Talk:Upper Hungary

message: I have some questions about the new section:
1, It seems unprobable that Felvidék ever meant "all territories to the north of the settlement of the speaker". For example a man in Szeged never called Kecskemét "Felvidék" only because it is north from his town.
::By coincidence, I came across a new big book specially dedicated to Magyars in Slovakia. The felvidék etc. topic is extensively treated there. And according to that book, this is what Hungarian professional texts were saying about felvidék in the 19th century. Actually, the term had no special meaning at that time.
2, Today nobody calls Carpathian Ruthenia Felvidék, the term was only used before the second world war when the territory was part of Czechoslovakia.
::Today not, but between the world wars. It is explained in the text.
3, I have never heard that Felvidék means only the Hungarian speaking fringe of Slovakia. This territory hasn't got any name until now. Zello 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, this is a bit confusing. For example, there are web pages called felvidék where the term is used that way. Also, if you ask some Slovak Magyars they will confirm this (actually wrong) usage. And, the territories annexed under the Vienna Award were called Felvidék (although this could be interpreted as part of Felvidék - I do not know)...Juro 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a general problem about language: it is historically inprecise, because it was not used at that time - that's the information the sentence is supposed to convey, butin terms of language, you can always say that any error is correct just because people make it frequently (this is by the way what I do not like about the English language - they just declare errors correct after some time, how ever big the errors might be and this is how the language evolves and this is why it is so chaotic compared to other languages; other languages have this too, but to a far lesser extent)
Slovak historians use the term for the middle ages too, and I am quite sure 90% of them do not even know that the term as such did not exist at that time (because they just do not car and no usual history book treats this name issue in such details).
* I only deleted Felső-Magyarország from the 17-20th centuries section because I think the first paragraph should concentrante on this term and the second only for Felvidék. I imagined an Englishman who never heard about this problems and reading our article goes crazy :) Zello 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But I think that since you changed "Upper Hungary" to the corresponding Magyar equivalents, there should be no confusion. Why should it be unclear know. I know it is hard for many people from the present-day USA and UK, but they have to concentrate a bit :))) Juro 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this is question at Zello. From my experience, it is certainly not "widely" used today. Juro 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, as always, you are just lying. There were Slovak islands with up to 100% Slovak population there according to HUNGARIAN sources (not to mention Czechoslovak ones). But that is completely irrelevant for this article, but it only describes what they thought and what was or was not there. Juro 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to rephrase your version to a more NPOV variant because it is certainly unacceptable for non-Hungarians. Zello 17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Is Oberland the same as Upper Hungary / Felvidék?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.58.165 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oberland 

message: its writen by scholars. its reliable sources i) Your first source is a homemade webpage: "About The Author, Bill Tarkulich....Bill started his research...He is a  26-year veteran of the computer industry, with a present focus on Business Planning and Program Management.  He hold an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and a graduate degree in Business Administration." So you think that the original research made by the Slovak-American "Bill", worker of a computer industry, is a reliable scientific source? ii)Your second source, "The Federation of East European Family History Societies" is also not a scientific work written by experts (i.e The author of that work is a Genealogist). iii) Your third source is a blog my friend :)!--B@xter9 10:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samofi's "reliable" sources 

message: Territory of Upper Hungary was called Slovensko (Slovakia) by Slovaks. This name was used for a first time in the written form in 1405 (by the czech bookprinter (i have forgotten name) for description of the political situation in upper hungary - slovakia) - in 15th century:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jrC1HFgjJxsC&pg=PA3&dq=%22Slovaks+called+their+country%22&hl=sk&ei=qB53TtjGFIbCswbzssi4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Slovaks%20called%20their%20country%22&f=false --Samofi (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Slovensko, NOT Slovakia.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Slovensko is Slovak name for Slovakia. So, what exactly is a problem? PANONIAN 08:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia, Slovensko and Upper Hungary 

message: Latin version was the "real" name of the town in 1617. 
For example: Bratislava in Civitates orbis terrarum. Kassa was used in 19. century officially.  --Omen1229 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite nonsense. Latin was the administrative language, but it does not indicate that "Cassovia" was the real name of the town. Latin was used all over Europe, since it was the language of the church, the universities used it, etc. There were rules how to get Latinized versions of names, but only to be consistent with the language of the text. If you think that "Cassovia" was the real name of the city, then, please, edit articles talking about Paris, London or Milan when they also used Latin for administration and change their name to "Lutetia Parisiorum", "Londinium" and "Mediolanum". Koertefa (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So use name Košice and others Slovak names in English articles about Slovak medieval cities. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In that time Kassa / Košice was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (Royal Hungary) and Slovaks were minority in the population of the town. So why should we fake the history and pretend that the town had nothing to do with Hungarians? Koertefa (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in period of Magyarization (the era of manipulated census1 2) were Magyars majority. Before and after Magyarization were Slovaks majority. --Omen1229 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not talk about the 20th century, but the 17th! Please, provide your sources according to which the majority population of Kassa / Košice was Slovak in the 17th century. I am quite skeptical about that. And even it would have been the case (which was not), the town was still part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Koertefa (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We should cite demographics about Kassa, Kosice etc. from the 17th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  Latin language was official in 17th century in the Kingdom of Hungary. Name Kassa was used only in 19. century, in period of Magyarization. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already discussed the usage of Latin names above, it is not appropriate. Koertefa (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The town has German majority in the mid 16th century, however in the 17th century, according to the Turkish traveler Evlia Cselebi, Kassa was inhabited by 'Hungarians, Germans, Upper Hungarians'. Moreover Kassa consisted of 72,5% Hungarians, 13,2% Germans, 14,3% Slovaks or of uncertain origin in 1650.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User Omen1229 suggested (Talk:Ján_Kollár) that we should use the (experimental) naming convention proposed by user Elonka. I can agree with its spirit: a naming consensus should be reached, in order to avoid edit wars. Given the information provided by Fakirbakir and the guidelines proposed by user Elonka, we should use the name "Kassa (Košice)". Koertefa (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassovia 

message: *"For almost 1,000 years present-day territory of Slovakia was part of the multi-ethnic Hungarian Kingdom, known as Upper Hungary"
This statement is false or at least obscure because Upper Hungary is not synonym with Slovakia or territory of Slovakia. Upper Hungary meant the "Highlands" in present-day Ukraine and Slovakia without the lowland parts. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, this should be made more precise. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The current version is dubious without neutral reliable source. Anyway, the Hungarian authors (which you cited by the way) Károly Kocsis and Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi claim: Upper Hungary included the counties of Pozsony, Nitra, Bars, Hont, Trencin, Turiec, Arva, Liptov, Zvolen, Gemer, Spsis, Abov, Turna, Saris and Zemplin.>below Remarks: Upper Hungary = Territory of...--Omen1229 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia vs Upper Hungary 

message: Historically, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Lower Hungary meant the territory of northwest Hungary (present-day western Slovakia). The Mining towns also belonged to this region. From Lexicon of Pallas:
 
*"A török hódoltság korában «Felső-Magyarország» alatt a magyar király uralma alatt álló országrésznek a Tisza mellékén fekvő részét értették. Innen van, hogy a szintén felföldön fekvő Selmec, Beszterce stb. bányavárosokat «alsó-magyarországi»-aknak, a Szepes, Abauj, Borsod vmegyékben fekvőket «felső-magyarországiak»-nak nevezték. "
Upper Hungary only meant territories of present-day eastern Slovakia, Carpathian Ruthenia and the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. I think that we should mention this in the "Historical usage" section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower Hungary vs. Upper Hungary