Talk:Slovakia/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Historical regions

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

message: 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 () 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:
** 01:30, 2005 Mar 25: reintroduced typo
** 01:58, 2005 Mar 23: link to Candle demonstration in Bratislava removed 
** 19:03, 2005 Mar 22: link to Candle demonstration in Bratislava removed 
** 04:22, 2005 Mar 20: deleted several interwiki links; reintroduced typo
Sebastian 10:24, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
:Further, Vital Component's insults cannot be helpful. Maurreen 16:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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:  http://www.nisys.sk/en/
**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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Knieza's edits 

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s edit on the protected page

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|RFC]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: SLOVAKIA's motto and independence history

message: 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. 
* www.liptovskamara.com
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)
thread_title: Missing Information

message: 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)
thread_title: POV deletions, or factual?

message: 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)
thread_title: Innovation, Science&Technology

message: Juro, if there is a good reason for hiding regional differences, specify it here, please. --jsimlo 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have to admit that you have rewritten it in a better way.. thanks. --jsimlo 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative Divisions 

message: Changed it to make it more consistent with what is in sk.wikipedia.org,
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)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject