Talk:List of Slovaks

message: I don't understand, how do you have the right to Slovakize people, like Mednyászky László or Thököly Imre. They just lived in the former North Hungary as all the Slovaks did. If somebody lived/lives in the today's territory of Slovakia (finalized in 1947) is automatically a Slovak?
:I agree. There are many more things in the list pushing it too far. I corrected Kempelen's name, do not translate personal names, pølse. rado 09:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a quote from a relaible source. I hope you know what you are writing about.
Yes.  See the article at Transit of Venus, and the Economist article linked to at the bottom of that page.  Maximilian Hell was one of many distinguished scientists who participated in the first international scientific collaboration, going on expeditions to observe the transits of Venus in 1761 and 1769 from as many different parts of the world as possible, in order to determine the Sun's parallax and thereby determine its distance.  They all made their observations on the same day (the day of the transit), and the data was collected together to come up with the result. The original wording in the article made it seem as if Maximilian Hell did all this by himself.
I would guess that your source article was not written by an astronomer, so the person did not get the details exactly right.  By the way, the next transit of Venus is in only five days (June 8), and it's the first one since 1882.  There might be stories about it in the newspaper.  Curps 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals

message: IMHO, Slovak poetry page should be about *Slovak poetry*,
not about poets who might be (controversially) considered 
Slovaks, but who did not wrote a signle line of Slovak in their life.
rado 12:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petofi does not belong to Slovak poetry 

message: I am surprized by the amount of Slovak saints. Actually, there should be only one saint, who is certain to be a Slovak, and that is St. Gorazd. The martyrs of Košice (Pongratz, Krizhin, Grodziecki) were not Slovaks.
For obvious reasons, all the lists of Slovaks etc. in the Wikipedia are no lists of strictly ethnic Slovaks etc. only and this one is no exception...Juro 23:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many saints... 

message: "Jedlik nem tót, hanem magyar vót. Mint még sokan ezen a listán. Mivan totocskák? Csak nem vagytok féltékenyek?" (It coud be translated as: Jedlik wasn't a slovak, he was Hungarian! And so were many other people on this list. What's up with you, slovakians? Are you envious of us [-> because we had more famous scientists]?)
The fact that I moved this complaint here and translated it - thinking that someone might be interested - does not mean that i agree with this anon user. I've no clue whether Jedlik or other ppl on this list were (or weren't) of Slovakian origin...
::Štefan Anián Jedlík was a clear native Non-Magyar (more exactly a Slovak), as anyone who knows languages can see already from the name. The rest shows the contributor's intelligence. Juro 21:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Jedlík, it may be true, but names are often misleading. For example, from his name, I couldn't find out that former president Rudolf Schuster is a Slovak politician (obviously, because of his german ancestry), or that Martin Van Buren was an American one. And there are cases which are even more complicated - Ján Vlk Kempelen is a good example of this. On DeWikipedia, one can read that Slovak sources state that he was a Slovak, German sources state that he was German, and of course, Hungarian sources state that he was Hungarian. So shall we include him on the List of Hungarians, the List of Slovaks, and on the List of Germans, too? :-) --Ali 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) This was not supposed to be a proof, just a hint. (2) The sentence in the German article stems from me. In reality, Kempelen was German, maybe also Slovak, he was definitely not Hungarian. The problem with Hungarian texts is that they confuse the Kingdom of Hungary with Magyars - they denote everything "Hungarian" and cannot believe then if someone denoted "Hungarian" was in reality no Magyar, which was a very frequent case. Juro 01:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see, I didn't know about that. But anyway, it's sometimes very hard to tell to which nation did some people belong, especially if we don't know anything about their opinion. --Ali 17:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That (namely the frequent lack of exact information) is exactly why this topic cannot be taken too strictly here (their personal opinion however is not decisive, more decisive are the parents and the mother tangue) Juro 04:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevertheless, an exact proof would be needed to establish that Jedlik Ányos was still a Slovak, or he had Slovak mother tongue or Slovak self-consciousness. 81.182.209.198 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint from 195.56.63.199 

message: This list also includes "individuals of significance to Slovakia". That is why I think Samo should be included. Neither of medieval rulers can be characterized as having strictly "Slovak" nationality. They spoke a Slavic language and belonged to the Slavic tribe of the Moravians. The modern Slovaks are their descendants. Samo was a Frank, but he ruled the territory of present-day Slovakia and he left here his offspring (at least according to Fredegarius). IMO this is a case similar to many other persons from the list, e.g. Chatam Sofer (a German Jew living in Bratislava) or Jan Selye (a Canadian born in Komarno to Austrian-Hungarian couple). If we include them despite their non-Slovak origin, we should not exclude Samo. Tankred 22:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. Tankred 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samo 

message: Dear 81.182.167.190 and other IPs who see Wikipedia as a war game between nationalists, your attempts to “hungarize” articles about Slovakia and other countries in Central Europe are unbelievable. Why have you removed Juraj Tóth from this list? Indeed he is a Slovak astronomer, born and living in Slovakia, currently working in the Institute of Astronomy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Please, stop vandalizing this page. You are welcome to make serious edits, based on your knowledge of the subject. But do not remove content if you have not a slightest idea what it is about. Tankred 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped reacting to your offenses in general. If you think this decision gave you carte blanche to POV pushing, you are wrong. Kossuth was of Slovak descent and it is very unfortunate that there are some politicians from the extreme right (Slota and Kotleba that you have mentioned) denying it. However, this is Wikipedia and not their party manifesto, so I do not care much about what they think. I would like also to encourage you to create and consistently use your user account because your IP is dynamic and people who do not know your previous edits (blanking large portions of text, adding non sense, and offending non-Hungarian nationalities at the talk pages) can assume your good faith. Tankred 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about Hungarian people like Stróbl Alajos and Pázmány Péter who just lived in an area that had to become Slovakia later on (I am not even discussing the cirumstances)? Do they belong to the list of famous Slovaks? If they do, then Joseph Haydn is a famous Hungarian just because his conducting and composing activity is related to a town (Eszterháza) which is currently in Hungary. Can't you see how absurd this culture-robbing is? Árpád 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juraj Tóth 

message: I think the vague definition of the list as "a list of Slovaks and individuals of significance to Slovakia" is the source of most of the above discussed problems and misunderstandings. Who is or was significant to Slovakia? I think Edvard Beneš was. You would not find many contemporaries of Franz Joseph, who would deny his significance to this country. But do they belong to the list of Slovaks? I believe they do not.
The definition should be written more precisely. Jan.Kamenicek 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very good point, the definition has to be reworked and the article must be rearranged completely. Unfortunately, there is a tendency among Slovaks (and generally in Slovakia) to treat everybody who has ever lived in the territory of the current Slovakia (no matter that the person was of German, Hungarian or any other ethnicity. As a general rule, for anybody who lived before the 18th century and presented as a "Slovak", their "Slovakness" should be treated with a great deal of caution. Árpád 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the people who "set foot" on the soil of the Carpathian Basin over the centuries declared themselves as Hungarians (Hungarus), just as attested by historical documents. This is why it is ridiculous to include Pázmány, Kossuth, Balassi or any noble family in the list of Slovaks (simply because they were not Slovak, period).Árpád 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not know about Pázmány' family, but Balassi and all the other families had Slovak or semi-Slovak members (he himself wrote Slovak poems, as an example), for Kossuth see his article here etc. But Pázmány was certainly of significance to the territory of Slovakia. And what you write above about a "tendency" above, is just not true; I remember having read a Hungarian article where the author has claimed exactly the same thing, but when it came to examples he named people who actually were Slovak, but he did not know that. And speaking about this, the exact opposite holds, in fact it is a standard  (not a "tendency") in Hungary to call everybody (even the purest Slovaks, like Kollár) a "Hungarian" (see e.g. Magyar Eletrajzi Lex. or any encyclopaedia) and to "forget" to add that this means "from Hungary" and not "ethnic Hungarian". In other words, using a linguistic trick, you have turned all inhabitants of the former KoH into ethnic Hungarians and now you wonder when someone tells you the opposite. Juro 11:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Individuals of significance to Slovakia" 

message: The Slovakized spelling of Hungarian historical names (like Pázmány, Szelepcsényi, Bercsényi, Benyovszky, Rákóczi) in the form of e. g. Pázman, Selepcéni, Bercéni, Benovsky, Rákoci is highly controversial and debatable. As with all foreign names, the original spelling should be retained and the non-original forms should be discarded. Árpád 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A normal question finally? Do you have a "good" day today?  The answer: This article mentions all possible spellings someone could be looking for, the main articles are named using the original spelling. So I do not see the problem. Juro 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But somehow it is always the Hungarians who have this "honour" of Slovakization. You would never write William Shakespeare as Šekspír or Margaret Thatcher as Tečerová :). Meanwhile for example, the main article about Benyovszky does not have his original spelling (ok, I wouldn't insist on the Hungarian name but at least the most common spelling used in contemporary (or English) sources.81.183.183.12 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, because since 1991 there is a (linguistic) rule in Slovakia that "figures of the history of Uhorsko" (not Hungarian or other writers !) have to be written in a Slovakized form (because that is Slovak history, England is not Slovak history). This rule has advantages in some cases and disadvantages in other cases, but irrespective of this, it still holds, that these spellings are the currently valid Slovak spellings, therefore there must he here. Juro 10:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but still, this rule is highly controversial and debated not just by Hungarian (like Péter Hanák) but also Slovak (Kowalska, Kusy) intellectuals. For historical figures who lived in the past several century with definite, matriculated name forms, it is definitely "non-philologic" and without precedence in any nation's history.Árpád 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether you or anyone likes it, this is rule is binding - contained in the Rules of Slovak Orthography of the Academy of Sciences (a kind of Sloavk OED for orthography) next to binding rules for the transcription and transliteration of Russian, Japanese etc. Juro 12:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakized spelling of foreign (Hungarian) names 

message: Slovakia never existed in the time you list most of these people as Slovaks.  How can you list Germans and Hungarians as Slovaks?  Most of them never even spoke Slovakian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.94.145 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ridiculous 

message: I think the focus should be on the inclusion criteria.  The first two (Citizenship, Ethnicity) are certainly valid, the third (geo-nativity) is problematic in this case, leading to inclusion of those who would never have considered themselves any more Slovak than Urugayan.  Q: is criteria Nr.3 really necessary (or even helpful), and whom does it include that the first two do not? A: It seems criteria Nr.3 uniquely includes mostly non-Slovaks - this makes the title misleading.  I would not suggest changing the title, but rather dropping the third inclusion criteria and amending the list as required. István (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically what I've been trying to get at--thanks for expressing it so clearly. K. Lásztocskatalk 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If I can offer a different answer to your question, this criterion makes the list include for example Slovak-Americans and many other emigrants from Slovakia. Please let me also ask two questions that almost no one bothered to address here: Why should this list use more restrictive criteria than other similar lists in Wikipedia? How would you assess ethnicity of people born before the modern concept of the nation was created? Tankred (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For that reason I suggested that before the creation of modern concept of nation, we can relate people only to the state - in this case mostly to the KIngdom of Hungary - and maybe sometimes to their mother tongue. I have nothing against to include ethnic-Slovaks who moved to--Koppany (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-identification is another important facet--someone born in the KoH who clearly identified as a Slovak would obviously have to be categorized a Slovak. Tankred, with regards to your question about why this list should use different criteria than similar lists, my answer is that every country/region/nation has its own unique history and unique set of social and political circumstances, so there shouldn't be any "one size fits all" approach. K. Lásztocskatalk 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, if the list is to be kept as it is, it should be renamed "list of Slovakians." The word "Slovak" implies ethnicity, "Slovakian" implies nationality. K. Lásztocskatalk 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above discussion it is abundantly clear that there is no consensus for insertion of the third criteria repeatedly inserted by disruptive edits ignoring the talk page completely. Also unacceptable is editing the list based on the new criteria within the same edit that changed it. Hobartimus (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as that third criteria is included there will be inaccuracies, such as including Rákóczi.  If someone was born in the region, but not of Slovak parents, and never had Slovakian nor Czechoslovakian citizenship then how on earth may that person be considered Slovak(ian)?  Consider how incorrect the third inclusion criteria is: 1. Even today, a Slovak(ian) may be born anywhere in the world; and 2. Even today, a non-Slovak(ian) may be born in Slovakia.  Moreover, 3. If the same criteria (C3) were applied to list of Russians, it would have to include many non-Russians such as Immanuel Kant - clearly a nonsensical outcome.  That third criteria line simply does not work and should be removed. István (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion Criteria

message: Please, can somebody explain what exactly is false in the information removed in this diff? What is wrong with Ján Andrej Segner or Rudolf Vrba for example?! I do not think editing like this is bold, but I have hard time finding appropriate yet civil name for that. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Johann Andreas Segner Carpatho-German mathematician? That comes up when clicking on the link you provided. Hobartimus (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but his ties to Slovakia, conforming to inclusion criteria and his being understood as important Slovak scientist does give reason for his inclusion here. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think considering that he was a Hungarian-born German scientist as his article clearly states not a Slovak scienti/font>st as you claim I think the reasons for inclusion should be explained if any exist. Hobartimus (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps being born in Bratislava and studing there is enough. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote you from the exact text you linked, from your source, his birth, "Born: 9 Oct 1704 in Pozsony, Hungary" his school  "Segner attended school at Pozsony's Lyceum". So how that (being born in Hungary) qualifies a German scientist for this list? Hobartimus (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pozsony is currently known as Bratislava, capital of Slovakia, and Segner is therefore regarded as Slovak scientist in Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that this person was born more than 300 years ago? We should switch over thousands of years worth of persons every time something changes? For example in the case of Kosovo we should go back hundreds of years in history and suddenly "regard as Albanian" all Serbs, Turks, Roma everyone who lived there? That's just pure crazy talk. Hobartimus (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you think calling my explanation here "pure crazy talk" is ok? In any case Segner lived in Bratislava (even if not called as such in these days) and that is a fact. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comment carefully I'm not calling your edit "pure crazy talk" but the idea that in the case of Kosovo all Serbs should be regarded as Albanian in hundreds of years of history (previous sentence). He did live in Bratislava but that's the point of the discussion if that is enough in the case of hundreds of years of distances in time? If we start using this type of "rule" we might get situations like Kosovo I mentioned or other cases where this would lead to very odd results indeed. Also there is the question that even in todays Slovakia not everyone is a Slovak only (Slovak (85.8%)) (I'm using stats from the wiki article on Slovakia). Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information?! 

message: Hello everybody. I have made a detailed edit summary of my edit. Please, if you have intention of removing anything from changes I have done, can you leave a remark about it here with some explanation? From my knowledge, all returned people are conforming to inclusion criteria. I was trying to be as objective as possible. Please, show some constructive input and show me, where I am wrong.
* re-added the qualification criterion "were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives" returned - included as it was already discussed before and decided to stay
* I have removed people with no evidence here in Wikipedia or not generally known as qualified according to inclusion rules
* I have included people qualified according to inclusion rules
* small changes
Namely:
* removed Ferenc Gyurcsány as he has no connection to Slovakia whatsoever according to inclusion rules
* ancestry of Rudolf Schuster not relevant here, included due to being president of Slovakia, that is enough
* János Kádár is not very relevant, but well, he fits in
* removed András L. Áchim as nothing points to his being relevant here
* Vojtech Tuka (1880-1946), politican, Prime Minister of Slovak government during World War II
* Alexander Mach (Sano Mach), Minister of Slovak government during World War II
* returned Medieval rulers, removed before
* returned Saints, removed before
* returned Blessed Maurus (c. 1000 – c. 1070)
* returned Chatam Sófer
* returned Ján Henkel
* returned Ján Sambucus
* returned Johann Wolfgang von Kempelen
* returned Jozef Maximilián Petzval
* returned Ján Andrej Segner
* removed Andrej Kvasz as no evidence of his having anything with Slovakia and not known
* returned Mining section - Slovakia was rich in mines in the past and mining is an important part of Slovak history
* returned Johann Andreas Bäumler
* returned Karol Rayger
* returned Rudolf Vrba
* returned Filip Anton Eduard Lenard
* returned Maximilián Hell
* returned Ján Dubovszky
* returned Štefan Schwarz
* removed Milan Rastislav Štefánik from astronomy section as his importance for Slovakia is more in the politics, astronomy is mentioned there
* returned Ján Nepomuk Hummel - he even a music museum in Bratislava has his name
* returned Johann Kusser
* returned Johann Siegmund Kusser
* returned Franz Schmidt
* removed Judit Halász
* returned painters
* returned sculptors
* returned Ignác Feigler I and Ignác Feigler II as important architects of Bratislava
* Imrich Bugár - under this name he represented Czechoslovakia and is widely known
* returned Juliana Korponaiová-Géciová
* returned Samuel Fischer
* removed category Slovak politicians as it is not useful in this context
--Ruziklan (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the list rules AND editing the list according to the NEW rules just changed in the same edit is a bad idea. Also for most of your changes you list no reason just 'returned' or 'removed' it's just clutters the talk page to list them this way. Also I propose that the list be cleansed from "red links". Red linked people who have no article offer no benefit to the reader while they take space from articles that can be linked to. If they are important enough for an article they can be added later. But since this would be a major change I'm proposing it here on the talk page BEFORE actually doing it. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list has been serving to editors writing new articles on people from Slovakia since its creation. The reason why there are so many red links is that editors fill them by new articles. Red links are important here and have not bothered anyone for years. Tankred (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why this "serving to editors"(?) should be in mainspace. Let us keep mainspace for our readers editors already have large amounts of non-mainspace available to them for things like this. Hobartimus (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed edit summary 

message: My apologies for my hasty renaming of this page earlier today. I've been rather inactive on Wikipedia for some time now and I'm apparently forgetting some protocols and procedures. In any event, we might as well discuss it now--does anyone have any particular objections to the new name "List of Slovakians"? (I ask only for serious objections, and no objections based on either my ethnic ancestry or that of anyone else who comments here.) K. Lásztocskatalk 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IF the move is agreed on, what will be the fate of my "huge edit" I have made in good faith and frowned upon by some other editors? I repeat I have no intention to work on this anymore, I just would like to see my work not lost. I have come through all changes made since some time and considered it to my best knowledge of history, even edited some short descriptions (Tuka and more), they were just reverted. Please, consider, and if there is good will on both sides, list can be surely improved much further. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose the move, Slovaks and Slovakians are totally interchangeable and 'Slovak' is by far the prevalent term. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second Hexagon, while the terms are both used and I personally think that Slovakians sounds a bit better, Slovaks are used much more, both in writing and in speech. So, I think list of Slovaks is a better name but I'd be fine with the other name and a redirect from "List of Slovakians", it doesn't matter much as long as the reader gets where he wants to get. The Dominator (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it back. Oddly it seems you didn't even bother fixing double redirects after your move. I understand where you're coming from but Slovak is really the prevailing term as far as I can tell. Slovakians is a recent back-demonym from Slovakia, but Slovaks is much much older. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move discussion 

message: Elonka has created a subpage in her userspace, trying to centralize discussions involving Hungarian and Slovakian editors. It is an experiment, as it is neither a mediation nor a Request for Comment, nor is it a random chat. She will be moderating the discussion as an administrator, and enforcing rules of civility to minimize disruption.  This is an experiment, as part of her participation in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars and has asked me to give a linke here as I have brought this list to her knowledge. Please, follow the discussion at: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment.   Thanks, --Ruziklan (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute centralized 

message: I would like to include my name as a sculptor of Slovak (father), Moravian (mother) origin, born jun 5. 1943 in Slovakia. Of course I can not do it for obvious reason (self promotion). Anybody interested in my inclusion?
Am I good enough for you?
Rasto Hlavina 7,12, 201174.210.37.164 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculptor of Slovak origin 

message: I'm removing the many clean-up templates because they seem to be out of date and often duplicate one another. Are they there for some political statement? The remaining entries are bluelinked and if anyone disputes the nationality/ethnicity they can remove them or seek verification. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up templates