than relevant arguments? Is it because you are afraid? No person has given feedback on my proofs. So, tell me what you might challenge on these proofs:

    • The name "Slovakia" ("Slovacorum") already existed during the early 9th century (811, 817), which therefore means that there is evidence that "Great Moravia," which the name was not mentioned in any written document until 950-955, after the empire fell, should rather be called "Great Slovakia" or at least "Kingdom of Slovakia."
    • The Nitra museum holds the largest collection of "Great Moravian" artifacts in the world.
    • Nitra is the largest archeological site for "Great Moravia." FIVE, LARGE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS were located on what is today the City of Nitra. For example, one settlement was located on Zobor Mountain, another at the site of the Nitra Castle, and another at Mocenok. The site at Zobor Mountain and the site at Devin Castle are the two largest archeological sites for “Great Moravia” today.
    • The Nitra museum houses the "cup of Methodius" and the "Stone throne of Great Moravia." Here is a link to the “Stone seating of Great Moravia” in Nitra:
    • The first known church on the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra in 828. This is evidence that the town had enormous importance.
    • The first known monastery on the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra during 880-881. This is evidence that the town was the priority for Svätopluk and the religious center of "Great Moravia."
    • The first known bishopric on the territory of "Great Moravia" was established in Nitra during June, 880. This act is evidence that the town was the priority for Svätopluk, and, since the numerous churches it included, was the "holy city" of St. Methodius.
    • Nitra was the first town in the territory of "Great Moravia" to be mentioned in a written document. The document was written during 828.
    • Nitra was mentioned in more documents from the 9th-10th centuries than any other city on the territory of Great Moravia. This fact provides proof that Nitra held an enormous importance in not only the entire Slavic world, but all of Europe.
    • After the fall of "Great Moravia," Nitra was made the seat for Hungarian princes. This is evidence, since the Hungarians chose it as their seat, that the town was very developed (churches, fortifications, markets, skilled blacksmiths and goldsmiths, palaces, several bridges, etc...)
    • Nitra, like Devin and Bratislava, has a very important geographic position. It is located on trade paths and is located at the feat of the Carpathian Mountains (most famous mountain in Nitra is the Zobor Mountain).
    • Nitra has the warmest temperatures in Slovakia and has some of the best viticulture in the world. Nitra also, of course, has the Nitra River. Slovak princes chose Nitra as their seat because of these factors. Areas in Morava held very little importance to "Great Moravia" because they don't have any significant geographic features that offer protection or agriculture.
    • The other center of "Great Moravia" was Devin, which looking at a picture of the castle, one can understand just why it was chosen as a fort to guard the western border of "Great Moravia." Devin is located at the "Devin Gate," a major trade post, and is located at the confluence of the Danube and Morava Rivers. The Slovak/Slavic settlement was located at the Devin Castle, on top of the large stone which was difficult to reach, thus the reason why Rastislav was so successful at defending its walls. The first known school/academy in “Great Moravia” was established in Devin. No documents from the 9th-10th century referred to the location of this school but, archeologists have uncovered what they believe to have been the famous school instructed by St. Method and later St. Gorazd, at the site of Devin Castle (200+ students graduated from this school during its existence). Devin was one of the only four cities to be mentioned in a written document from this time period. The document was written in 864 and describes an event where Rastislav, seated at Devin Castle, is battling the Frankish lords.
    • The only cities which were mentioned in written documents were Nitra (828, 879, 880, 885), Devin (864), Uzhhorod (903), and Bratislava (907). --Knieza 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a vote for Knieza. Even if I don’t agree with everything he has written, many of his contributions are correct. Slovak nation has always been target of propaganda. Many people would like to erase Slovaks from the history. Some of them even claim that the Slovak nation does not exist. There are no many nations that have been discredited so much. This can also be seen in this discussion. A mainstream opinion is usually result of the propaganda. I propose, if there is a conflict about something, it should be included in the article and marked as controversial. For example it should be stated that the name Great Moravia (if it is proper name or not) was used for purpose of anti-slovak propaganda. Ruthenian 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a vote for Knieza too!!! It is simply impossible to favor Juro's, Pavel's, or Sandius's side of the argument because none of them have placed an argument - simple as that. I would like to see Juro for once post something relevant and give his reply to knieza's latest post. If Nitra was not the capital of Great Moravia, then which city was Juro? Can you provide us evidence to support your argument? I on the other hand see a perfect argument from knieza and since none of those that oppose him have replied with relative information, I assume that knieza is the victor in this argument. Mike Jirousek - Philly, USA

Mike, I've found this discussion quite entertaining - it's Wikipedia at its best ;-) While I'm finding Knieza's efforts and energy laudable, I fear he will not be received with open arms. I think he is perceived as biased, which is a no-no in this project, which is aspiring hard to come across as objective as possible (also termed as non-POV). I believe the word was, call it a result of misinformation or not, that the capital of Great Moravia was located at a not identified site on the territory of present-day Moravia and that Nitra was the empire's second most important town. I believe there was something about the former capital perishing during the disintegration process of Great Moravia. It's been a while and I don't claim to be a historian - so bear with me. I'm with you though - I'd very much like to hear an educated opinion on the topic as well. Jbetak 04:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When you search on the internet to find out what was the capital of Great Moravia you will find most commonly find links to Nitra ( Nitra is the more commonly accepted as the capital of Great Moravia than any other city. But, just as in any subject about history, there will be claims by rebels or "minorities" as they are called. Sometimes you will find evidence that Devin was the capital of Great Moravia. Other times you will find evidence that Bratislava, Ostrihom, or Blatnohrad were the capitals of Great Moravia. I in particular think that many accept Devin to have been the capital of Great Moravia. I will post a picture in the following hours. Mike Jirousek - see you later

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's edit on the protected page

I have edited the protected page to add a "twoversions" template. This informs editors that there is a dispute, and permits them easily to view the alternative version and also the differences between that and the current version.

I have made the assumption that the alternative version is the last edit made by (talk · contribs). Please inform me if this is incorrect and I or some other administrator will correct the error. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate this reasonable action you took Tony Sidaway, it will be a major step to bringing Wikipedia up-to-date with Slovakia and "Great Moravia." I hope the administrators realize that the debate on "Great Moravia" is not debated by an organization of historians and archeologists, but merely an effort by kids to "rewrite" history that has already been proven and accepted. The only conflict is that Wikipedia has a unhealthy method of gathering information (I do not believe that information about Slovakia on an online encyclopedia should be in the hands of little kids, or anyone with biased, unsupported viewpoints). P.S. I would appreciate that a administrator, with a neutral viewpoint on the subject, monitor the article and discussions so that progress can be made and those who choose "dirty language" as a way to argue be excluded. Debates should be focused and free from filthy language, attacks on one another, ... Arguments provided in a debate should be focused, supported, and factual. --Knieza 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just incredible. YOU are calling the others here kids?? YOU - an obvious hypocritical primitive hypernationalist crank hardly knowing that 1+1 = 2 ??? What do you want to discuss? - that stamps and statues are proofs for historical developments?? that the only thing in the world you know is Nitra, Nitra, Nitra...??? How can you have the nerve to drop one single word here and to try to make other users believe that what you are saying is just another "opinion", while in reality every sentence you write is a tenfold absolute non-sense that cannot be even discussed ??!!!!!Juro 22:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


I have unprotected this article and Great Moravia, and made an entry in the relevant Requests for comment page about this dispute. Perhaps some more opinions will help to produce a resolution. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

I have just a simple request that the name "Nitrian Principality" be corrected to the proper name "Principality of Nitra." The country owned by the Principality of Nitra was referred to as "Slovacorum/Sclavonia/Sclavorum" (Slovakia) in 9th century documents. There was no country called "Nitria" therefore the name "Nitrian Principality" is incorrect and misleading. Mike Jirousek - Philly, USA

As for the Slovak ethnic territory, it is useless to talk about it in the context of the Middle Ages, since the Slovak nation was nonexistent at the time (we cannot talk about Slovaks before the 17-19th century), what is more, we know from historical sources that Hungarian settlements reached all the way up to the Vág (Váh) valley (Székely border guards) which had been uninhabited before.

What about the Slovak cities Nitra, Bratislava, Trencin, Debrecin, Komarno, Presov, or Devin. These names of cities all existed by the 9th century (before the Hungarians even reached Europe). Slovakia was settled by Old Slovaks for thousands of years (the first referrence to "slavs" living in p-d Slovakia came from Herodutus during the 400's B.C. Archeological findings in Presov, Liptovska Mara, and Spis prove the existence of Celto-Slavic/Slovak settlements thousands of years before the fifth century A.D.

  • Your statement "since the Slovak nation was nonexistent at the time (we cannot talk about Slovaks before the 17-19th century)" is just an opinion. If Slovaks didn't exist before 17th century as you claim, then describe to me who is the person on the 20 SK banknote. The Slovak National Bank describes the banknote as follows:

"The front side of the banknote shows the portrait of Prince Pribina, the first known Slovak ruler whose seat was in Nitra until AD 833. The design on the back side illustrates Nitra Castle, a witness to the rich history of the town of Nitra, which has been the centre of a significant political formation - the Principality of Nitra - until the 11th century. Several times the main design is overprinted by part of a coral necklace dating from the 9th century with a crescent-shaped bronze locket, which was found by archaelogists at Nitra-Lupky."

You cannot deny that your "Hungarian" cities were built by Slovaks. Where does the name "Buda" (meaning "shack" in the Slovak language) come from? Where do you think the names Debrecen or Komarom came from. Komarno is a Slovak word for "mosquito", "Komarom" is just a magyarized form of the name Komarno (because Hungarians during the 10th century weren't educated and didn't have a developed language or knowledge how to farm, govern, or create a government). The Buda Chronicle used the name "Zlovachko" (Hungarian translation of Slovensko, meaning Slovakia in the English language) when it described the northern half of the Kingdom of Hungary (the Carpathians). The Vienna Chronicles also used the name Slovak (sclavi) and Slovakia (Slovacorum).

These cities were built by Germans and Hungarians. Of course there had been Slav aboriginals there, but mostly not in the cities. No one denies, that there was a Slavic element in the Carpathian Basin (NOT Slovaks!) at the time of its conquest by the Magyars. 14:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
A lie. Not a single city in Slovakia was built by Magyars. And there was no substantial number of Magyars in Slovakia before the 13th-16th century, actually there was a susbtantial number of Slovaks in present-day Hungary and the settlements there were built by Slovaks (or if you want "Western Slavs") and Germans. (which is no surprise given that the Slavs are in Hungary at least since around 500, according to Nestor and some theories even since time immemorial). I know that you do not learn this in Hungarian schools. Juro 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, most of the cities in the present-day Slovakia attained their significance during the Hungarian rule when the kings placed Székely border guards there (just like in the Szepesség - Spis). The so-called Great Moravia only extended to the Western part of today's Slovakia and it did not have any cultural significance (some small Slavic states subjected to the Frankish empire established some wooden fortresses for a period of about 100 years - compare this with 1000 years of Hungarian history).
Incidentally, all settlements in Central and Eastern Europe became cities only in the High Middle Ages (when by coincidence Slovakia was already part of Hungary). And incidentally, the Hungarians were living in tents up to the 11th century (i.e. decades after their arrival in the Pannonian plain) and had not even stable settlements (not to mention "cities"). And incidentally, many of today's towns developped from Great Moravian fortified settlements (e.g. Esztergom). And incidentally, the actual cultural influence derives from the (at least) 500 years that the Slavs were living in this territory (not only from the 10th century). And incidentally, no medieval city in present-day city was inhabited or founded by Magyars. Juro 06:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So probably St. Stephen was crowned in Esztergom in a tent, then, not to mention Székesfehérvár, either. Or for instance, the bishopric in Gyulafehérvár (with its beautiful Romanesque church )was also organized in a yurta... 20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
See e.g. this (I hope I have not confused it with another text from the author), maybe you are able to believe to a Hungarian author [1]

Mike Jirousek

Look, you can go into wishful thinking as much as you want but the history of Slovakia should start somewhere in the twentieth century, before that, all the cities were built by Germans (Zipsers) and Hungarians, the Slav (or Slovak or to be more exact, Tot) population was made up by mountain shepherds immigrating from Moravia. All in all, this "who civilized whom" debate is really useless because we are talking about a non-existent nation at the time Hungary was founded.

I am not saying this because I want to reconquer formerly lost territories, after all, if Slovakia was part of Hungary now, it would be a highly expensive resort, coveted by Western tourists, but now it is dirt cheap for us Hungarians (Slovakia is for Hungarians like Hungary is for Germans, our little Balkanized neighbor in the North with cheap beer and cheap accommodation (those who cannot afford Austria)), so I am only putting these for the sake of historical accuracy.

The opposite is true, most of present-day Hungary was inhabited by Slovaks, as the names of almost all settlements of towns in present-day northern and eastern Hungary show at least up to the 13th century (and Hungarian toponymy experts know that very well). And actually, it should be proven, that there was at least a substantial number of Hungarians in the middle ages in the Carpathian Basin. his is a simple FACT. I am saying this, so that nobody reading this discussion starts to believe this Hungarian hypernationalist crap, in which they basically try to deny the existence of all pre-896 inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin and incredibly enough some Hungarian are stupid enough to believe such a complete non-sense. Not even fashists in Germany or Italy have ever been able to such obvious lies, but in Hungary this is considered just "an opinion" even today, although it contradicts ALL sources, ALL archaeological findings, ALL toponymy anylyses, the whole historical development of the region and has no basis whatsoever. Juro 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this just lovely? Although perhaps not entirely unwarranted, given the quality and bias of other posts in this discussion, it discredits you more as a contributor than it helps further the cause. While I agree with some of the points you have raised, perhaps you should look back at the late 19th century. Immediately following the Austro-Hungarian "Ausgleich", Hungary attempted to homogenize its northern territory. Why was this effort necessary, if it was just a few mountain shepherds? Jbetak 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
It was just that. And Kassa, Pozsony (your capital!), Lőcse were Hungarian and German cities, towns. And that's why the national consciusness of the Slovak nation is still fertiled by lies: yes, it must cause cognitive dissonances if you live in a city with a past that must be denied, and each house and the names written on them reflects this past. These are German and Hungarian cities without Germans and Hungarians, just like Prague is a German and Jewish and Czech city without Germans and Jews. (The difference is that Czechs have the guts to talk about this.)
The answer is very easy: just look at the plebiscites conducted during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (one can agree that those plebiscites were carried out with the utmost accuracy), the city population of the former Hungarian Felvidék (just to quote historical names here) was largely German and Hungarian, just look at the towns of Eperjes, Lőcse, Besztercebánya, Selmecbánya, etc. The town of Eperjes still has the "strawberry" symbol in its coat of arms, derived from the Hungarian word "eper". Most of these cities ended up with a Slovak majority after Germans and Hungarians were expelled after the second world war. Anoter important fact that can attest to this that there is not a church or a castle or a historical monument that can give witness of a Slovak cultural life in the former Felvidék, but if you go to Pozsony, you can still see the Hungarian crown (our crown and not the Slovak's crown) in the tower of the St. Martin's Cathedral, if you travel to the Tatra resort, you can enjoy the hotels and recreational facilities built by one German-Hungarian Miklós Szontagh, if you go to Nyitraverbó, you see the birthplace of the great Hungarian explorer Móric Benyovszky. The list goes on and on...
Again, a big misinformation. Just look at the numbers of the previous (pre-Magyarisation) censi - e.g. the 1850 census, and you will find out that there were virtually no Magyars in Slovak towns, no wonder given the fact that in the 1780's there were officially only 29% Magyars in the whole Kingdom of Hungary (not to mention in Slovakia). Again, I am only writing this, so that nobody starts to believe this nationalist mess resulting from Hungary's complex of its own history and hatred against all neighbouring countries...And of course Mórci Benyovszky was a Slovak (as anybody having the slightest idea knows), those Szontághs you mean were all Carpathian Germans, the strawberry in the coat of arms is derived much later from the name Eperjes, for the origin of which there are several theories (strawberry is not among them), virtually all churches in Slovakia were built either for Germans or for Slovaks (this was the typical procedure in towns - one for the Slovaks, one for the Germans; and sometimes the Hungarians were allowed to share the Slovak church with the Slovaks). And yes the crown on the 500 years old building is the crown of the Kingdom of Hungary (do you remember what Stephen said?) and yes some of the building in Tatra were built before 1918 (so what?), most of them however much later. So much for this "information". Juro 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this latter post is typical for the Slovak inferiority complex (having a land with none of the history they could call their own, the comparison between 1000 years of Hungarian and a little bit more than 10 years of Slovak history). I think for most internationally objective observers it would be reduntant to point out that it would be ludicrous to call anyone a Slovak before the 19 century when the Slovak literary language was formed by persons like Stur and Bernolak and before that the Slavic population of the former Felvidék used either Polish or Czech as the official language (since a great majority of the current Slovaks are actually remnants of Hussites and Poles who moved into the Hungarian Felvidék). Also, for a typical Slovak nationalist, it would be hard to believe that they would have precious little to show to tourists in Slovakia (maybe only halusky, bryndza or parenica cheese) if they had to take away everything that Germans and Hungarians built (take for instance Nagyszombat (today, Trnava) which was made an important religious center due to the Hungarian archbishop residing there (does Péter Pázmány ring a bell)?

I think I could openly challenge any Slovak here to come up with a town or village in present-day Slovakia and I could easily show the Hungarian heritage and Hungarian primacy (not just in Eperjes, but for instance, let's take Besztercebánya for example, the Hungarian Thurzó family, or the Szepes county, the Hungarian Pongrácz and Görgey family, in Zólyom, the Hungarian poet Balassi was born there, in Igló (Spisska Nova Ves) the Hungarian painter Csontváry... Again, the list goes on and on (10 Hungarians for half a Slovak).

I know (Enigma) from your other statements here that you are a just a fascist idiot, but I will nevertheless answer. (1) The Slovak UNIFIED literary language is as old as the unified literary Hungarian language, actually it is slightly older. Before the late 18th century, there were several regional standards, just like with Hungarian. (2) It is the Hungarians who have inferiority complexes, and think your comments are a good demonstration of it (if you do not see it, others can see it) and everybody in Europe knows that, especially all the neighbouring countries, all ambassadors in Hungary etc. Only Greece is a more nationalist country in Europe than Hungary. The Slovaks, just like the Swiss, German or other people in Europe, normally do not care about their history (anymore), because they generally do not feel that there is need to "rectify" it for others. That is the exact opposite with Hungary, which - as anyone can see - is permanently literally bombarding the internet and other sources with their history lies with respect to both the origin of Hungarian, with respect to Trianon, with respect to the neighbouring states, with respect to many things. (3) The Slovaks are here at least since 500 AD. (the Hungarians started to loot all over Europe around 900 AD - a difference of 400 years). Whether you call them Slovaks from 500 onwards or say from 1000 onwards is a purely formal question, which does not change the facts. (4) What you write about the origin of the Slovaks in just a repeated outright lie, contradicting basically everything from archaeology up to linguistics. This is absolutely out of question, and if you would bother to read at least one serious (even) Hungarian text in your life, you would know it. (5) At the time Trnava was the seat of the archbishop, your so-called "Hungary" (you are confusing "Hungarian" in the sense "of Hungary" with Hungarian in the sense "Magyar", like all Hungarians) has virtually no Magyar inhabitants, because the Magyar parts were part of the Ottoman Empire (ring a bell? :-) ) and was nothing else than de-facto a direct part of Austria (just another Habsburg province). And many of the archbishops were Slovaks, which you do not know, because you have Magyarized their names in the 19th century and/or only see the name versions written using Magyar spelling. (6) Thurzo was a Slovak and German family. No relations to Magyars whatsover. Similar things holds for all other families you are mentioning above. They were only "Hungarian" in the sense that they came "from the state called Hungary". Balassi also wrote poems in Slovak (yes, in the "non-existing" language), which clearly shows what his real native language was. Besides, of course that some Magyar persons were born in Slovakia, just like some Slovak persons were born in present-day Hungary. So what? (7) Regarding your last section about Hungarian "primacy", I can only say that what you personally would need is a discussion with Adolf Hitler himself. You would understand each other very well. And I am adding for readers that modern Hungary has a political party that openly tries to win voters using extremely antisemitic posters (in a. d. 2006) and pictures (such a party would be banned in any other western or central European country immediately, but in Hungary, this is normal), not the mention the issue of other national issues. I am quite sure I know whom you will elect in the next elections. Juro 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong voice always supports a weak cause, we will soon find out that Rákóczi, King Matthias, even Jesus Christ was a Slovak (even if Balassi wrote some Slavic poems, they were negligible compared to his Hungarian poetry). And the point is not that there used to be some Hungarian persons born in Felvidék but the urban intelligence was composed of mostly Hungarians and Germans (Zipsers), which is attested by the superior cultural contribution of Hungarian and German ethnics (being diligently Slovakized by revisionist historians). Back to Nagyszombat, one of the first Hungarian universities was founded there (by Péter Pázmány - I wouldn't wonder if you thought he was Slovak, too), and let's not forget the important Hungarian mining academy in Selmecbánya, which was moved to Sopron after Trianon. Again, the list goes on and on... 20:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again. You are unable the write one single correct sentence. I repeat it for you for the 100th time, dear fascist (who is not even offended by that word, that's the worst case I have seen here). there is no such thing as "superior ethnicity", the situation of ethicities change from decade to decade and from century to century, and most of all, there were absolutely NO Hungarians in Slovak towns till the end of the middle ages and their percentage only achieved a non-negligible number in the late 19th century (i.e. some 30 years out of 900 years under consideration). These are simple facts. And this is what is called MAGYARISATION. And you favorite topic: Hungarians. Hungarians were wild nomads throughout the middle ages, they were killing each other during parliament sessions even in the 16th century etc. (yes I know you did not know that), and it took them centuries to become civilized, and - what a "coincidence" - they took over the basis of civilisation from the Slovaks when they arrived in the Carpathian basins, as Hungarian vocabulary clearly shows (the Hungarian words for the days of the week are purely Slovak words, the word for "king" is a Slovak word, the word for "county" is a Slovak word etc., the word for "plate" (for eating) is a Slovak word etc. etc. in sum some 2000 words, most of them basic Hungarian vocabulary). And the most frequent surname in Hungary is "Toth" meaning "Slovak" in Hungarian. Also, it is impossible to "slovakize" persons, because fortunately the difference between German, Magyar and Slovak names and language is very clear, it is impossible to confuse them. Next, again, you do not know elementary facts: the Trnava University used Latin and Slovak as the language of teaching (probably Hungarian as well, I have not checked it), and it is exactly that language that was the basis for one of Slovak language standards in the 18th century (Bernolák's language). The university of Banská Štiavnica used Latin and German, and as a result of Magyarisation, which introduced Hungarian as the language of teaching there, all foreign students had to leave the world-famous university, because they did not understand the language. Another example of "intelligent" the then Magyars were - because of the nationalism, they destroyed a university. And I repeat for the 100th time in this encyclopaedia, Hungarian in cases where you use it, means "of the country called Hungary" and not "Magyar", you cannot make a backward extrapolation and derive from the word "Hungarian" that someone is a Magyar (after all the Magyars formed only 30% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 1780s, i.e before Magyarisation). I do not know details about Pazmánys nationality, and his nationality or any other particular person's is completely irrelevant, I could name thousands of other examples here, the last Biographical dictionary of Slovaks has more entries than the English wikipedia has articles, and if did not have to react to your bullshit here, I could use the time e.g. to write something about them. Juro 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I think we are starting to sink to kindergarten level here. First of all, if absolutely no Hungarians lived in the former Felvidék in the Middle Ages, how come that some of the first residents of Szepes and Liptó counties were Székely border guards, how come one of our most interesting medieval literary documents (Körmöcbányai táncszó - Dance from Kremnitz) originates from the territory of today's Slovakia (Kremnica), long before the Slovak literary language was formed (as I know, they ended up accepting Stur's version as the Slovak literary language, Bernolak's dialect was tossed out of the window, but even his intention was to create a local language independent of Czech, which had been used till then as a literary language among the Slavic population in Northern Hungary). Also, I don't understand how Slovak could have been used as a language of instruction at an university (Nagyszombat) founded by Pázmány (who is - by the way - one of the greatest literary figures in Hungary, many of his works were printed in Nagyszombat, just as the first Hungarian Catholic Bible translation by the Jesuit priest, György Káldi) in 1635 when the final form of the Slovak literary language was born two centuries (!!!) later. The Hussites fleeing into Hungary from persecution is also a historical fact (like it or not) and they ended up "replenishing" the Slavic population. What else? There are indeed Slavic words in the Hungarian language, just as Turkish, Persian, etc., then what? First of all, many of our words related to agriculture (alma=apple, szőlő = grape, kert = garden, arat = to reap, búza = wheat) or state administration (bíró=judge, törvény = law, úr = lord) or civilization (betű=letter, ír = to write) originate from Turkish languages but even then, the conquering Hungarians had been in contact with Slavs (in Kiev, in particular) before entering the Carpathian Basin and even in the Basin there were Moravians, Croatians, Slavonians, all different kind of Slavic tribes, why single out the Slovaks as a "civilizing force"? Incidentally, the word "tót" in Hungarian originally referred to all Slavic people living in Hungary, North, South, etc., the word "Tótország" referred to the current Slavonia (today, eastern part of Croatia). The word "király" originates from Charlemagne. As far as the Mining Academy in Selmecbánya is concerned, yes, it was destroyed but much later, in Trianon, the successor institution is today in Sopron. Another interesting point I nearly forgot to mention: at the present Czech-Slovak border, there are ancient place names like Uhersky Brod or Uherské Hradiste (I can't stop wondering why they didn't call them Slovensky Brod, etc. at the first place, maybe because Slovak identity had not been born at the time, only Hungarian (hungarus) identity was known.) Again and again, I have presented facts against fiction. 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is you who brought this useless conversation to the "kindergarden" level, from its beginning. And I am just continuing the same way. Unlike you, I do not read fascist and nationalist texts, so I am not trained enough in this type of arguments. I am "sorry". Now, the problem with your "facts" is that they are all (except the "tot" part, which however was not really meant as an "argument" by me) completely wrong, and I do not know whether you do it deliberately or you have no access to normal texts in Hungary. If I say there were NO Hungarians in Slovakia, that does not mean, that there were 0,00 Hungarians, it means that they percentage was negligible. There were of course soldiers and especially later on some nobles. Your examples however are, as always, wrong, there were no Szekely border guards in Spis (Szepes) and Liptov (those are 19th century lies) and above all they were not the first inhabitants. The boder guards in Spis were Slovaks. And look at the Spis article to see the percentage of Hungarians there even in the late 19th century. But even if there were border guards, so what?? What is your point??? Next, you do not have to describe Pázmánys life for me, dear fascist, I have written a whole article on his life, once. Even if he was 1000x a Hungarian and founded the univesity, so what??? Does it change the language of instruction (primarily Latin), does it change anything? No, it does not. Are there millions of other people besides him? Yes, they are. (Is this simple enough, or should I use more simple arguments, so that you are able to understand them ? ). As for the Slovak language, I repeat very slowly: The Slovak language as a language clearly different from other Slavic languages exists since the 8th-11th century (depending on the definition of a separate language). Before there was a UNIFIED (i.e. 1 for all Slovaks) standard, there were 3 regional "standards" (not officially codified - because there were no Academies at that time -, but used, just like with any other language in Europe), and the Trnava standard, very similar to the Czech language, was used most frequently just because of that university. As for the words, you will find a short list in the Slovak language article. You obviously do not understand Slavic language, because then you would see that the words are western Slavic (not eastern Slavic) and those where we have the coincidence that they contain the relevant "letters" and "groups of letters" are Slovak (or if you want "derived from Slovak dialects"). And compare words for agricultural fruits (many of which, however, are Slovak took, like cseresne), with words like king, angel, friday, county etc. - how do YOU define civilization, through apples? And irrespective of this, the Slovaks (i.e. eastern Great Moravians) were the FINAL civilisatory force, certainly not the only one. If you think that civilising Hungarians was necessary even before the Conquest, then it is all the more bad for you. Next, "Moravians" in the Carpathian basin (not in present-day Moravia) were not an ethnic group, the word only means "inhabitants of (Great) Moravia", but of course you do not know that. Next, the word király originates from Slovak/Slavic "kráľ" [in Hungarian pronounced krály, where -ly- is pronounced in the way it was pronounced in Hungarian in the past], which in turn originates from Charlemagne (exactly this word is basic linguistics, and a very regular example of how words are taken over to Hungarian from Slavic languages). Now compare Karl and Krály - which word is more close to király? "Ring a bell?". As for Banská Stiavnica, the equipment of the university was stolen by Hungarian authorities at the end of WWI and taken to Sopron, nobody else "destroyed" (actually moved) it (and why should this particular university should be an exception?). And again, your reaction in this point is off-topic and does not change what I have said above. As for the place names in Moravia, I repeat for the 100th time, Hungarian primarily means "referring to Hungary" (the whole country) and nobody has ever said that there was a STATE called Slovakia in the middle ages. Which part of this sentence don't you understand? And I have not checked the city names in question, but it is highly probable that they were originally in the Kingdom of Hungary or directly at the border or inhabited by settlers from Hungary, maybe even by Magyars. Because what you do not know (like always, you are just a collection of non-knowledge), is that southeastern Moravia was part of Slovakia and hence of the Kingdom of Hungary in the middle ages, the border was shifted only later to its present-day position (I do not remember when, probably in the 15th century). As for the Slovak national identity, the term "Slovak nation" (natio Slovacorum - I hope I remember the Latin form well) is preserved (note the difference between "preserved" and "existing") since the 15th century, and it was used very frequently. And as for "tot", the word was originally used for Slavs whose name was similar to Slav (i.e. Slovaks, Slovenes and Slavonians), but then (not later than from the 16th century) was restricted to Slovaks. But again, this is off-topic.Juro 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I think it's really pointless going on like this, if you cannot understand that e. g. by being the home of the Hungarian Catholic Duke Primate (thereby the center of Catholic counter-reformation) and the publication of the first Catholic Hungarian Bible translation, Nagyszombat (or Trnava if you like) was an important Hungarian cultural center then nothing will convince you. By the way, you really wrote one whole article on Pázmány and yet you have no idea that he was one of the most important Hungarian literary figures at the time? Sounds fishy to me.

Maybe if I use this form of answers, you finally start to read what I write. For the meaning of "Hungarian" see above (I have repeated it twice), Hungarian center, Hungarian bishop did not mean Magyar at that time. Secondly, I have not said Pázmány was not important for Magyar literature, I said that that does not imply anything special. There is no point in that statement. There are millions of other persons. If you consider Trnava also a Magyar cultural center, that's nice for you (although not very precise), and : so what?
Nagyszombat was indeed an important Magyar cultural and religious center and the term "parva Roma" (little Rome, which was later bastardized to Slovak Roma) is owed exactly to this fact. The archbishop Pázmány was Magyar in flesh and blood (but even if he hadn't been, the Hungarus identity was much more important in the Middle Ages in the Kingdom of Hungary, Bél Mátyás is a good example of that) and for any objective observer, that the town founded by Béla IV (Magyar king of the Árpád dynasty) as "Szombathely" was the center for Magyar Bible translation, home of the first Magyar printery (established by Archbishop Telegdi in 1578, later it became the University printery in Budapest and also an important Magyar education center by any objective standard. You Slovaks should really learn a bit more about those castles, churches, palaces surrounding you or the towns you ended up occupying in the 20. century.

And genetic ethnicity is really not the issue here because Hungary at the time was like a melting pot (you probably didn't hear from the "hungarus" identity either), Miklós Zrínyi was Croatian by ancestry and he also has a prominent place in the Hungarian literary pantheon. Care to discuss Slovaks? Does Csernoch János ring a bell? Hungarian archbishop of Slovak origin at the time of Trianon who was one of those most vehemently protesting against the occupation of Felvidék (if you don't believe this, just go to Esztergom and read his grave epitaph, see for yourself). Or Bél Mátyás (Matej Bel in its Slovakized form) with his main work "Notitia Hungariae Novae Historico Geographiaca" (strange that he didn't use any word referring to Slovakia or "Slovacorum").

Again this is completely off-topic. Where have I said that the kingdom was NOT inhabited by many nations - that is what I am saying all the time. I have reacted to the above bullshit, that's all. And I have to disappoint you, Matej Bel treats the Slovaks extensively and on many pages in the Notitia, he was even a big Slovak nationalist (he describes them as divine people). So again, you are either lying or you just do not know elementary facts. So again, "nice try". As for the archbishop. He was protesting, because he was successfully Magyarised. The Magyar inhabitants of Bratislava were protesting too, Magyar inhabitants of the Žitný ostrov however asked for becoming part of Czechoslovakia (for economic reasons). There are millions of people with thousands of opinions, so what??
See, this is what you don't understand that someone could be a good Slovak and a faithful Hungarian at the same time (again, this is Hungarus identity), by the way, Bél had only Slavic ancestry from his father's side, his mother was a the Hungarian Erzsébet Cseszneki from Veszprém. As for the archbishop Csernoch János, he kept his Slovak heritage all his life, he kept writing Slovak poems and delivered many of his sermons in Slovak. The point is that he was against the creation of Czechoslovakia (just like, later on, Andrej Hlinka, as well) because he saw that it would turn the Felvidék into a backward corner of Bohemia, nothing else. He actively worked with several Slovak activists (e. g. Jehlicska Ferenc and Kmoskó Mihály) to stop the dismemberment of Hungary). He is also a living example refuting "Magyarization", someone with Slovak roots and Slovak culture could be elevated to one of the highest offices in Hungary. After the Czech takeover, of course, other Hungarian (or Magyar if you like) religious dignitaries did not fare as well, Batthyányi Vilmos, Bishop of Nyitra, Radnai Farkas, Bishop of Besztercebánya were summarily deported, for example. About Pozsony, it was not just the Hungarian inhabitants protesting, but the majority of the population (the Slovak population share was minuscule at that time), they even tried to rename their town Wilson City in order to avoid a Czech takeover. Your statement about Csallóköz is a complete joke, I don't really believe that anyone from Komárom was very happy getting their city severed in half or the fact that the region was cut off from its traditional regional economic ties (Győr, Moson, Sopron).
What you do not "understand" is to read what people are saying. Where have I said that "someone could be a good Slovak and a faithful Hungarian at the same time" ??? Secondly, you I repeat for the 100th time: Hungarian simply means "from the kingdom of Hungary" and not automatically "Magyar" and this distinction is possible in all languages in question except - of course - in Hungary and you are using this simple language trick to hide the true origins of 70% of the population of the kingdom (i.e. of the non-Magyars). In other words, if someone is a clear Magyar, then he is a "Magyar". But if he is a non-Magyar then he is a "faithful" (are you writing a medieval poem or what???) "Hungarian". The main point is always that you have either Magyar or Hungarian there and all foreigners not knowing these "details" are subject to a lie - but that does not interest you, any means (even deception) is good to promote the divine Hungarians and Hungary (the only words you know). So in sum: either they were Magyars, or they are Hungarians - and who cares that the "Hungarians" did not even understand one single word of the Magyar language, or that they were even persecuted for "offence of the Magyar nation" - if it is necessary everything is "Hungarian".(unless someone commited a crime or so - then of course he is not even Hungarian) - a nice system. Next, I am going to repeat myself, but since you have reading problems citing the cases or feelings of selected individual persons means nothing. First, since you are permanently lying, I do not believe one word of what you are saying. Secondly, if you need counterexamples, ask a Slovak nationalist (like Knieza), I am not going to start to read nationalist and fascist literature because of you. Thirdly, there are millions of people with thousands of opinions, so what?? ...

Back to your analysis of words: do you know how many other languages and cultures lent words and expressions to Hungarians? We have Persian, Turkish, Latin, German, Slavic (indeed), French, Vallonian, etc. expressions but for instance the fact that our word for "armor" (páncél) comes from the German "Panzer" does not mean that the Germans taught Hungarians how to fight. (Not to mention that the so-called Great Moravian Empire existed for about 80 years as a vassal state of the Avar and Frankish Empires whereas the only stable state formation that was able to prevail in the Carpathian basin was the Kingdom of Hungary). It is just too simplistic to draw conclusions like this from mere linguistic examples.

You just have no idea of neither of linguistics, nor of medieval history. These things are completely undisputed even with Hungarian linguists and actually this analysis originally comes from Kniezsa and Melich. I tried to explained it in a primitive way, so that you understand it. And I drew no conclusions. The facts are that the toponyms show that most of present-day Hungary, even parts of Transylvania was inhabited of Slovaks ("western Slavs speaking western Slovak, central Slovak and eastern Slovak dialects"), the center of the arising Hungarian state was in north-eastern Transdanubia, i.e. virtually in the center of former Great Moravia (which they occupied, because it was the most advanced state in the region except for the Franks) nad it took over the whole state administration from that state, as Hungarian language clearly shows. You can keep your personal guesses and speculations for a kindergarden, I will not make and introduction in linguistics and history for you here. I repeat, the core of what can be considered old civilisation vocabulary (I am excluding computers and tanks etc. of course) of the Hungarian language comes from Slovak or South Slavic languages (I do not want to seem like singing my praises, but I have written an article on this too, a long time ago). The language also borrowed many words from German (but later on, but this is very specific terminology, not basic words like supper, Friday, king, priest, county, palatin etc., i.e. that is the same like today US american terminology in European languages) and previously from other "eastern languages", which only shows that the Magyars had to be civilised all the time. If you consider apples more important than king, county, plate, Friday, then you have another idea of civilisation then other people. Secondly, what you write about Great Moravia - again, not single word is true. You do not know elementary fact. The Avars did not exist anymore in this region since around 800 (the remnants were settled at Neusiedler See and around Komárno and in Croatia around 800), not to mention an Avar "empire". And the history of Great Moravia, unlike partly that of the early Hungarian state, is proven exclusively by Frankish, Byzantine or other foreign sources, so you can be sure that they are overly negative and not overly positive. And it is exactly the Frankish sources that show not only that it was not a vasal state (from a certain year onwards), but that it was the greatest enemy of the Germans, in permanent war with the Germans. And whether it existed 80 or 150 years is completely irrelevant, there were other states in the region. And I have to ask again and again, so what???
If you consult the utmost reference on Hungarian loanwords (that of Bárczi Géza: A magyar szókincs eredete : Origins of the Hungarian vocabulary), you will find that the majority of our Slavic loanwords are indeed of Bulgarian and other Slavic (Slovenian, Croatian even Russian) origin, and again and again, it is just foolish to speak of Slovak words or Slovak language for a period when the language itself was non-existent, this is the same exaggeration as calling Julius Caesar Italian or French. Nevertheless, we still have (proven) Slovak loanwords and they are for example: "pálinka" (schnaps) or "pletyka" (gossip). Again, it is foolish to speak of Slovak language before the 18th century when its codification really began. Nevertheless, even nowadays, I am told that it is quite difficult for Western Slovaks (zahoráks) and Eastern Slovaks (vichodnáks) to understand each other so it looks like the "literary language" has still not sunk in.

About the Moravian Empire, it could not have been a "mighty enemy" (in fact not even its borders are known and it is also dubitable that Cyrill and Method ever set foot there) if it was cleared away in a cinch by the Hungarians. By any standard, it could not have been a very stable political formation. As for the Avars they are important because they can be considered as the first wave of the Hungarian influx (does the name László Gyula ring a bell?).

The language was existent just as any other Slavic language was existent or non-existent. What you say is either you personal lie or a lie from a Hungarian facist text. If you accept the existence of Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech etc. then you have to accept the existence of a Slovak language (if a A is different from B, then B is equally different from A, and it is impossible to say that A is different from B, but B is not different from A). Next, you can replace Slovak by "western Slavs speaking western Slovak, central Slovak and eastern Slovak dialects" and you get the same result. I do not care how you call them, the facts remain the same. Next, actually I do not remember anymore how we got into this unimportant Hungarian vocabulary debate, but given what you have said up to know in discussions, to be short I can say: I do not believe one single word of what you are saying anymore - i.e. I am not interested in your lies (I remind you that you have claimed to "quote" a Hungarian text in the 2nd Vienna Awards article and others have revealed that you actually "quoted" your own words). The facts is you have a considerable proportion of western Slavic words (Slovak words) in the what can be called "civilizatory" terminology (government, church, days of the week etc.) in your language (I have told you which words) and you have a lot of Slovene words and you have a lot Croatian words, but you have virtually no Bulgarian words and you have many words that are just "Slavic". You have no idea why it is so (but Hungarian Slavists do), because for that you would have to at least understand all of these Slavic languages, which you do not (just like most modern Hungarians). And there is even a clear linguistic map showing village by village where exactly in present-day Hungary the Slovak language - yes Slovak language - village-names ended (up to the 13th century) and where Slovene and Serb names start. And the corresponding book was written by one of the best-known Slavists that ever lived and it has been used for example for the largest all-Slavic ethymological dictionary (currently some 30 books, as far as I remember) being written in Moscow. Welcome to the science of the 20th century and welcome to the world outside Hungary and outside 19th century lies. And what you are saying about the dialect just shows a complete ignorance of anything, it would be both really ridiculous and completely unncessary to react to that. Believe what you want. According to your understanding of "literary language" and dialects, the literary language has not "sunk in" in Germany then and an English literary language is then non-existant. A very interesting "view". I know it is difficult for a Hungarian to understand how "normal", i.e. not physically isolated languages, work in the world, but you could at least try, thinking about things outside Hungary and Hungarians does not hurt. Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is rather incorrect (and downright insulting) to call Hungarians nomadic people throughout the Middle Ages when the Hungarian state and church administration is as old as St. Stephen and our Golden Bull was issued by King Andrew II about the same time as the Magna Charta. About the same king, he was an ardent Crusader which earned the hereditary title "King of Jerusalem and Defender of the Holy Sepulchre" for the Hungarian rulers (again, just a bunch of nomads).

I have presented to you a link above (a Hungarian author), in which Arabic (!) sources say that they "were living like Beduins" etc. If you mean that I used "nomad" for late middle ages, that was meant like an offence, not like a definition (primitive contributions are answered by primitive answers on my part). Note that I am not writing an article here, I am just reacting. What you say above is again your inability to distinguish between individual person and millions of other persons. Yes the kings did many things, so what?? How does it describe the population of the kingdom?? In addition, early Hungarian kings were (almost) all educated either in Germany or in Poland or in Czechia (and had families there) and started their "carreer" in the most advanced part of the kingdom - in the (Hungarian) Nitra Principality. St. Stephen was ashamed for the Magyars, because he spent a lot of time in Germany and having to deal with the nomads in tents in Transdanubia and elsewhere was a shock for him (I have never seen a Magyar text mentioning this "little" detail). Nevertheless he was an important king of the country called Hungary. So what??
Yes, there are texts like that depicting Magyars nomads (the most famous is that of Otto von Freising) however, such derogatory passages can be quoted for many nations, there are also passages describing Magyars as fierce yet elegant warriors who are full of riches, I don't see the point here. Whereever the "advanced" part of St. Stephen's kingdom was, it was mostly owed to Germans and hardly to Slavs (t is also important to note that Esztergom, Gyulafehérvár, Veszprém, Székesfehérvár were not in a "Great Moravian" territory), the two leaders Hont and Pázmány who are trumped up as "Slovak nobles" were in fact of German origin.

Back to the "alleged" stealth of schools. The Mining Academy of Selmecbánya was a Hungarian state property so they were right to rescue it from an invading (an in many cases, marauding) enemy, such as the University of Pozsony (Academia Istropolitana, ring a bell?) which was transferred to Pécs. Care for examples?

The point here is that being a nomad is not derogatory, it is a fact. The point here is that you are denying what Hungarian historians themselves (see the link I presented to you) and the historians all around the world are saying. The point here is that contemporary Arab sources can certainly not be accused of any special intentions, they just confirm what any archeaeological excavations and genetics show. And I do not understand what you consider "derogatory" about facts. Next, you are again lying, the two Hont and Poznan (Pázmány is a magyarised modern name and not a 10th century name, as anybody can see even without special knowledge) were Slavs/Slovaks, at least one of them for sure. It is your problem when you do not know that (and frankly I am completely uninterested whether such morrons like you know this or not). Next, I repeat towns arose in the 13th century (that was the main point), Esztergom was one of the major Great Moravian castles and even derives its name from that time and I do not know about the other towns and do not see how this is relevant. Next, the creation of Czechoslovakia and other successor states was and still is fully legal and legitimate and everything on the territory of the states OF COURSE became property of the new states. What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous . Your "divine" state just stole foreign property. And I repeat, Hungary has recognized the results of WWI, whether you personally accept them is completely irrelevant for the legal evaluation. (so you should really see a doctor to check your brain and read one normal text in your life). Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was one of official succesors of Austria-Hungary (confirmed by all 1919 and 1920 treaties), the "Hungarian state" had no special right on property outside its territory. But even if it had the "right" to steal, the fact that it exercised that right is a big problem. If you can steal and steal, that is "bad". The Hungarians just decided that they will keep the university for themselves. They "suddenly" decided that they have the "right" to move a university to a 1000 km distant place (I call it, they stole the equipment). And the "marauding" enemy (i.e Czechoslovak, Italian, French et. troops) were simply troops that had to conquer military, what belonged to them de-iure under preliminary agreements signed even by Hungary after the end of WWI. But this is a different a very difficult topic. And again, further primitivisms on your part: Academia Istropolitana ceased to exist in 1491 (you made a "small error" of 500 years), so it can hardly be transferred anywhere. You mean a different university, a Hungarian university founded in 1914 (i.e. 5 years before 1919) in Bratislava within the Magyarisation efforts, whose professors said that they do not accept the existence of Czechoslovakia and consider themselves citizens of Hungary and do not recognize Slovak and Czech authorities. Under this circumstance they were all dismissed. Not very nice, yes, but given the fact that Slovaks did not have even Slovak elementary schools, not to mention a university in the Kingdom of Hungary at that time, it was necessary and just and 1000 times fair to creat a Slovak language university in Slovakia's capital now that the fascist circumstances in the then Hungary were finally over.
I know that Academia Istropolitana ceased to exist in the Middle Ages, I have only used it as an example of Hungarian educational tradition in Pozsony. And de iure, the former Upper Hungary had not formally belonged to Czechoslovakia before the signing of the Trianon Dictate (or Treaty if you want to use a euphemism). They had absolutely no right to harass, expel people of Hungarian nationality or destroy cultural property. And in Pozsony, before the first world war, residents had been either Hungarian by ancestry or by allegiance (note the famous German saying: "Wir sind keine Magyaren aber gute Ungarn" - "We are not Magyars but good Hungarians"). It was obviously right to create a Hungarian (or Magyar) educational institution in a town embedded in Hungarian (or Magyar) history, which was our crowning capital for centuries (even Slovaks are increasingly admitting this, and "Bratislava" is heavily promoted as a coronation centre). About the Slovak university, again a little facet: there were about 3 or 4 professors, most of the educational personnel was "imported" from Bohemia, this is a perfect example of how organic the "cultural development" was after Trianon.

Destruction of the Maria Theresa statue (János Fadrusz) in Pozsony or the Millennary Árpád Statue in Dévény, or the tourist establishments, signs, etc. of the Magyar Kárpát Egyesület (Hungarian Carpathian Association) in the Tátra. Or some other forms of culture-grabbing: the destruction of traditional Hungarian theatrical and opera culture in Pozsony... Anyway, I think I will leave you be, it is really impossible to pierce nationalist prejudices fanned by a collective inferiority complex.

No, you did not know that Academia did not exits, just like you do not know anything (or do I have to cite what you said above, do you have memory problems?, oh I am so "sorry" for you). Secondly, the school had teachers from Vienna and Italy, not a single Magyar was there and since the Magyar language was not suitable and not used in official communication, not to mention in higher education, up to the 19th century, any other discussion becomes irrelevant. And what you call "Hungarian" educational tradition means "of the Kingdom of Hungary" and not "Magyar" and it is high time that you start to differentiate these two terms, because playing with words will not help you to hide facts. Next, I repeat, Czechoslovakia was one of official succesors of Austria-Hungary (confirmed by all 1919 and 1920 treaties), the "Hungarian state" had no special right on property outside its territory, just like it has no special right on property outside its territory today. Next, I repeat, you are lying, nobody has harassed "anybody", the 4 or so professors were just dismissed because of the reasons said above. Thirdly, yes the first professors came from Bohemia from the Charles Univesity (so what??), because there was not a single Slovak university, high school and during WWI even no elementary school anymore in which Slovak would be the language of instruction, which brings us back to what is called Magyarisation (because, you know, earlier there were Slovak schools, but your dear forefathers had them shut down for fascist reasons, juts like they did the same for the Germans, Romanians and all other nationalities forming 70% - I repeat 70% - of the population of the kingdom in the 1790s and still forming 50% - I repeat 50% - of the population of the kingdom in 1910). And do not preach here harassement, otherwise I can immediately fill 100 pages of text here with quotes of "harassment" in the divine Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 - and the reason for that true "harassement" was that some Magyars were bored of behaving like human beings. And do not compare this with the circumstances of WWI (1918) or WWII (1945-48) - if you have problems with the definition of war, a definition can be found here war. So it is me who will leave YOU, it is you personally who has inferiority complexes, because a normal person is not able to spend hours every week by writing such a collection of factual and logical non-sense, the only topic of which is how you hate any non-Magyar. And it is you who permanently starts these discussions. And that is a serious mental illness... Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: And a general remark: Constantly repeating your lies under different IPs and name, does not make turn them into "truth". So you could finally stop your vandalizing activities, because I will continue to delete whatever fascist lie will follow, because we have discussed everything three times at least. Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Statutes were destroyed, yes. They were also destroyed in 1945, 1968, 1989, each times there was a political change in this region. Or do you still have Stalin statutes in Hungary standing on main squares? And the "destruction of tourist signs" in the woods is the biggest joke I have ever heard...I have to make a break now to stop laughing...You really mean it?? No comment, this is the biggest non-sense I have ever heard in this context. So you would like to have 100 years old tourist signs in the Tatra (where no Magyars are living) put there by the Carpathian Association of the Kingdom of Hungary (not Magyar Association), or what?? Lol...And as you can see, the "Hungarian" (again: not Magyar) theatre is still standing in Bratislava, and before WWII it offered Czech, Slovak, German and Magyar performances (yes I know you do not like that the quickly Magyarised town started to return to its previous ethnic structure which did not include a considerable number of Magyars).
Again it is ridiculous to compare the Empress Maria Theresa to Stalin, this is a perfect indication of your extremist stance (I hope, I am not debating with Jan Slota here). The Hungarian ensemble of the "Városi Színház" was expelled in 24 hours, and statues of Hungarian literary figures (like Vörösmarty, Katona) were removed, just to be historically exact, although by no means a mitigating circumstance, but the same thing happened to the Hungarian theatre in Kolozsvár. Instead of building cultural institutions on their own, the invaders had to grab and loot existing Hungarian (and German) cultural property. And of course, returning to a previous ethnic structure is the biggest joke ever, since Pozsony had never been a purely Slovak town as it is today after successful ethnic cleansing going on for 80 years. Finally, about the Tatra, it was not just tourist signs but the property of the Magyar Kárpát Egyesület, which must be given enormous credit for developing the Tátra into a famous resort area. The destruction of tourist signs was just sheer barbarism (and of course, it is not true that they were no Hungarians in the area, the towns in the Szepesség had a significant Magyar population and of course, Magyars had a prominent share among the Tátra resort, as well). It seem to me that the current operators of the Tátra resort have more cultural sensitivity, since they are keeping a multilingual webpage where Hungarian is also included.
I repeat: the statute is completely irrelevant and was destroyed like statutes are destroyed everywhere in the world, and it had nothing to do with Hungary, but with being a symbol of the Austrian monarchy and of "feudalism". Secondly, the rest are repeated lies. Look at HUNGARIAN official population numbers of Bratislava (we have them in the History of Bratislava article for the 19th century, too). The town was purely Slovak from the 5th to the 12/13th century, then it was German-Italian-Slovak, later German-Slovak, and there was a Magyar suburb there. A considerable Magyar percentage appeared there only in the late 19th century. Yes, my dear, this is your bitter "truth" you are calling for all the time and that is based on your own Hungarian numbers. And what happened to Bratislava is called Magyarisation in European history books (even in books of normal Hungarians) and is a nice example of it. And it was no hidden process, but the Hungarians openly planned and organized it and wrote books about it, being proud of magyarising. By the way, do you want me to cite, what the percentage of Magyars was in Buda and Pest or in other towns in present-day Hungary the early 19th century according to a Magyar Magyariser? - maybe that would be a nice example for the absence of "Magyars" even in present-day Hungary (not to mention in the other regions) over centuries. But our Budapest article mentions nothing, of course, you would never allow that (that is your "truth")...And you should also read the current discussion on the Hungarian prehistory article, I think you would appreciate the possibility to express your opinion about your favorite topic there. I am not sure however whether you will like what is written there....Thirdly, there were no "invaders" (maybe you are confusing the years, we are not talking about Magyar looting raids from Spain up to Poland in 900, right, or am I wrong??), the people just stayed where they were, and the theatres are still there. And since I see that you have reading problems I will repeat what I said above: And as you can see, the "Hungarian" (again: not Magyar) theatre is still standing in Bratislava, and before WWII it offered Czech, Slovak, German and Magyar performances. Compare it with the number of Slovak performances before 1918 (I will help you: 0.0) without a world war or anything before it. Fourthly, as for Tatra. I really mean what I am saying now: You are the most primitive mentally ill person I was ever forced to discuss with. Tourist signs are changed every second year, you idiot. What are you talking about??? And again I see that you have reading problems, so I will repeat what I have written above: This is the biggest non-sense I have ever heard in this context. So you would like to have 100 years old tourist signs in the Tatra (where no Magyars are living) put there by the Carpathian Association of the Kingdom of Hungary (not Magyar Association), or what?? Lol...Next, the websites are for Magyar TOURISTS, you idiot. The signs cannot be in all languages of Europe. And you are lying, again, again and again, there are no Magyars in the Tatra, there are no Magyars in northern parts of Slovakia (and there were hardly any Magyars - not Hungarians - even in present-day Hungary up to the early 19th century), not even at the height of Magyarisation there was a considerable number of Magyars in the Tatra region according to HUNGARIAN numbers. It would be however interesting to make a summary of how the Slovak or any other non-Magyar language was used in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918, a kingdom in which even in 1910 the Magyars were a minority (or if we take the manipulated results they formed around 50%). Students were expelled from schools for having spoken their mother language in the streets, non-Magyar voters were prevented from voting in general elections etc ect. (do you want me to quote 100 pages from Racial problems in Hungary? just to name one single third-party book).. So just stop lying and this conversation will end automatically. Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can close useless discussion by stating using a summary of modern Hungarian (pseudo)history books: Magyars are a divine nation of Sumer origin that came to a people-less territory even before 896 and created everything in eastern Europe and until now everybody wants to become part of the Hungarian state because of the eternal supremacy of the Magyar nation and its antisemtic attitudes. I hope, this will satisfy you. (In reality however the opposite of the above is true.)01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh I have forgotten, as always you will come back in one week after having collected a further carefully selected collection of fascist lies from novels, postcards and TV interviews (because that's what you have explicitely said up to know) on the topic "Hungary and Hungarians and my hate of Slavs and Romanians" or "How the Germans taught the Magyars to fight" etc., and the only thing you will do here is to post these lies on any article discussion relating non-Magyar inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary, constantly repeat the same things and spend your weekend by provocations of other editors. Adolf Hitler would be proud of you, that surpasses anything he ever devoted his time to. Juro 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SLOVAKIA's motto and independence history

Juro, I would like you to discuss what you dislike about my changes before you edit the article. Perhaps you may have been born in Slovakia, but your mentallity is pure Czech. Slovakia was an independent republic from 1939-1945 (had its own government, parliament, military, economy, currency, coin minting, stamps, foreign affairs office, defense office, finance office, flag, anthem, coat-of-arms, etc...) which means the Slovak Republic of 1939-1945, despite the bias common on the Slovak Republic, was an independent nation state. The Slovak Republic was recognized as an official independent state by 27 countries including France, Italy, Lithuania, Germany, UK, and Russia (every "developed" country at that time, except for the USA, recognized the Slovak Republic as an independent nation state) Mike Jirousek

do you read sci-fi? if you do, you will understand what I am talking about, if not, you will be angry at me and acuse me of siding with Czechs (btw why are you resorting to remarks about "Czech mentality"? These remarks drastically lower any chance of accepting your suggestions, since they say a lot about your "Slovak mentality").
Anyway: in one timeline, WWII Slovak Republic was an independent, leagally recognized country, that lasted for about 5 years, and it was a first national state of the Slovaks. However, after WWII, this timeline was cancelled (at least in a legal sense) - you do not need a time machine for it, just an international legally binding agreement. Therefore, using past tense to describe if WWII Slovak Republic was or was not legal is not appropriate - however, neither English nor any other natural language does not have correct grammar structures to describe events from alternative, cancelled timelines. And there is the whole problem - it is a linguistic issue! In once sense, you can say that WWII Slovak Republic was, and in other sense you can say it wasn't. See Alternative history (fiction). (and remember we are talking about legal universe, where the past can be really changed)
rado 11:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this nonsence of these sick, pimple-faced morans on this website. You are barely arguing that your opinions are better than others. You fail to admit that, for a fact, Slovakia DID exist as a legal state during 1938-1945. It had everything as a fully independent state today has, for example Denmark. The first Slovak Republic had its own government, currency, coins, military, police, parliament, flag, state seal, council, etc. This argument of whether the first Slovak state was "Legal" is merely biased - an OPINION. I suggest stating the facts, and only the facts. BTW, Slovakia's national motto is missing so I am going to fix that - OK.

Please be constructive or go away. We don't need another round of revert edits and inflammatory rethorics. Also - without any personal prejudice - it would be helpful if you created an account on Wikipedia and signed your posts with ~~~~ (4 tildes). Jbetak 06:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing Information

Slovakia's history is very brief, and, forgive me for saying, but lamely and unsupportedly stated. It has already been proven that the Slavic population has been living in Slovakia for well over 1,600 years as some Hungarian propagandas claim.


Also, the national motto, which is found on many of Slovakia's official websites, is missing and I would appreciate that Wikipedia exterminators allow accurate information to penetrate the Slovakia article. If you do not like Slovakia, then beat it - get lost! Slovakia's anthem and national motto may be "nationalist," "facist" or whatever else you want to call it, but Slovakia's anthem and national motto does exist and you either except it, or live in that dark 4x6 foot closet you use to chat on the internet privately.

Thank you for your energy and contribution. However, please let's not be inflammatory. Nobody here is after you. Admittedly, some of the rhetoric and actions can be corrosive. Please keep in mind however that some the users here are much more established and credible Wikipedia contributors.
  • Slovak History: the paragraph in question is supposed to be brief. There is a dedicated article History of Slovakia for this. Also, this is the first time I've heard that the area was settled by Slavs 3000 BC. I don't work in the field and don't claim to be an expert, however I do find such a claim to be dubious without proper sourcing.
  • Slovak koruna. It's appropriate to refer to it as Slovak crown, since this is the most common English term for the Slovak currency. The original name was captured in parenthesis. Why do you insist on this change? Also, you have broken the link to Slovak koruna article.
  • Formation date: please look up France and Serbia for comparison. Not only you are making a controversial entry here, it might not even be appropriate to have such a lengthy entry in the infobox. I understand that many people are not familiar with the ancient roots of the Slovak nation, however this might not be the proper platform to advertize it. Since this is so controversial, I suggest we remove the formation date altogether.
  • Slovak motto: I was not able to find any references online (except for two). Would you mind supporting this claim further?
Lastly, plese *do* consider creating an account, if you would like continue contributing to Wikipedia. It would make it easier to communicate with you, place proper credit for your contributions and help you establish yourself as a editor. Jbetak 23:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

POV deletions, or factual?

The italicized text has been deleted. Inaccurate? Or just unwelcome? "In 1918, under strong political pressure, Slovakia joined the regions of Bohemia and neighbouring Moravia to form Czechoslovakia to avoid potential war with Hungary. (Wetman 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

The first part is wrong the second part is wrongly formulated. But above all: this is supposed to be a short summary, so that this kind of "free interpretations" is out of place here. Juro 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that the only way to ascertain the lack of political pressure would have been by a popular referendum, however, it was actually the Czech politicians, notably Benes, who resisted the idea of such referendum, fearing that its outcome would be too positive for Hungary. Many Slovak politicians, for instance the parliamentary representative Győző Dvortsák were against the creation of Czechoslovakia, they were later termed "Magyaróns" (i. e. Hungarian-friendly) by Slovak nationalists. Győző Dvortsák was actually the representative who announced his protest against the Trianon Dictate in the Hungarian parliament in the name of the Slovak nation. He also contributed an important article to the anti-Trianon publication "Vérző Magyarország" (Hungary bleeding.)

The topic was not the "truth" (it is interesting that the biggest liers use to use this word most, isn't, HunTomy?) and you have not been asked. And: that is of course a nice selection of tertiary cases (have been looking for them half a year?) and supplemented with some chauvinist bullshit. And: most politicians and people, even many Magyars, were for the creation of Czechoslovakia. There is always some group of people that is against something. And whether Benes wanted a referendum or not, is irrelevant with respect to "political pressure", there were almost no referenda in general in the Carpathian basin at that time and Benes was not an emperor (e.g. not Horthy). Juro 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think any third observer could note that I am presenting exact facts against your nationalist ranting. The referendum was exactly proposed by Apponyi Albert in his famous speech at the Trianon Conference (which is considered by many as a diplomatic masterpiece since he delivered it in English and French, simultaneously), but if you don't believe me, let me quote an independent source:

“Apponyi's statement was,” according to British Prime Minister Lloyd George, “a tour de force. He spoke in fluent French, then switched to equally impeccable English and concluded with flawless Italian. He pointed out that Hungary was being punished more severely than any other of the defeated nations. It was losing two-thirds of its territory and its population, it was being cut off from its markets and its sources of raw materials, and it was expected to pay heavy reparations. Three and one half million Hungarians were going to end up outside Hungary. If the principle of self-determination was a fair one, and he thought it was, then surely it should apply to the Hungarians. At the very least, there should be plebiscites held in the territories being taken from Hungary.”

Of course, Benes and the other successor state politicians resisted the idea of the plebiscite since they had already created a "fait accompli" by illegally occupying a large territory from the country. If you consider just the Felvidék, and study contemporary documents, photographs, newspapers, etc., you can clearly see that most towns were overwhelmingly Magyar in character so the outcome of such a referendum would have been probably pro-Hungary. But forget about this, can you just tell me the name of one significant political or cultural personality who supported the dismemberment of Hungary? (You would have to dig deep, I think.) Just as for example Germans in Bohemia were explicitly against their inclusion in Czechoslovakia in violation of their self-determination.

Short answer: I have already told you that I know that you always repeat what the counterpart has said (like a school child), always use your personal characteristics to the other user, lack rational thinking and above all basic normal text resources. I also know from your edits and opinions that you are a fascist (in the worst sense of the word) and should have been banned from this project, because you are not trying to improve anything here, you are just happy to have found a place in the internet where you can list (by seemingly discussing) all of your fascist and chauvinist lies you have come across in reading fascist literature. And nobody notices it here and nobody stops you, that's the 21th century (what "wonderful" times)...As for the above: The above has nothing in common with the improvements to this article. And again, what you say is just a selection of carefully selected tertiary cases. You are repeating yourself, and somehow are unable to notice, that nobody is interested in whether you like the results of WWI or not, whole modern Europe is based on them, so just accept them. State borders change over the history. You tried to forcibly eradicate the other nationalities in Hungary (aka Magyarisation), and this is what you got. I hope this is the type of arguments you understand. And the legal, legitimate etc. results of WWI were that the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary, just like the territories of many other states in the world, were changed. Nobody else has problems with that anymore, except Hungary (the eternal "exceptional" country). It is that simple. And the documents I have read say different things than documents you have read. Again, it is that simple. And there are and were millions of persons in this region, each of which has different opinions and motivations. Mentioning just the feelings of selected persons means nothing. Again, it is that simple. And from now on, I will delete any new contribution on your part on the talk pages of this project, if they do not concern the topic at hand. And I repeat: Place and discuss you fascist propaganda in the Hungarian wikipedia or on other web-site. Not in this wikipedia. Juro 06:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits of the History section

I would like to propose two changes that are likely to raise controversy here. So, instead of changing the article right away, I seek a broader consensus among the editors of this article.

  • 1. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the use of the term "(Great) Slovak Empire" in the History of Slovakia article. But an ordinary reader of the main country article (Slovakia) in the English Wikipedia can be overwhelmed by a divergent nomenclature. That is why I propose to leave here only the standard name "Great Moravian Empire", which is endorsed by a majority of Slovak historians and all non-Slovak historians. I believe that the dispute over the name and ethnicity of the Empire should be addressed in the articles History of Slovakia and Great Moravia; not in this brief summary.
  • 2. Ethnic composition of the early Kingdom of Hungary is another issue that should be perhaps discussed in more appropriate articles (such as Slovaks, Kingdom of Hungary, History of Slovakia). A lengthy list of Hungarian towns within the Slovak ethnic territory will be considered as irrelevant by most non-Slovak readers. Therefore, I propose to replace the part "In the 10th century, the ethnic Slovak territory included the northern half of present-day Hungary, and in the 14th century it still extended to present-day north-central and north-eastern Hungary (down to present-day Vác (in Slovak Vacov), Visegrád (Višegrad/Vyšehrad), Miskolc (Miškovec)). A major portion of the nobility in the kingdom was of Slovak origin." by a more general description of Slovakia’s integration into the Kingdom of Hungary: "Due to its high level of economic and cultural development, Slovakia also retained its important position in the new state. For almost two centuries, it was ruled autonomously as the Principality of Nitra and the Nitrian Frontier Duchy."

I would be grateful if people interested in discussing this proposal can avoid making nationalist assertions and focus on the article’s value for the reader.Tankred 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the Slovak ethnic territory for the Middle Ages is inappropriate since there was no clear ethnic borderline between the Slav and the Hungarian population, in the early Middle Ages [removing repeated fascist lies already discussed above several times by the fascist user Enigma (probably = HunTomy and other vandals)] 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have told you repeatedly to immediately leave this project and to present your outright fascist lies (based on "novels" and "postcards" as you admit yourself) on another websites. There was a clear ethnic border, there were no Hungarians in Slovakia up to the 14th century (maybe 1%), especially not in the towns and, on the contrary, there were huge amounts of Slovaks in present-day Hungary (and genetics seems to prove this, recently). Juro 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(löl zomg, letz move the border down to the Balaton) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:45, 30 August 2006
I agree that there was no clear ethnic boundary in the Middle Ages and I think the actual formulation of this part of the article (after my change on March 26) should be acceptable to everyone. But you go a bit too far in your claim about Slovak ethnicity itself. It depends how you define this elusive and frequently abused concept. But if you like playing with historical names, please do not forget that the tribal name known at least since the 9th century (Slovene) is still in the name of the country (Slovensko) and the language (Slovencina). Slavic people had been already quite differentiated by the early Middle Ages. Tankred 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You are trying to lead a rational discussion with a fascist vandal, Tankred. So do not support him and do not discuss with him. Juro 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[removed repeated fascist lies by Enigma already discussed above] Juro 22:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To the anonymous Hungarian user: Although I still think that Juro overreacted removing your comment, I am now shocked by your ridiculous claims. Since I do not care much about my ethnicity (which is very complex anyway), I do not feel offended. I guess most Slovaks would do feel offended. For me as a Wikipedia's user is more important that you seem to ignore a significant part of our present knowledge about Central European history. And as a human being, I do not understand what drives people pushing chauvinist agenda and language in this beautiful 21th century. Tankred 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As an other anonymous Hungarian user I don't understand you here. I backtracked to Enigma's comment, and it seems to be a valid POV about Slovak and Hungarian history. What exactly do you find chauvinist in it? Anyway, it would be helpful if you and other mainstream Slovaks could distance themselves from your lunatic compatriot running amok here for months now. Vay 01:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Days ago, Enigma said about one of "your" edits that it was from him, very interesting, is this the new way of deception... You appear "incidentally" always when Enigma alias HungTomy alias Bud.... alias 80.... alias ... is in an edit war. Very intersting. Secondly, read my above comment word by word, there is nothing to add. Thirdly, it was YOU who started to call people SHEPHERDS here, so do not tell me who is a "lunatic compatriot" here. Juro 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Vay: Just look at my edits of this article. I included non-Slovak nationalities into the History section and removed the unnecessary description of medieval "ethnic borders" in what is now Northern Hungary. I believe that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not an extension of the nationalistic argumentation war of the 19th century. That is also why I see what you consider to be "a valid POV" as chauvinist arguments. They are often fired on Wikipedia's discussion pages without citing any evidence, which would eventually support them. The following assertions made by Enigma1 are particularly disturbing for anyone who takes archeological excavations, research in linguistics, and written historical sources into account: the claim that Slavic population of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was "sporadic", did not exceed 20% of the whole population, and was not linguistically differentiated; the claim that the Slovak language had not been used in literature before the 19th century; the claim that the Czech language was the sole language of Slovaks (who are denied existence by Enigma1 altogether, since he/she calls them "the Slavic population in the former Felvidék". And my last remark is very personal: there are too many users pushing all sorts of nationalistic (not only Hungarian, I mean it in general) agenda in the articles about history of Central Europe. This fact is really discouraging for other users. It would be nice if ethnicity was understood in its historical (and not modern) context and if any controversial assertion is substantiated by a citation of evidence. Otherwise, this is just a huge waste of time. Tankred 10:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, read exactly what I wrote: "the Slavic population in the former Felvidék" is the historically correct terminology since the name "Slovak" or "Slovakia" were not used at that time (just look at an old map of Central Europe from the 16. or 17. century, it has Hungary, Transylvania, Bukovina, Austria all over the place but no notation for Slovakia at all, or read contemporary documents in which the forefathers of the current Slovaks are referred to as "Gens Sclavus", i. e. Slavic people) , I am not denying that they were Slavic residents all over Hungary but it is a proven fact that their number increased significantly because after the Turkish wars, Hungary got depopulated and there was massive immigration from all the surrounding countries. As for the Czech language, I only said that it was the literary language used in the territory of the present Slovakia since (another historical fact): the Slovak literary language had not been codified before the 19th century (Ludovit Stur did it). As far as I know there were three very different proto-Slovakian dialects before this codification. I have also said that the town population of the former Upper Hungary consisted of mostly Germans and Hungarians and here I have quoted my "infamous" postcards and contemporary photographs (see cities like Besztercebánya, Lőcse, Késmárk, etc. with Hungarian-language storefronts, signs and schools) and literary sources (Mikszáth, Krúdy, Divald, Szalatnai or mainstream historians like Szekfű Gyula and Mályusz Elemér). As for ethnicity, I kept pointing out that in the Middle Ages, only the "hungarus" identity (or "natio hungarica") was important, persons of different ethnic backgrounds did not have differing ethnic consciousness (just look at the number of Slovaks fighting in the Rákóczi wars and in the 1848 Honvéd army). Incidentally, Juro is confusing me with someone else, I have never sent him a letter in my life :) 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

That is the same collection of lies that is presented above, the only difference is that is presented in a seemingly polite manner. Maybe you should finally read what others say here and as I mentioned above this discussion will be automatically over. The Slovak language is at least as well as documented as the Hungarian language and its development is almost the same. The first texts appear at around the same time (and if I remember well, even earlier), the first whole texts appear at about the same time etc. The fact that Czech, and usually Slovakized Czech, was ALSO used by intellectuals means nothing. The same way I could say that Magyars are "Latiners" or "Germans" because they used these languages up to the early 19th century. So what you say is not a POV that is factual, logical, historical and fascist non-sense and it was non-sense as early as in the 19th century and today it is not even worth a reaction. Secondly, saying that people considered themselves "hungarus" is equally non-sense. There were legal disputes in towns and in the diet based on language and ethnicity between Slovaks, Germans and Magyars. All ethinc groups had different cloths, different habits, different languages the only thing they had in common was the king and the name of the country. So if they considered themselves "hungarus" at all (which is someone's personal invention) than in the sense that they were "inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary", but that has no other implication whatsoever. There was an exception to this rule however - namely the gentry. Since the ruler considered himself the king of Hungary, then the gentry had to consider itself by definition (i.e. that is how gentry i.e. nobles are generally defined with respect to the respective rulers) members of a "natio hungarica". The number of nobles was virtually negligible in the kingdom (some 3 % even in the late 18th century) and secondly again the term "natio hungarica" does have no connection to MAGYARS but to the KINGDOM OF HUNGARY (the well-known Hungarian/Magyar trick does not work with me or anybody knowing the issue) and the kingdom did not even have own kings since 1526. Thirdly, as for the Turks - the immigrants were explicitly Slovaks, we know exactly the years when they were moved and from where and where they were moved to the south, because that was an organized process. And the answer to the "intelligent" statement that you made above (I would not expect such a statement from a 5-years old child, but as you wish) - namely how it is possible that there were no Slovaks (which is blatant first-oder lie denying all archeology, linguistics and documents), but they somehow fell down from the space specifically to populate present-day Hungary around 1700 - remains to be answered by you. Do you actually read what you writing or do you just assume that all others are the same idiots and fascists like you??? Next, I repeat for the 10th time, you are confusing a UNIFIED -generally accepted by everybody- literary language with a literary language. Such a unified Slovak literary language arose in the late 18th century (earlier than a unified Hungarian language), but people wrote before that in Slovak too, of course. Next, the discussion about proto-Slovaks versus Slovaks concerns the 7-10 century and not the time afterwards. So either you read the necessary Slovak literature (because the number of educated foreigners actually speaking the language is negligible) or such a discussion about what YOU consider the truth is a complete waste of time. OK and as for ethnicity and towns, let me quote from a Magyarisation book of 1883, written by an ardent Magyarizer for the opposite purposes than I will use it here, but maybe then you will just shut up for a while. The book compares the "success" of Magyarisation by comparing the 1830s with 1883. These are your "Magyar" towns (and note that is the 19th! century, if I took the 18th century, it would be difficult to find any Magyars whatsoever) – what follows are direct quotes -:
  • Budapest:
    • Buda 1821: 25 228 inh.: 1100 Serbs, several hundred Magyars and the rest Germans
    • Pest 1829: 62 471 inh.: 1200 Slovaks , 1200 Magyars, , 650 Serbs, 259 Greeks, 100 Romanians (my addition: and the rest probably Germans)
  • Transdanubia (present-day western Hungary) 1830: Among the 8 free royal towns there was not a single one purely Magyar town (2 purely German towns, 3 German-Magyar, 2 German-Magyar, 1 Magyar-German-Bosniak)
  • Sopron 1830: "a purely German town"
  • Györ 1830: "still predominantly German town" (the Magyars were only shoemakers, clothmakers)
  • Pécs 1830: Germans and Bosniaks around 50 %, Magyars around 50%
  • Bratislava county 1830: Among the 4 free royal towns there was 1 German town and 4 Slovak-German towns, the county did not have one single Magyar town
  • Bratislava 1830: 29 674 inh: There were Magyars only among the gentry, "honoration", furmakers, smiths, clothmakers. The theatres played in German, Magyar actors could not make their living even during diet sessions. The language of instrution of the lyceum was German, Slovak, French and English, but Hungarian did not have even a separate teacher. Magyars had to learn themselves their own language, so that they did not forget to speak Hungarian in their own coronation town. (my addition, the lyceum was the highest school in the town at that time).
  • Trnava 1830: There were no Magyars in the town, it was a purely Slovak-German town
  • Bács-Bodrog county 1830: :3 royal free town, all of them predominantly Serb
  • Subotica: 2/3 Serbs, the rest Germans and Magyars ....
  • Temesvar 1830: exclusively German, Serb and Romanian, Magyars constituted only a petty fraction
  • Arad 1830: Romanians formed the majority, and even the Germans formed a bigger proportion then the Magyars
  • Oradea 1830: appr. 50% Magyars
  • Slovak counties (Zvolen, Trenčín, nitra, Košice, Nová Baňa, Banská Štiavnica, sklaica, Modra, Levoča ...): Here the author does not even have to mention the numbers of 1830, he only shows the numbers of 1880 (Slovaks in clear majority in all towns even in 1883) and says: "Of course, even if the Magyar element today (1883) is small in these settlememts, even that is a big contribution, because there were no Magyars there 50 years ago.
  • And he adds, Slovaks even live in such a Magyar town like Nyíregyháza, where there are 8600 Slovaks living with 13 000+ Magyars.
  • Szeged: in 1883, Szeged has assimilated its German, Serbian and Romanian inhabitants. The 1500 German that had lived here, speak Magyar. The Slovaks have been totally magyarised. The only "more Magyar" town than Szeged is Debrecén.
  • Author's summary: These data show that the "Magyar element" has won [i.e. between 1830 and 1885] everywhere it came in contact with Germans, Serbs and Romanians. Only towns in Slovak regions were Magyarised less. But even there, the Magyarisation is well visible.

In sum, what has to be proven here, is the pure existence of "Magyar" towns before 1850 (not Hungarian, because "Hungarian" were all towns by the kingdom). And as for the early Middle Ages, I recall the above Hungarian link saying that the Magyars were Beduins living in tents up to the 11th century, which is confirmed by all archeologists and documents etc. ....And the "letter" is what you have written on your talk page when you appeared here for the first time. Juro 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel offended, my ethnicity is complex too. And you would not say that I "overreact", if you realized that what he does is pure provocation. He is constantly repeating the same things we have already discussed extensively (at a time when I thought he really wants to discuss) and also if you could understand the first "letter" he sent to me at the beginning, obviously assuming that all people knowing history are automatically extremist fascists like him (he calls it "right-wing" orientation). I have never seen a person devoting his time to collecting all literature, "postcards", "novels", "TV interviews" etc. he can find to express his hate against everybody outside Hungary. That is not even fascism, that is a mental illness. Juro 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For those who can read Hungarian, an excellent article on Magyar-Slovak common history and reconciliation is available by a young historian, István Kollai on (Találjuk ki Közép-Európát: Let us discover Central Europe) under the title "Szlovák-magyar kiegyezés 12 pontban: Slovak-Magyar reconciliation in 12 points,, it is free of traditional ethnic sterotypes and I think that an important starting point for resolving any differences.

I've just noticed that the article is also available as an English summary: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:29, 20 May 2006

Man after reading this it is about i vendt my frustration and delet it if you want I personally could not give a stuff. I was born in Australia to a Hungarian mother and Slovak father and main could i never be more ashamed of what the slovak's are saying here. I finally understand why my father always had a thing against his identity for so long and no he wasnt magyarised his parents were the biggest racist cunts they could have wonder why he got disowned. The more i read the more i sense Juro that you would have rather seen all Hungarians be nuked, shame shame shame. Oh and with all the stats showing how Hungary really shouldnt exist since it is full of ethnics like here in Oz and technically should have failed to exist like other countries say Palestine you should be familiar with what i learned in Statistics there are lies, damned lies and statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenton fan (talkcontribs) 11:34, 29 August 2006

Innovation, Science&Technology

First of all, the background why I am convinced that the Science&Technology section or an innovation report in the Economy section support the quality of this article and contribute to its accuracy.

A knowledge economy or a knowlede based economy refers to the use of knowledge to produce economic benefits. Various observers describe today's global economy as one in transition to a "knowledge economy", or an "information society". A key concept of this sector of economic activity is that knowledge and education can be treated as a business product or as educational and innovative intellectual products and that services can be exported for a high value return. In the assessment of the world’s leading economies, the quality criteria such as innovation, information and knowledge intensity have become equal (in some cases more important) than the quantitative macroeconomic criteria (such as GDP growth, inflation, inflow of FDI,...). Over 70 per cent of workers in developed economies are information workers; many factory workers use their heads more than their hands. This is one of the KEY POINTS why this section should not be missing in the article. For example, if we only judge economy based on GDP growth, many poor and developing economies would be viewed as the most sucessful economies in the world, not taking into consideration that they lack basic infrastructure and rely mostly on unqualified cheap labour (which makes them a 100 years behind the modern economies).

In the case of Slovakia, although it has recently joined the club of developed market economies (until 2004 in some cases Slovakia still benefited from the GSP of certain countries which is aimed to grant privileges for developing economies), it still shows signs of transition. As well as the current economic growth leaders in Europe, such as Czech Rep., Slovenia and the Baltic countries, Slovakia performs very well in expanding its economy and stabilizing macroeconomic indicators. However, that has not shown any benefits so far in innovation capabilities within the country, because the current policy aims to support non-innovative sectors and investment (requiring unskilled labour). This policy targets the high unemployment in Slovakia and significantly helps to industrialize the country. When it comes to IT sectors, biotechnologies, communication sector and other sectors, which are the carriers of economic progress in modern economies (such as USA, Nordic countries, Switzerland, Ireland,...), there is still a wide technology gap.

To summarize this, because innovation is considered a MAJOR DRIVER of the economy, in order to support the high quality standards of this article, these facts should not be deleted and included either in a Science&Technology section or Economy section (see e.g. Germany or Poland).

And now to the user Juro, who consistently censors (not only my) contributions to this article based on his personal point of view and unqualified opinion. I noticed that this user has been overprotective for quite a long time in other articles relating to Slovakia and filters information according to his mood or personal opinion. I also noticed that he often spoils every effort to add relevant information to a wide variety of topics (as if he was the main expert for everything). I personally concentrate on the topics, about which I have accurate info. I read the reports of the European Comission, World Bank, OECD and despite that, user Juro uses EVERY occasion to change this information, often in a way which changes the meaning and becomes opposite of those reports. He never named any of his sources, though (therefore I consider his changes as amateur and irrelevant). I added this info about a month ago, since then noone complained, only him (he probably thinks that he has the privilege of arbitrating everything in this article). I also improved the Poland article in the same sense. Since then, Juro reverted my contributions numerous times, which inspired me to find compromises and improve them. Unsucessfuly... Unfortunately, this user is involved in so many „wars“ that he will not give up on anything. He often calls contributors „vandals“ just because they add info which he does not acknowledge (see the real vandalism meaning in wiki policies) and calls their info „ridiculous“, „propaganda“ or „newspaper-like“.

And now to Juro‘s main objections to my contribution about innovation: „since we do not have the same type of information in the articles about neighbouring and other countries, we will not have it here“ There IS equivalent information in other countries articles. Moreover, I am not aware of such a wikipedia policy.

„you have added this, therefore you must add the same to all EU articles“ I am not aware of such a wiki policy. That would be ridiculous, taking into account that some reports cost about 400 EUR, a man would have to spend a lot of time and fortune on this:-)

„you cannot compare old & new EU“ I am not thinking in the „old and new EU“ terms, I think about global economy and I am not limited to the bounds of one integration group. And you CAN compare everything:-)

„info still missing in the CZ, H etc., the PL“ I am not thinking in the Visegrad group (an unformal, unsucessfull and inconsistent group) terms. I think about global economy. Moreover, you have the info in Poland article. I am also not aware of a policy, which urges users to add equivalent info to articles of every neighbouring country. Istros 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a neutral, balanced etc. encyclopaedia, which includes removing e.g. additions of someone who is overly personally interested in a topic in articles not dealing with that topic and all the more if he does not add the same type of information to other articles. This article, just like all other country articles, is supposed to add an overview, you can provide the details in the Economy of Slovakia article (which you repeatedly and very interestingly refuse to do). And I repeat: if you consider this important add the same information to the other EU articles. If you do not see the "policy", then maybe a hint will help: imagine if there was an article say about Hitler saying "Hitler was a disputed German politician" and now someone comes and adds "Hitler was a disputed German politician and XY says in his work that he had shoes of the size 40." This is an extreme example of what you are doing here. That is the first level. The second level is that you exhibit incredible ignorance in terms of comparing studies and countries, and such an ability is peculiar to Slovaks, Slovak newspapers and Slovak economic "universities". It is just impossible to resonably compare the new EU countries with the old ones or with the USA in terms of innovation and "knowledge economy" (and all the other modern buzzword, which - despite your naivity - still mean nothing in 90% of the world), because you cannot compare the GDP level of those countries and the history of those countries (and if you look at any studies, the old and new EU countries cannot be compared in any respect and this will hold for the next 20 years at least). It is as simple as that. Next, changing "compared with old EU" to "compared with modern countries" proves either endless inability of logical thinking on your part or a strong anti-Slovak bias even in such ridiculous topics (or both), which together with the addition of the infantile RandD figures, was the final "drop" that persuaded me that there is something wrong with your edits. Finally, note that this is not a newspaper, not your personal diary of what you personally "discovered" about "knowledge economy", neither your personal diary of whom your consider "modern" enough. Most importantly, my last version was a very fair compromise, if you think that everybody here is just waiting for anything to be added without adjustments, you have visited the wrong medium. Juro 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.:As for your last edit: the organisations you are citing urge (almost) every country in the world to do something to improve their current situation (because that's what the analysts are being paid for). That, again, implies for a balanced encyclopeadia that you have to add the same information to each country article – so using your own words "good luck, amateur".

Just because this shouldbe a neutral, balanced etc. encyclopaedia, you must not evade facts. In order to add an overview, you cannot only provide the details of meaningless macroeconomic indicators, which do not reflect the true position of the Economy. It cannot be disputed that the facts which I added are much more important. Just imagine the catastrophical macroeconomical indicators of Japan in the past 15 years, but Japan is still among the world's most progressive economies. The same vice versa - you try to create an image of Slovakia as a progressive country based on very carefully picked postitive indicators (you miss some basic ones), but Slovakia in reality is still on the verge of developing and developed economies and 50 years behind neigbouring Austria. I accepted some of your "adjustments", but not those which were in contrast with reality and proven facts and changed the meaning.

I am convinced that if anybody looks at your history, you intentionally provoke disputes. You seem to play a role of a childish judge. I will accept ALL reasonable changes from everyone, but you are SIMPLY NOT TRUSTWORTHY. All we need is to look on your edits and everybody understands. I will probably be the 100th to remind you that you OVERREACT, have nationalistic and overprotective tendences. You are simply a shame.

PS1: Yes, I consider it important, it is not my responsibility to add any information to any other article. Let Germany, Poland and Slovakia be rolemodels for others.

PS2: I do not compare any studies or countries, I just sum what is in them. Let the real specialists decide what is comparable and incomparable.

PS3: I changed "compared with old EU" to "compared with modern countries" after you deleted an important part which was "in the process of transition to a modern knowledge economy, Slovakia faces difficult challenges" and just replaced it with "compared with old EU". It is very SILLY that it is you who blames me for comparing incomparable (and you add "compared with old EU????"). With the reaction "modern economies", I meant that logically, it is nonsense to be limited just to EU countries, when most of those countries are themselves very behind and the reall progressive economies are outside EU (USA, Switzerland, Japan).

PS4: If you are really worried about the objectivness of this ecyclopaedia, take a break, do not provoke disputes, stop having the psychically insane idea that you are the objective genius here and let other users to change my contributions /Istros

Do you really think you are the first one saying these phrases here?? It is you who is not trustworthy and incompetent and trying to push here your personal POV - it is evident from any single of your edits. The text is not "my" text, you are free to make any factual correction, and I am not interested in your arguments and infantile pseudoarguments, the only thing that matters here is the result - the text of the article and the text of other articles. You are confusing the GDP level with the GDP growth etc., no point in further discussion. Next, Slovakia is more developed than some 170 countries, it is less developed than 30 countries - so what?? It is not the most modern country in the world, and it is not least modern country. There is nothing special about it. So what is supposed to be your point? That you have personal problems with that country, whatever the problems might be? The GDP LEVEL and other ranks are in the table, everybody can see them, there is no point in repeating them in the text. And as for the GDP CHANGE - the text, just like those in other country articles, only contains recent figures, it could not be more exact than it is now. Other points require a lot of comments -that's what the Economy of Slovakia article is here for. So, in sum (I repeat it for the 5th time):

  • this is NOT an article on the economy of Slovakia, neither on innovation in the world, nor a list of sentences you personally consider relevant, this is just an overview article, and such article must contain very carefully selected information and the information selected must be at least approximately the same as the information selected for the other (similar) country articles and it must be in line with the overall length of the article to prevent that a wrong impression about the relevance of the particular issues arises
  • however, even such biased information can be placed in the Economy of Slovakia article (so much for "removal" of what you call "facts"), where there is enough space for others for additions and changes, discussion etc.; the fact that you are refusing to move your quotes to that article is proof enough that you should be prohibited from any edits here due to deliberate bias (and ignorance)

Juro 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tourism in Slovakia

I added a new section to the article on Slovakia tourism and saw that it was promptly blanked. I can see no reason for this and reinserted it. Also, I added info about the film Hostel, and how the Slovak government condemened the film as harmful to the reputation of the country and damaging to the tourism. A source link has been provided. -Husnock 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that one user:Juro has blanked this section twice, providing no explanation. I have again restored the section. There is no reason this article should not have a tourism section. -Husnock 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with deleting this section, information about some movie doesn't seem important enough to include in a general article about Slovakia. We can't just cram everything even mildly related to the topic in wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:34, 25 June 2006
Neither I think that this movie is important enough to be included in the main article about any country. On the other hand, it would be a good idea to create a meaningful section and article about tourism in Slovakia. I also believe that a separate article about tourism in Slovakia would provide enough space to briefly discuss the Hostel movie. But in this particular case, I must support Juro's decision to remove information about the movie from this general article. Tankred 10:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I could go with taking out the stuff about the movie. What is distressing here is that Juro simply blanked the entire section without explanation. The user then ignored a question on the talk page about ti and blanked it again. Looking back through the edits, I also see this user has done this kind of thing before. My main point is that section should simply not be removed, but expanded. -Husnock 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Having an entire section for tourism is against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries guidelines, but linking Tourism in Slovakia from the miscellaneous section is fine. --Joy [shallot] 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a link to the future article as suggested. I should also point out that when User:Juro was apparoched about why he was blanking the section, he responded by calling my entries "utmost stupidity" [2]. It appears this guy is heavy into the concept of "article ownership", deleting and reverting any edits not his own. This will have to watched closely. -Husnock 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

Juro, if there is a good reason for hiding regional differences, specify it here, please. --jsimlo 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally, I have deleted that by mistake. But on a second thought:(1) there was a study (actually a list of figures, because no "study" is necessary for that) several months ago showing that despite popular (including my) belief the difference is actually very low compared to other EU countries, (2) I have not changed it, but the title is "Administrative divisions" and not economy, so this part belongs elsewhere., (3) the reference to this as a "hot" topic during the last elections is just plainly wrong. Juro 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that you have rewritten it in a better way.. thanks. --jsimlo 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is agitated, because he could he a Hungarian now and wouldnt have a chance to complain about it: :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:49, 30 August 2006

Locking this article

Possibly due to heightened nationalistic tensions betweent he Hungarians and Slovaks in the past few days, this article has been vandalized a number of times. I recommend that the articles of Slovakia and Hungary get locked for anonymous users for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpurdes (talkcontribs) 18:37, 1 September 2006

Introductory paragraphs

Changed it to make it more consistent with what is in, That makes innecesary the reference to France and Germany so I removed those lines.

This is also similar to how other countires common and offitial names are treated in the english Wikipedia. See Mexico, France and Germany for examples.

IPA for Slovak and Slovenská republika should be added

--- From ---

Slovakia (Slovak: Slovensko) is a landlocked republic in Central Europe with population of more than five million. It is a member of the European Union (since May 1 2004) and borders Czech Republic and Austria in the west, Poland in the north, Ukraine in the east and Hungary in the south. Its capital is its largest city, Bratislava.

NAME The long form of the name Slovakia is Slovak Republic (Slovak: Slovenská republika). The relation between those two name forms is exactly the same as with for example Germany vs. Federal Republic of Germany or France vs. French Republic.

The recent practice, often seen especially in economic texts, of using the name Slovak Republic instead of Slovakia, when the terms Hungary, Slovenia, etc. are used in the same text, is therefore awkward, arising in analogy to the use of the term Czech Republic, but that is (partly) another problem (see Czech Republic, Czech lands).

--- to ----

Slovakia (Slovak: Slovensko), officially the Slovak Republic (Slovak: Slovenská republika) is a landlocked country in Central Europe with population of more than five million. It is a member of the European Union (since May 1 2004) and borders the Czech Republic and Austria in the west, Poland in the north, Ukraine in the east and Hungary in the south. Its capital and largest city is Bratislava.

--JuanPDP 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Slovakia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:19 (UTC)