Talk:Slovakia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hungarians expelled

I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article. Most of 75 000 Hungarians which were moved into Hungary were exchanged for Slovaks from Hungary according to the treaty between Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I think it is not fair,not even true to mark this exchange as '75 000 had been expelled'. Expelled had been Germans (according to agreement of Allies). Link to the Czechoslovak-Hungarian treaty is here [1] and number of people is 70 000 for each side.

I don't want to start any national flame-war, but I'm surprised that such important fact is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.25.139 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one important fact to expand this debate. The Hungarian citizens with Slovak nationlity could decide personally, whether they would like to move to Czechoslovakia or not. The Hungarians in Slovakia could not, 70 000 was expelled as echange. So from a personal point of view we should speak about expelled Hungarians. And please not to forget that Hungarians have not had any citizenship in Czechoslovakia between 1945 and 1948.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.127.82 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 

Probably should be nice to notice, that more Slovaks from Hungary wanted to be exchanged than the limit of agreement. Question is why? Maybe the conditions for them as ethnic minority wasn't so good, as conditions for Hungarians in Czechoslovakia even after Benes decrees. So now present it as "Hungarians were forced to leave and Slovaks could decide" is nice propaganda, because nearly all Slovaks wanted to leave Hungary. Is it a normal situation when 'suddenly' whole minority wants to leave the state? So was it really voluntary exchange for Slovaks ?

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Beneš decrees

This section is the subject of a Request for Comment in 2007, with the question, "We'd like to decide if the Beneš decrees should be included in the article Slovakia"[2]

Who thinks that we shouldn't talk about the Beneš decrees in the Slovakia article? Squash Racket 08:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I don't think we shouldn't talk about Beneš decrees and about its impacts today (last days confirm that), but currently I think there is too much emphasis on it. Because if we're talking about Beneš decrees in such detail, so we should on Magyarization. What I expect from this is no harassment for my opinion. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But these were not even mentioned in the history section! You think the Beneš decrees are not important in the history of Slovakia (actually even today, if you exactly know what I mean)? And you call someone a vandal for putting info back? Squash Racket 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I overreacted, as Beneš decrees are quite key event (why the Germans then disappeared), but what I didn't like is the removal of uncontroversial content and inserting POV wording, and that's frowned upon. And impact today – last days speak for themselves. But I question this - do you think that two opposing sides here can negotiate neutrality? Again, no harassment please. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean right now for this question? Can you propose an even shorter version that still talks about the impacts today?

We can wait for others' reaction too if you will. Squash Racket 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly into this: "The part dealing ... ... has become a controversial issue in today's politics". I think we will just wait. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the history overview in this article should be kept brief and Benes decrees do not seem to me important enough to be included. Moreover, any meaningful NPOV discussion of Benes decrees would need at least a paragraph. Btw, despite the unnecessary and heated debate among some politicians today, there were no Benes decrees enacted in Slovakia (the Slovak National Council promulgated similar acts), Germans were evacuated before the end of WWII (unlike in the Czech Republic, from where they were expelled after WWII) and Hungarians were returned the citizenship soon afterwards. I believe it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to support national mythology and victimization. Tankred 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Luboš Palata said about the matter (writes for Lidové noviny)? Hobartimus 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say much in LN, just barely mentions it, but in his blog he's much more wordy. You can read it here if you understand Czech:

http://palata.blog.sme.sk/c/112767/Benesovy-dekrety-to-jste-si-pomohli.html

If not, he says

a) as the similar act of Czech parliament 5 years ago, it's not an act of national pride, it's an act of fear and national insignificance. b) now they will have to deal with Hungarian population of the country which wouldn't be quite happy about reconfirmation of the decrees. Vryadly 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the decrees should be included because they affected Slovak population (thousands of Germans and Hungarians have been expelled), because the decrees have not been revoked until now and moreover have been recently confirmed by Slovak parliament, and finally because these decrees are still a hot topic of Slovakian-Hungrian relationships. All this combined makes the decrees a fact important enough to be presented in the article User:Vryadly 15:21, 23 September 2007 (EST)

I am afraid you are misinformed. First, Benes decrees had never been part of the Slovak legal system; legal acts of the Slovak National Council similar to Benes decrees in their contents had. Btw, only some of Benes decrees concerned collaborants, Germans, and Hungarians. The rest concerned economy and other aspects of life. Although these laws have not been officially revoked, the subsequent legislation has made them inactive. For example, the Czechoslovak citizenship was returned to Hungarians and those Hungarians removed to the Czech Republic were allowed to return to Slovakia. Most Carpathian Germans were evacuated by the German authorities during WWII, not expelled after the war. Hungarians have never been expelled from the country because of Benes decrees. Finally, the decrees have become "a hot topic" in the Slovak-Hungarian relations only recently and the rhetorical clashes between Slovak and Hungarian nationalists will fade away as they always do. And the rest of the world gives a crap about this transient war of words in Slovak and Hungarian media anyway. Tankred 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Benes decrees were part of Czechoslovak legal system, so they're part of Slovak legal system now. I'm aware that there were many topics the decrees were dealing with, but we're talking of the decrees concerning expulsions. As far as I know the citizenship was returned only to those Hungarians who haven't been expelled. And they have been expelled, though officially it was called " population exchange". Most Hungarians didn't want to be "exchanged" and were forced to leave their homes and go to Hungary. And in any case the dispute is still big in both Slovakia and Hungaria. I've studied the topic as part of my journalist work and in my knowledge the clashes between Hungarian and Slovak officials (who of course are often nationalists themselves) date back to the year when any discussions became possible, i.e. 1989.

If you have documents proving that I'm wrong, I'd be just happy to read them if you provide me with a link. I'd prefer documents in Czech or Slovak: I read both languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, are you aware that Slovak parliament just three days ago reconfirmed Benes decrees? In my opinion it clearly demonstrates that the decrees were part of Slovak legal system and that they're still play big part in Slovak politics. Vryadly 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient to write something like "After WWII more then 50000 Hungarians and Germans have been forced to leave Slovakia. This event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary." Vryadly 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a short description sounds reasonable. So, let us talk about the data. Can you provide a reliable source for your number (or any alternative number of expelled Hungarians and Germans)? Whom do you propose to include? Does this number include the Germans evacuated before the end of the war by German (not Czechoslovak) authorities? Does it include Hungarians moved to Bohemia (but later allowed to return)? Does it include Hungarians moved to Hungary as part of an intergovernmental agreement between Czechoslovakia and Hungary on population exchange? Tankred 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some elements of the decrees attach collective guilt to Hungarians and Germans, these are not in harmony with the current principles of European law. Maybe deserves a mention, because mainly that is the source of tension between Hungary and Slovakia nowadays. Squash Racket 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will find a reliable source in the nearest two days and post it here. I believe the numbers should not include the Germans moved before the end of the war, but it should included Carpathian Germam civilians slaughtered by Czechoslovak army after it - there were more then thousand documented and some historians cite more then 10000, though I haven't done any research on it yet and therefore can't say if this number is reliable.

I think the number should include the Hungarians unwillingly moved to Northern Bohemia - though I won't insist on it. And it certainly should include people moved as part of population exchange because most of Hungarians moved in this exchange have been moved by force, against their own will.

Just in case - please don't interpret me as being pro-fascist or something like it. I just think that important facts shouldn't br covered, and even more so if they're not very pleasant for us. Vryadly 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose introduction of one or two NPOV sentences about this issue and I certainly do not think you are "pro-fascist". To clarify my position, I insist on a reference to a reliable academic source and on NPOV. It would be useful to differentiate between the number of the Carpathian Germans and Hungarians killed after the war and the number of Hungarians moved to Hungary. The information that it was part of a forced population exchange should be included because this solution was much softer than measures taken by other countries (or by the Czech part of Czechoslovakia), from where Germans were simply expelled after the Postdam Conference. I do not think it is a good idea to include the number of the Hungarians relocated to Bohemia because they were given some property there and they were allowed to return to Slovakia after a short time. The loss of the Czechoslovak citizenship was only temporal too. Tankred 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 216.240.13.13 23:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it then. I search for the sources as soon as I have time. Vryadly 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual number is 76 600 according to this academic source: http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2003/Erika%20Harris.pdf (Leeds university)

I believe that the other 40000 mentioned here are the Hungarian who have been relocated to Bohemia. There were also 32400 Germans expelled (http://www.saske.sk/cas/4-98/olejnik.html - Slovak Academy of Sciences). Vryadly 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

76 616 Hungarians were expelled from Slovakia after 1946 within the framework of a forced population change. About 44 000 Hungarians were deported to Bohemia where they were forced to work for Czech peasants. They were deported in freight cars like the Jewish before, women and children alike. Their properties were confiscated and distributed among Slovaks similarly like the properties of the 68 000 people who were expelled into Hungary. All Hungarians lost their citizenship rights which were restored only after a two years long, humiliating "Reslovakization" process. And now the political elite of the democratic Slovakia expressed their view unanimously that everything was OK, indeed they agree with the decrees even now. It's utmost hypocrisy to claim that the whole topic is "unimportant". Zello 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the information on the expulsions should be present in the article, but, as far as I know Hungarians moved to Northern Bohemia, though moved there by force, haven't been forced to work for Czech peasants. And Slovak parliament's reconfirmation of the decrees was not unanimous. Vryadly 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was unanimous because only the Hungarian minority party voted against it. I found an essay written by historian Zoltán Horváth about the topic. He collected the recollections of the victims: http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/cd1/felvmagy/felvmagy.htm The Juhász family was deported to Northern Bohemia: "It was kind of a slave market. The Czech peasants groped the the muscles of their new servants, inspected their teeth like they were horses." Zello 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the unonimousity, but I can't find any reliable not hungarian or at least neutral sources which would confirm the claim about the forced labour. Until I find independant confirmation, let me doubt it. Vryadly 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And this "unimportant" decision about the reconfirmation of the decrees is also a defining factor in Slovak-Hungarian relationship. Every Hungarian political parties expressed their protest, President Sólyom László said "it was felt like a slap on the face" and Hungarian MPs in the European Parliament agreed on a joint action. Every mainstrean media reported the event with a clear consensus that it is an intentional insult against Hungarian minority in Slovakia. These are facts but let us add a subjective comment: the already bad Hungarian-Slovak relationship reached its nadir these days, and there is a strong feeling of indignation and distrust. Zello 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have clearly a different perception of the Slovak-Hungarian relationship. I do not believe that a non-binding declaration by the Slovak parliament is a "defining factor in Slovak-Hungarian relationship" or that "the already bad Hungarian-Slovak relationship reached its nadir these days". I do not see any economic sanctions or display of force. What I see is a lot of mutual trade, cooperation within the framework of the EU, built-up of the common infrastructure, tourism, and cultural exchange. Tankred 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic sanctions or display of force is not possible between EU countries. Hungary had no other way to express her refusal than diplomacy and this is what political leaders did in the past days. Today the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament cancelled her visit in Slovakia "to show her solidarity with the insulted Hungarian minority." Public opinion is obviously a subjective topic but yes we have different perception: I think Slovak-Hungarian relationship is characterised by a cold dislike with occasional conflicts and verbal attacks. The reconfirmation of the decress was an intentional insult and it was felt so. Zello 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that Hungarian-Slovakian relationship is probably the worst among any two EU member countries, with a probable exception of Hungarian-Romanian relationships. And it's probably not only Slovakian fault if you recall a statement of Hungarian President claiming himself to be a "President of all Hungarians". It's impossible to understand "who's started it first". So I think we all should refrain from political discussions and accusations such as "intentional insult" which lead us nowhere, and proceed instead with the section. Vryadly 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this encyclopedia should really include this kind of information. Where there are Hungarians, it is necessary to inform the reader on the main page that at the end of WWII, as a sanction for war crimes commited by fascist Hungary and for the occupation of Slovak territory, some Hungarian people were sent to another part of the same country, received there empty houses with gardens and fields and then moved back to where they were before some months later, because they did not like the houses. I am sure their families are shocked until today. (Families moved when highways are build do not have the luck to be able to come back today.) It is also necessary to inform on the main page that as a result of WWII, as a sanction for war crimes commited by Hungary and for the occupation of Slovak territory, Hungarians were deprived of their citizenship for some two years and then got it back (what a punishment!). We also have to inform about the population exchange between Slovakia and Hungary, proposed by W. Churchill to prevent the problems that led to WWII, people were moved in an organised way to a country where their mother tongue is spoken as the official language (how terrible!) received houses and gardens at their destination. Maybe we could compare that with the solutions in Poland, Czech Republic, Turkey etc. - everybody immediately expelled without any compensation. To preserve the desired NPOV, it should be also mentioned in the article about Hungary that:

• 100 000 Slovaks and Czechs were expelled (in the proper sense of the word - they were not allowed to come back and did not receive houses etc.) during WWII by fascist Hungary from the Slovak territory occupied by Hungary
• further thousands were killed either directly by the Hungarian regime during WWII or deliberately sent to fight for Hungary in the Soviet Union etc. instead of Hungarians to be killed there
• within the population exchange after WWII the same number of Slovaks had to leave Hungary and was moved to Slovakia

The article about Hungary should also mention the planned and organised ethnic cleansing in the Kingdom of Hungary around 1900 and in the late 19th century, in the course of which:

• some 60 000 Slovak children were taken from their parents and deported to Hungarian-speaking territories to turn them into Magyars
• out of some 7000 Slovak schools after 1850 in Slovakia their number decreased to virtually 0 in 1914, although most parts of Slovakia are purely Slovak speaking
• people were persecuted by the authorities just for speaking Slovak in the street, owning Slovak books or newspapers etc.
• thousands of other "bad" things happened (which interestingly are not even mentioned here in the Magyarisation article, because obviously a banch of Magyar nationalists, who dont even hide it, managed to turn this wikipedia into another of the countless Hungarian propaganda page on the internet, about which uninformed readers from the US think that they are serious texts)

We should also inform the reader, how this wikipedia manages to turn Petofi, Kossuth and Liszt, all of whom were Slovaks, the last and first one even pure ones, as well as many other Slovak personalities into "Hungarians" and nobody cares. A special article about the Hungarian complex regarding their history - having no parallel all over Europe -, their hate against all their neighbours (resulting from what they are thought at schools) - without any parallel in the world - and their constant attempt to restore the borders of the old Kingdom of Hungary, part of which is also this wikipedia, should be written. The reader should be also informed about the military force established in Hungary by one of their parties recently to restore the old Kingdom of Hungary and he should be informed that this is possible in an EU country. I also suggest adding an information about antisemitism successfully used in modern Hungary - a country virtually without Jews - by some parties to gain voters. He should be also informed how this is possible in an EU country. He should be also informed that 50% of voters vote for a party that would be considered a nationalist fringe party in western Europe. I hope someone will make these additions. Egapresu 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Egapresu for your very first edits on Wikipedia right here on this talk page. Please use the Sandbox next time for this kind of spamming. Squash Racket 05:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading the first some sentences I wanted to react on your staff, but after reaching the end I canT tell you anything but: you are a very petty-minded, dumb jerk. I feel absolutely unhappy knowing that there is a huge ammount of people of your kind in our neighbourhood. :(( 195.171.36.105 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Karachar Nevian

________________________________________________

Would everybody agree with the following wording?

"After WWII more then [76000 Hungarians] and [32000 Germans] have been forced to leave Slovakia. This former event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary."

1 - http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2003/Erika%20Harris.pdf 2 - http://www.saske.sk/cas/4-98/olejnik.html

Vryadly 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"This former event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary." POV and meaningless. Slovakia and Hungary are countries. It may be a source of tension between some political parties and citizens in Slovakia and Hungary at best.--Svetovid 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that that WWII was a war between German citizens and parties and UK citizens and parties? When there are harsh statements from officials, there's tension between the countries. And harsh statements are plenty:

http://news.hnonline.sk/c1-22088600-hungarian-pm-says-resolution-on-benes-decrees-is-at-odds-with-eu

http://budapest.cafebabel.com/en/post/2007/09/21/Slovak-reiteration-of-collective-guilt-unacceptable-says-Hungarian-government

http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=C888D73A-0DAF-11DA-A035-0020188DFBD1

http://www.topix.net/world/hungary/2007/09/slovaks-reject-hungary-reconciliation-bid

http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?cl=29310

etc.

Any of these links or all of them can be taken as a valid reference to the tension statement.

We could add adjective "diplomatic" to the noun "tension" if you think it would make it more clear.

Vryadly 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad example with wars. These are just certain politicians spewing bullshit as usual, no "official" statements. Sure, the new law is official, but the tensions it may or may not create among particular people are not.--Svetovid 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. President, prime-minister, Speaker of Parliament and Minister for Foreign Affairs ain't "just certain politicians". They are exactly four people who run the country. If they make harsh statement and cancel an official visit, it means precisely that there's a diplomatic tension. What other signs do you need to notice that the tension exists? Diplomatic rupture? Bombs dropping? Vryadly 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I said tension may be real, but it's not something official, comparable with a declaration of war (your example). Also, those are "four people who run the country." You need to study basics about the distribution of power in a representative democracy with a parliamentary system.--Svetovid 09:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To finish this discussion -

http://tvscripts.edt.reuters.com/2007-09-28/25a30dc0.html

- that's a transcript of Reuters broadcast which describes situation as tension. Reuters is a highly reliable source ::::according to Wikipedia definition of reliable sources. So tension it is. Vryadly 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct number for the Germans is 33000. The 75000 Hungarians from Slovakia were exchanged for Slovaks from Hungary, not simply "forced" to leave, dont confuse this with Bohemia. Vypso 03:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 33000 and 75000 - do you have a valid non-partisan reference supporting this number?

2. I'm quite well informed in the history of the region and I'd like to assure you that I don't confuse Slovakia with Bohemia. I'm aware that the Hungarians were exchanged, but the exchange was forced and the Hungarians left their land and property unwillingly, under military supervision. If you want to include the word "exchange" you are invited to propose your version of the section that will include it. Just try to keep it short and refer to the forced character of the resettlement, because otherwise we will never reach an agreement here. Vryadly 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'Some elements of the decrees attach collective guilt to Hungarians and Germans, these are not in harmony with the current principles of European law.' Maybe deserves a mention, because mainly that is the source of tension between Hungary and Slovakia nowadays.

I repeat myself (see above), but I think final version should contain this. The diplomatic war nowadays is mainly over this problem. You can't say that whole nations are guilty and punish them, basically that's the point. Squash Racket 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of collective guilt is quite important - I agree with you. But I believe this issue belongs rather to the articles on expulsions and decrees themselves, not to the article about Slovakia in general. However important the issue is, it's not possible to discuss it here in deep. The basis for agreement seems to be to keep the info short. Vryadly 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We added a well-referenced, short version about this without mentioning collective guilt and specific details. If everybody agrees, I will remove this template, thanks. Squash Racket 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for an equally referenced final version, please discuss it here first (like Vryadly did). However I believe current version is acceptable for everyone involved (no collective guilt, slavery, loss of property and social advances etc. mentioned to keep it short) and we try to build concensus. If Vryadly took the time to get sources for his version please don't replace it with original research. Squash Racket 12:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Also if there is no agreement, we just keep the template and wait for others' comments. Squash Racket 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, I've temporarily removed the following statement you'd added: "Although this event was carried in a more human way than other population transfers sanctioned by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference". I can understand your concern, but this statement represents a POV and you haven't provided any reliable references to it. The other reason why I don't think it should be there - we with your active participation decided to make the section as short as possible. If we include here the statement about humanity of the relocation, I can't see how we will justify the refuse to include a reference to concept of collective guilt, or relocation to North Bohemia, or Slovakization, etc. All the details about severance or humanity of the action should be included in the existing article on the population exchange. If you think that the info provided by me is in some way unbalanced, let's work together to make it better. Otherwise all the parties involved will start to edit and reedit this piece again and again. Vryadly 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vyradly, I see your point and I will not reinsert that part of the sentence unless someone else supports it. But what I would like to see in your sentence is the international context of the event. The expulsions were not just a Czechoslovak idea (as a random reader could believe). They occurred in a larger framework designed at the Potsdam Conference. Do you have any idea how to take this context into account in a concise and NPOV way? Tankred 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source stating that this was an idea of Potsdam Conference or some other international body, I believe we can include it in the info. Vryadly 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you have done some research on this question, you surely know the framework in which expulsions from Czechoslovakia occurred was given by the Potsdam Agreement and the expulsion was not an isolated activity of the Czechoslovak government. I agree it is a good idea to include a reference and I think we can cite either Article XII of Potsdam Agreement itself ("The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken.") or any history textbook discussing Potsdam Conference or any specialized book on the expulsions (I would recommend David Rock and Stefan Wolff [eds.]. 2002. Coming home to Germany? : the integration of ethnic Germans from central and eastern Europe in the Federal Republic. New York : Oxford : Berghahn). I do not know which alternative you prefer. Tankred 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to expell people from a country in a "human way". Obviously there are differences between different crimes against humanity but this sentence is like "Gulag was a more friendly place than Dachau" or "Kim Jong-il is a more benign dictator than Pol Pot". Zello 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not include a sentence about how much more barbaric and brutal the expulsions, and oppression were compared to the "much more human way" of peaceful assimilation policies instuted earlier by Hungary? This could be compared to a lot of things. Hobartimus 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who else was pushing for that 'solution' at the Potsdam Conference (with references)? Beneš is still not mentioned in the paragraph. Squash Racket 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just after a sentence about collaboration Tankred added 'also' referring to the expulsions of Germans and Hungarians. Vryadly, you still don't think we should mention that collective guilt thing? Squash Racket 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think we should start an editing war here. I see why you could mind it, and you probably right when stating that it invites a notion of collective guilt. Could you talk to Tankred and discuss it with him to find some words which would be good for both of you? Vryadly 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

"Tiso's government was strongly influenced by Germany and gradually became a puppet regime."

Weasel words, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Slovakia/Czechoslovakia (1939)

As we all know in march 1939 independence of Slovakia(SK) was declared. First if such a declaration was legal and we accept the results of such declaration then Czechoslovakia(CZ) is most certainly over. If you do not accept the creation of SK (in the legal sense) then it is possible to say that CZ continued to exist even then. The article as it currently stands accepts the fact of Slovak independence in which case CZ cannot exist on the same territory under partly the same name. These two entities cannot exist at the same time if you accept the existence of one you deny the other. Hobartimus 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you provided sources for your claims before your second reinsertion.[3] Here are the reasons why I consider your version inferior to the previous one. First, some of the information simply and with no reason disappeared ("1/3 of territory"). Second, you characterize an armed conflict as a war. Social sciences usually define a war as an armed conflict with at least 1,000 battle-related deaths. In light of this threshold, your unsourced claim seems to be quite problematic. Third, proclamation of Slovakia's independence in 1939 is not equal to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. This act from 1939 is now regarded as nullified by the international law. Moreover, Czechoslovakia clearly existed during the war, as an occupied state under a government-in-exile in London. To sum up, this is not the first time you have changed an unproblematic piece of text into a less precise and POV form. Please, propose your changes at the talk page first and include your sources. Until a consensus is reached here, the article will be reverted to its previous version. Tankred 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This act from 1939 is now regarded as nullified by the international law This is one of the possibilites exactly my point is that the article itself should be consistent within itself. In other words it's impossible to have it both ways. It must be clearly pointed out that the act of creation of Slovakia was illegal (or is viewed as nullified and void today, or some variation of those) OR Slovak independence is accepted(for the purposes of the article) and CZ is then over. Just as today as independent Slovakia exist there cannot be CZ at the same time. As for your weird objection to the usage of war, I think we both know that this particular armed conflict was war, but I guess you have your resons. I only want to point out that certain Slovak editors have a tendency to use the term 'war' (Slovak-Hungarian War) to charactherize skirmishers with as little as 8 Hungarian and 22 other deaths. Hobartimus 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Czechoslovakia clearly existed during the war, as an occupied state I just noticed this very important sentence of yours. If this sentence is true, then the article should be immidiately expanded with a sentence describing this occupation committed by the Slovak state and others of Czechoslovak territory. I should also point out that it was I who initiated this talk page discussion in the first place, explaining my changes to achive a more correct version of the article(I only write this in response to your post demanding more talk page discussion/proposal of changes).Hobartimus 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hobartimus, can you explain me please why the same territory cannot be claimed by two different states at the same time? Either I do not understand your point or you argue against something that empirically exists. Tankred 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was you who used the term occupation instead of having claims on territory. However If the article talks about Slovak independence as a fact, and not some illegal/nullified/undone etc act of no importance then in the view of the article consistency demands to make a mention of the end of CZ (notice that CZ most certainly did not exist in any sort of factual sense only possibly in legal sense). I would also accept a solution where the nullification of Slovak decl. of independence is mentioned together with the CZ government in exile, to explain continueng existence of CZ. Hobartimus 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a short overview. If you want to go into details, History of Slovakia is the place. Or do you really want to list here all the countries that recognized the first Slovak Republic and the countries that recognized Czechoslovakia? I still do not see any inconsistency in the previous version of the article, but, as I mentioned above, I can see a couple of problems with your version. Tankred 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

History of name Czechoslovakia

I removed the digression about the history of the name Czechoslovakia because it badly interrupted the flow of the article and was beside the point. Moreover, one can find the same information in Czechoslovakia. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Agreement

Article has reference to Pittsburgh Agreement as being part of the Slovak / Czech split in 1992. The agreement [4] was created in 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcmar (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First Slovak republic

The leader of slovak government in First Slovak republic was Vojtech Tuka (except few Tiso´s months). Tiso was a president and had no power in government. So i can´t understand why everybody writes Tiso´s government. The other things, i´ve made and were deleted, (like that Tiso was popular and it´s still controversial topic) are just true, aren´t they?--Michelozzo (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True doesn't automatically mean notable though.--Svetovid (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This part of the article is questionable correct, because the deportation of the Jews did not begin in Slovakia after the German occupation of the Country but in 1942 without any direct German perticipation on the country's territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twardowsky (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction needed in one sentence

The 1945 Potsdam conference approved the Czechoslovak government request for the deportation of the Sudeten German population to Germany but did not approve their plan for the deportation of Hungarians to Hungary. Reference: Section "The Population Exchange between Czechoslovakia and Hungary". Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bzenc

Where was Bzenc, a shtetl ?...
-- the zak (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean perhaps the small town of Bzenec (german: Bisenz, don't know the yiddish name for it) in Moravia, today's Czech Republic. This small town had a remarkable jewish population for centuries (14. - 20. century), so perhaps, this was the shtetl Bzenc. I'm not sure, though. Greetings, --84.163.115.170 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional discussion

Further discussion about some of the matters on this page are ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tótia?

Just one comment regarding the first sentence. It says that the Hungarian name of Slovakia is "Tótia". Actually, "Tótia" is a Hungarian pejorative name of Slovakia, favoured mainly in nationalist circles. In Hungarian, Slovakia is officially called "Szlovákia". Lengyelp (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovak Motto

I have serious doubts about the purported Slovak national motto mentioned in this article. I have conducted a source search and haven't been able to find any with the exception of Wikipedia, wiki-related sites and sites mentioning Wikipedia as their source. The only exception was the Book of Psalms 72,3, where it forms a part of a verse, without any mention of Slovakia.
As for the source given by the editor 91.102.226.249 (Osem storočí slovenskej heraldiky" (Eight Centuries of Slovak Heraldy) (80-7090-691-X), written by PhDr. Ladislav Vrteľ, published by the Matica slovenská in 1999), I haven't been able to verify its contents. However, not one of the official Slovak government sites mentions the motto in any way. Therefore it appears that the motto does not have an official status in Slovakia - it might have been a historical one, but is not used anymore.
In addition to that, several articles on the Slovak Wikipedia (sk:Slovensko, sk:Zoznam národných mott), which should have the best data about the issue, explicitly state that Slovakia doesn't have a motto (Národné motto: nie je). Therefore I believe the quoted source to be dubious at best. I am removing the motto from the article for a lack of sourcing. -- PeterRet (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The alleged motto has also been added to List of national mottos [5] by an anonymous editor 62.168.125.19. --AtonX (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

reverts

I am sorry that I had to do a revert back prior to the of a known copyright violator to ensure the article contains no such material from unallowed sources. Hmains (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag

The Flag ist wrong. The image shows the flag from Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.250.195 (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sport

The sport section appears to just be about Bratislava, rather than the nation as a whole.
Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No Czechs in Slovakia?

Is it really true after so long being united with the Czech nation that there are only a negligible number of Czechs in the country? They are not listed among the ethnic groups and the "other" category comprises only 1%. Does the definition of "Slovak" currently in use include all those who would have considered themselves Czech in the 20th Century? Dvd Avins (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the migration of Czechs to Slovakia was very limited in the era of Czechoslovakia (and thereafter) - it was much more common vice-versa. Some of the Czechs who have stayed in Slovakia, and have been there for a long time, might identify themselves as Slovak in the censuses, but I don't believe their number to be significant. Children from mixed families growing up in Slovakia tend to identify themselves as Slovak. Anyway, accoridng to the official census from 2001 (http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/scitanie/def_sr/Data/100000/Z156__100000.pdf), there were 48,201 Czechs living in Slovakia, which is 0,89% of the total population. PeterRet (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories:Slavic countries and Landlocked countries vs. Category:Slovakia

Category:Slovakia is itself a category within categories Slavic countries and Landlocked countries. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Samo's empire

"Western Slovakia was the centre of Samo's empire in the 7th century." There are the claims that the centre was actually somewhere in Bohemia, or it might be in southern Moravia, which itself could explain the rise of the Moravian state (Great Moravia) later. That western Slovakia was part of the Samo empire should not be contested, of course.A black hole (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

University

The hungarian kingdom's first university was established in Pécs in 1367, Sigismund's university was the second, Matthias Corvinus's university was the third. Terence75 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WW2 history

I'd like to see a source on the SNP. I don't believe that there was any connection between the war in the eastern front and the SNP. It came about regardless of the eastern front as a movement against the Nazis. My grandfather was involved in the SNP and never referred to it happening because of the changing fortune of war,... --Petethebeat (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the article misunderstands the actual circumstances. It is true, that SNP was organised to join the eastern front when it reached the country. But that was more a tactical aspect of the operation. In that way the resistance had better chance of succeeding. The changing fortune was not the motive for SNP, the regime had had its opponents ever since it was formed. I'll try to find some sources and reword it.  wlad 09:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I think that this article should have a protection for a while. Because the Hungary-Slovakia conflict could be this article revised for the propaganda of boot sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.5.160 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Motto and Coat of arms

I just found this extended coat of arms of Slovakia, together with motto - Afferant Montes Pacem Populo - [6] . I never heared about this, have someone some extended informations about this or should be the motto, together with this extended coat of arms added to the article? --EllsworthSK (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This means "May mountains bring people peace" or in Slovakian: "Nech hory prinesú ľudom mier". Engivuk (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Feszty's painting

The panting should be deleted, as it really is a 19th century propaganda in the purest sense of the word. Feszty lived and painted in the era the Hungarian (and all the others for that matter) nationalism was at its peak. The monumental painting depicts heroic figures in shining armor riding white horses, which is far from the reality of the 9th century. The purpose of the painting was to strengthen the Hungarian national consciousness by deliberately manipulating history. The painting is not historically accurate in depicting the period described in the specific section of the article it is attached to. Therefore it is irrelevant to the article and that specific section. It is in-place in the article about Feszty, article about Hungarian art history etc. But it is not in place in article about Slovakia or any other article about 9th century history.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the problem with the painting. Of course it depicts "heroic figures in shining armor," it's a painting, not a photograph. Is your problem with the fact that it portrays the invading Magyars in a positive light? There are obviously no "neutral" pictures depicting that period in history. That painting is a whole lot better than nothing: it accurately (or at least semi-accurately) depicts clothing, weaponry, etc. --Ashenai (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my problem with it is, that it really deliberately manipulates the history with an obvious goal. I don't think a communist poster depicting early 20th century capitalists en bloc as archetypal greedy monsters would be appropriate in an article about Great Depression. Heroic Magyars in shining armor riding a white horse, beneath them a poor farmer with oxen. Don't tell me the roles and the purpose are not obvious. And it's almost as far from reality as you can get. "it accurately (or at least semi-accurately) depicts clothing, weaponry, etc." - that's something I really doubt. And if it even were true, the painting as whole has a clear political message and is suggestive and manipulative. I think artist's visions of that time period missing such a blatant political subtext can be easily found.

"That painting is a whole lot better than nothing" - and that's something I strongly disagree with. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over your edits, it appears that your contributions are almost universally aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian. This isn't, in itself, a problem (everyone has a POV,) but it makes your subjective value judgements ("suggestive and manipulative," "blatant political subtext") very suspect, in my eyes.

In short, I think you're more prone to finding offense in Hungarian-themed works of art, contributions, etc. than what would be objectively merited. --Ashenai (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What do my previous edits matter in this case? The substance of this dispute is not affected by my previous edits, which btw. cannot be summed up as removing Hungarian-related content, but that's for another lengthy discussion. But you have obviously switched to playing the man instead of the ball here.

And you know, looking at your mother tongues, I would assume you are more tolerant to Hungarian nationalist propaganda than would be objectively merited, while we're at it. ;)

The painting is manipulative (positioning, poses, outfits, the whole impression) with a blatant political subtext, it cannot be used as an illustration of the period as it simply far from reality. Moreover, the fact that the Hungarian editors react very emotionally to this painting being challenged [7] [8] is only a proof that the depiction is an integral part of their self-identification as Hungarians, thus invalidating its neutrality and proving my point even more.

And I am not the first to raise the objection towards this aspect of the Hungarian art of the 19th/20th century [9], in Slovak only, however. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

'What do my previous edits matter in this case?' Unfortunately they matter a lot. They might expose the fact that you might be biased against anything that is (or can be) Hungarian. And encyclopedia is not written (or shouldn't be written) in a matter like "hmmm, I think my fellow comrades/brethren/brothers of the faith might like it, so I leave out anything that might displease them". It's written in a neutral tone with as much objectiveness as possible. Sure, your bias might be more than welcome in Pravda or "Zilinsky vecernik", but this site shares much of the spoken and unspoken rules of American journalism. This includes rather painstaking objectiveness as well (sometimes being even too frigid), which you (but me and everyone else as well) have to adhere to. If you don't.....you'll just see what's going to happen...

'The painting is manipulative (positioning, poses, outfits, the whole impression) with a blatant political subtext' - Manipulative?! With a blatant political subtext?!?!?!?! You're joking, right? Hello! It's a painting! It's not a photograph (although I'd really appreciate if you could bring me a photo from the 9th century :P), it's an artist's impression about how the Hungarians' entry to the Carpathian basin might've looked like. And AFAIK Feszty wasn't a realist nor a naturalist. So what's the fuzz? Would you reject a caricaturist's rendering of Fico stating it's manipulative (e.g. he looks far too zombie-like on it due to the artist being sponsored by the opposition etc.)? Hmm, maybe you would. Well then a painting of Svatopluk (if there would be one)? So if I were to agree with you and say that the painting doesn't belong there, what would you illustrate the section with (besides the map)? Would you use some portraits of...who? The Slavic leaders? Even if nobody exactly knows how did they look like?

'the depiction is an integral part of their self-identification as Hungarians, thus invalidating its neutrality and proving my point even more. And I am not the first to raise the objection towards this aspect of the Hungarian art of the 19th/20th century' Don't you see the irony in these two sentences (along with the "source" you cite)? First you say that my(?) emotional reaction to your move proves your point even more. Then you turn around and (try to) support your argument with an article extracted from the most nationalistic and pro-"Slovak" book I could get my hands on in the last 10 years (when I've seen that book in a bookstore a few years ago I could hardly believe something like this has ever been printed). If I were you I'd really refrain from daring to use ANY parts of that book as a source in Wikipedia or any other reliable (and unbiased) site (k tej Ferkovej "knihe" ti nieco este poviem, ale az neskor, po spamatani sa zo soku...). I know it's in Slovak and very few people critical of your cause can read it, yet Google Translator and related technologies are getting better and better......CoolKoon (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but my previous edits matter nil if I am able to argue my point sufficiently well, your approach is also just playing the man which is counterproductive in any debate. think my fellow comrades/brethren/brothers of the faith might like it, so I leave out anything that might displease them. that's exactly the impression I get from the articles about Hungary written by Hungarian editors (see Hungarian-Slovak relations or deletion of Great Moravia from Hungary etc.).

Sure, your bias might be more than welcome in Pravda or "Zilinsky vecernik" - out of line, plain and simple.

Helloooo, the fact that the painting is inappropriate now is that it depitcts the Magyars whereas the section is about Avars and Huns ;) Sorry, but Magyars really did not enter the Carpathian basin in 4th century. But still:

• It's surely a pure coincidence that it's the leading figure who's riding the white horse. It's a clear symbol. Why do you think Horthy was riding one as well? And why do you think the old saying goes a prince riding a white horse? Simply because it's a symbol of purity, goodness, good intentions and a strong character or a supreme power [10]. The fact that the leading figure (let's call him Arpad) is given one as well is clearly intentional.
• Second - the positioning. Victorious figures on the top and the poor farmer with oxen beneath as to underscore the class differentiation and show who really was the master all the time. And that's also very, very far from the reality.
• Third - the outfits. Shining armors vs. poor farmer's clothes. The same goal.
• Fourth - the poses. Magyars are heroic and victorious, the farmer is bent over and exhausted. Clear as a crystal I say.
• "And AFAIK Feszty wasn't a realist nor a naturalist." - yes, exactly, that just proves my point, the painting is not realistic.
• The cyclorama was painted to commemorate the 1000th anniversary of the Magyar arrival. That places it in 1895 - the height of Magyar nationalism and Magyarization. And are you trying to tell me that under such circumstances there wasn't a demand for a painting that would reinforce the Magyar national consciousness? This is surely the cream of the Hungarian National Romaticism [11]. If you know what National Romaticism means, I think you'll agree that the painting cannot be taken as a realistic interpretation of the events. Thus it has a place in the articles related to art (it's really an astonishing masterpiece, I am not going to dispute that) but not in the historical ones. To sum it up - I have the same objections to the painting as you have to the book I used - it's a one sided unrealistic and manipulative interpretation.

I agree that the source is disputable and I wouldn't dare to use it as a reference in the articles, I just wanted to illustrate that such objections exist. And I didn't try to obfuscate it's evaluation either, I am very well aware of the capabilities of translate.google.com as well as of the fact, that there are plenty of bilingual editors such as yourself. You are more than welcome to tell me anything more about the book on my talk, and I mean it, I would like to learn your opinion and something more about the book in general. Once again, I agree that it is controversial but it contains several valid and important points nevertheless. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment since I saw this over at third opinion but I don't think it will help fix priciple of the concern for both sides. According to the edit history, the image was used in the "The great invasions of the 4–7th centuries" section which is the incorrect time period (Árpád was not even alive during this time). Images need to compliment the text and Magyars aren't mentioned as someone else already stated. Since there is already an image in the appropriate section (two below) this image is not needed. I prefer the data of the map to art. You can't argue with such informaiton unless it is incorrect. People can read into art. This doesn't mean the image should or should not be used in the future but for the purpose of the article at this time: It is not needed. See:Wikipedia:Layout#Images" Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." and WP:IMAGES for more info. Also, please also do not "stack" (placing it directly above or below the map simply would not fit) images just for the sake of inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is it: Eastern or Central Europe?

If Wikipedia presents Poland(directly north of SVK)and Hungary(directly south of SVK)as countries of Central Europe, then how can Slovakia be claimed to be in Eastern Europe? One look at the map of Europe clearly shows that all three are either in Central or all three in Eastern Europe. Please change "Slovakia is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe" to "Slovakia is a landlocked country in Central Europe". Simpletone (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Map labels incorrect

The color names labeling the map on the side bar are incorrect. Ex: red should be green 173.75.14.122 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Aaron Dandy, 11/9/2009

Error in the country´s name

The name is not Slovenskej republiky (whis is the Genitiv case), but Slovenská republika. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juro26 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"with the fastest growth rates in the EU and OECD"

Any source? I think that information is the fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.96.160 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

is for sure true E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate 195.248.32.227 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Central Europe country

Please change the geographical description in the first sentence to "in Central Europe". This will bring consistence with surrounding countries (Poland, Hungary etc.) as well with other language mutations for Slovakia. Euro6 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See also this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe Slovakia is Central Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.168.90 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo in Religion section

Please fix the typo in Religion section: "1.6% of the poopulation" to "population". The page is locked for editing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.52.81 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Central Europe

Could someone change the location to Central Europe?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.49.31 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please, if someone would have the time, could he please change "Eastern Europe" to "Central Europe" in the article as per the same rationale regarding Hungary and Czech Republic? I tried changing the others to Eastern Europe, as neither Hungary nor the Czech Republic are protected, but was reverted ( which I guess is fine, although do I believe the edits were made in good faith and with the citation of relevant sources and with a sound rationale).

I am bit concerned that I am having so much trouble editing Wikipedia for the better, when it is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Slobo486 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done per Central Europe. Please note, you will not normally have these troubles. Unfortunately, this article is the subject of significant vandalism and must be semi-protected to protect its integrity. When you have done a few more edits, you will become "autoconfirmed" and be able to edit these semi-protected articles. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the reasons, but it seams a bit heavy handed. Slobo486 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Section

I'm using IE and the climate section is quite messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.173.93 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Osi link leads to disambiguation without Osi (Celtic tribe) reference

I think it should go to this page Osi which currently does not exist. I would make the edit myself but I do not yet have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.154.28 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Slovak Soviet Republic

Even though it was a very short lived state, don't you think it's worth a mention as part of the radical activity following WWI? --75.101.48.89 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

International rankings, Environmental Performance Index

The 2010 figures now have Slovakia as 13th out of 163 (see http://epi.yale.edu/Countries), if a more seasoned editor would care to update —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjpet (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Exchange of Slovaks and Hungarians

It was not forced removing of 80 000 Hungarians but it was exchange. It exists contract between Czechoslovakia and Hungary about exchange. (Samofi (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

absence of any mention on sports

i remarked that there was no section documenting on sport about slovakia. it could be really interesting to put one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.145.122 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

My webpage changed. Could footnote 37 be updated to http://www.carpathiangerman.com/ . Karpaten1 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

pre-500BC history - needs correction

"the Avars-a proto-Mongol tribe"

Avars were not Mongols, they were who were later called Cumans, and are a Turkic people. The source may well state this, but that author has made a (common) mistake. This needs to be adjusted - perhaps another source, and using two notes for the statement? Unfortunately, my personal library doesn't contain a good work on Slovakian history, or I'd try to fix this. Note that Mongols are a far-eastern group of peoples, with more than one Turkic nation (then) separating them from even Khazak territory.98.67.181.150 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Estonia

Estonia has joined the club of former communist countries that are members of the EU, the Eurozone, The Schengen area, and NATO. This article needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.132.205 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

tuned now --Juloml (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

protection

why is this page being protected so anonymous contributors cant update it? I firmly believe there was a reason to put the restriction on but I guess it can be lifted now... Please do so, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.72.156 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to repeat my appeal to lift the protection of this page. It's getting outdated as anonymous contributors are banned from editing. Please lift the protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.72.156 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Open a new section and ask the mods what changes you would like to make, making sure you are using Reliable Sources and they'll adjust the article if the consensus is that the change would benefit the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Under 'cuisine' please correct verb tense...

The following sentence, 'Lamb and goat is eaten, but is not widely popular.' should read 'lamb and goat are eaten, although neither are widely popular.' You have a plural subject here, so need a plural verbs.

Thanks, Stjulienlepauvre (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC) (stjulienlepauvre)

Airport

M.R Stefanik(Vratislava) Airport can NOT serve all aircraft..no 747 and 380 Runway Lenght:3 190 meters Boeing 747 3,320 meters and at M.R Stefanik airport NEVER LANDED 747 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romansek (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. What about the Air Force One in 2005? That is a variation of B747. It depends on how heavy it is (especially on takeoff), that is all. A fully-loaded B747 might have trouble lifting off within that runway, but one with about 60% of fuel can comfortably lift off. After all, when B747s and other heavy aircraft can land at and take off from Princess Juliana International Airport, which has a runway long 2,180 metres, but has otherwise almost the same atmospheric pressure (check altitude), then this one can do it as well. Whether the terminals are built for it is another question... 188.39.23.132 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Amount of minorities

I have nevee seen czech slovak (0,8%) But i see gypsy every day (1,7%)

in my opinion its a crappy lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.137.91 (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because quite a lot of Gypsies did not own up to their roots in the last census (2001) and counted themselves as Slovak or Hungarian instead. Time to see how many will show up once summary results for this year's census are published... 188.39.23.132 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Americanization

Despite a sufficient number of researchers[citation needed] and a decent secondary educational system[citation needed], Slovakia, along with other post-communist countries, still faces major challenges in the field of the knowledge economy, especially in regards to its retarded rate of adoption of European operating systems to replace obsolete American operating systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.135 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jews

How many Jews there was 135000(Demographics information) or 90000(Demographics-Religion information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.67.158 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians

Removed - the post was off-topic and potentially offensive, did not address the article, cited no references and had no point. Wiki is not a Forum or Soapbox.

????????????????????? State language law - false info????? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8232878.stm http://euobserver.com/7/28440 http://www.euractiv.com/en/culture/german-mep-slams-slovak-language-law/article-183982 http://peticio.nytud.hu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

History

• The Slavs arrived in the territory of present day Slovakia in the 5th and 6th centuries during the migration period. In the course of history, various parts of today's Slovakia belonged to Samo's Empire (the first known political unit of Slavs), Principality of Nitra (as independent polity, as part of Great Moravia and as part of Hungarian Kingdom), Great Moravia, Kingdom of Hungary,[7] the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Habsburg Empire, and Czechoslovakia. A separate Slovak state briefly existed during World War II, during which Slovakia was a dependency of Nazi Germany between 1939–1944. From 1945 Slovakia once again became a part of Czechoslovakia.

Hy This section is just histori and legends. Greatings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.92.35 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No detailed map

Somebody please add a map that shows the major cities and rivers at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.72 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding some tourism facts

hey guys, might you add to tourism section that Slovakia was chosen as no.1 developing country for active tourism http://www.adventureindex.travel/docs/2009_atdi_report.pdf

and also that Slovakia has the highest number of castles and chateaux per capita in the world - http://wikitravel.org/en/Slovakia

p.s. I would do it myself but I don't have right for that yet. thx!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingFunkyMonkey (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

"Many famous Slovak" title of picture should be renamed to "Some of the famous Slovaks". Since "many famous Slovaks" sounds arrogantly and it's not being used in english

Palimad (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, but "many famous Slovaks" is fine in English, and doesn't sound arrogant. It just looks a bit silly because 12 people is not many. - filelakeshoe 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I ask to add this website as external links that is related to the erasmus experience in Bratislava. It represents a community for both incoming and outcoming students and therefore is an important source of information and help. Below you find the text to be attached.

• (in English) - Erasmus Bratislava is a social network and website that helps and connect students that want to study in Slovak Repubic as Erasmus

Thanks Admin of erasmusbratislava.com Augusky (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a directory. This link would be better off at WikiTravel. - filelakeshoe 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Landlocked country, landlocked state

I would like to remove "landlocked country" remark, as it is the repetition of already mentioned landlocked state in the previous sentence. It doesn't sound good when same things are repeated several times. Can you just leave the word "country" instead. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisademkova (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence reads much better now. Nice.MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Prévôt cave

I believe the "Prévôt cave" should be changed to "Prepoštská cave".

http://muzeumpraveku.sk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.9.13.138 (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added this -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pre WWII Jewish demographics

This article contains two different estimates for pre WWII Jewish population within a few lines of each other. Needs clean up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.10.172 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor grammar, spelling

Under the entry for "Kingdom of Hungary" is the text "when Austro-Hungarian empire colapsed". It is missing the article "the" prior to "Austro-Hungarian Empire" and the word "collapsed" is misspelled. Jguziel (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)J Guziel

Radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating can only be used to date things up to the order of 50,000 years old (as attested by Wikipedia itself), so why does the first section say that tools have been found and were radiocarbon dated to 270,000 years ago? Was a different radiometric technique used, and the author mistakenly wrote 'radiocarbon'? Should I just remove that paragraph altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.19.212 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012

Please change HDI from decrease to increase.

Source: List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_high_human_development - Slovakia is on 35th rank in 2011, next to it is change compared to 2010 and it was positive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikulas1 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Mikulas1 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

After the sentence 'A separate Slovak state briefly existed during World War II, during which Slovakia was a dependency of Nazi Germany between 1939–1944.' Add the following 'In 1944, the Slovaks rebelled against Germany, but the revolt was crushed within a few months.'

Source: See Wickepedia 'Slovak National Uprising' for details.

Submitted by James H. Coppens, coppens1@juno.com. My mother is Slovak. In fact, I am currently a guest instructor at a Slovak University. JC

194.160.236.46 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia cannot be cited as a reliable source Pol430 talk to me 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but you can use the sources mentioned in 'Slovak National Uprising' on wikipedia: e.g.: Lettrich, Jozef. "History of Modern Slovakia" (F.A. Praeger 1955)

[edit] External links

SVK member of Eurozone

 Done

Please update that Slovakia is a member of the Eurozone, in the first para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.5.3 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

it is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead and has been for a very long time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Demographic Section

In one sentence it says the pre-WWII Jewish population was about 135,000; then four sentences on gives the figure of around 90,000. Obviously either way they weren't highly represented ( compared to rates in Poland or Russia ) but a 50% change in the same section looks weird. Claverhouse (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

References

It would be good to add a link to: http://wikitravel.org/en/Slovakia in the References section near the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian125 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To the external links section rather. I'm not sure what the accepted practice is for linking to travel guides? Seems okay to me. - filelakeshoe 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This link should be added, we have such travel guides added on other country pages. 69.46.82.36 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Nationality

So, probably anyone from Slovakia knows about it but Statistic bureau was able to marvellously screw up general census. As a result about 7-10 percent of population did not fill up the census sheets and thus are seen as unspecified. This does not apply only to nationality section, but to all others as well. If you are interested you can look here [12]. Point is, can we simply ignore the unspecified collum and proportionally distribute those numbers between other nationalities. Having 7 percent as unspecified is bollocks to which we can thank midgets from Statistic bureau, not reality on the ground. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(midgets?!) I'm not sure whether that wouldn't be WP:OR. It's probably a better idea to explain the "unspecified" and leave the 2001 census figures in. Have any sources covered this fiasco agreeing that it was a messup on the statistic bureau's part? Just tried scanning the economist, BBC, times, few more news sources but no coverage. - filelakeshoe 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, who's the joker ?

No offence, but who's the tasteless twat that vandalized "parliamentary republic" in the infobox to "corrupt republic" ? If this was made by a fellow countryman, then shame on him ! People like to moan about corruption in SVK, yet they tolerate and pardon it on an everyday basis and engage in it themselves. Vandalizing the Wikipedia article is not a way to battle corruption in Slovakia. My apathetic and whiny fellow citizens should learn that. I urge them to keep their fingers away from the article and the infobox, unless they have some actual meaningful material to contribute. If they want to expose corruption scandals in the country, they can write articles about it on this very encyclopedia and not engage in petty, childish vandalism in the country's main article. Slandering the name of one's country never-ever reduced any socio-economic problems it had. Never. Pointlessly slanderous, petty vandalism like this is further proof that civic society and civic discussion in Slovakia is still immature and not living up to its true potential, including the will to battle inner corruption. Once again, I sincerely urge every Slovak Wikipedian to stop with the ridiculous, unfunny vandalism. Engaging in it does not make one edgy or a supposed warrior against corruption, it makes him look more like a cowardly fool who knows no shame. There are currently few articles about corruption and human development problems in Slovakia. So, if some editors are feeling twitchy, I urge them to create such missing articles and not engage in vandalism in the main article. Got that ? Fine. Sincerely, --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In future feel free to just revert vandalism without feeding the trolls. - filelakeshoe 08:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't intend to feed trolls - but this was not vandalism commited by a run-of-the-mill unregistered user, but a registered one on a locked article. So I urge the Wikipedian responsible to act sensibly next time. And sorry if the revert was a bit too manual - I'm still rather new to the encyclopedia myself and I'm only slowly learning as I go. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Demography

Good day. My name is Marco and I am from Slovakia also. In section demography and subsection language It should be write about learning of foreign languages. So: Much adult people can speak Russian, little English, sometimes German. Young people much can speak English, but sometimes Spanish, German, French, Italian and minor young people Russian. I can't edit this article, so please, addet It, if You want. Thank You, Marco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassa342 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We would need some data about this to use as a reference, if you can find any, please post it here. - filelakeshoe 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But it is matter, that these references will be in a Slovak language? Thank You very much for helping me and have a nice day, Marco Oros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassa342 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't matter. - filelakeshoe 15:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

changes and improvements

hello everyone.

i have to apologize first for doing many changes on Slovakia wiki page without setting up a thread about it.

I have done and redone a lot of sections.

there is still a long way to go until the page looks at least as good as it should.

i am planning to add a section about architecture (i have already written it), biodiversity and national parks.

dont you think that literature should be redone a bit? it does not really say a lot.

best regards

Matissek (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area

There is a legend associated with an illustration of countries using the Euro currency that is very misleading. Its likely that users will interpret the illustration as an indicator of Schengen Area countries, especially since reference to Schengen precedes that of the Eurozone in the legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.59.51 (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

the Language law 318/2009

Can someone please reflect this fact in the article ?: http://www.zbierka.sk/sk/predpisy/318-2009-z-z.p-33093.pdf According to this law every language mutually intelligible with Slovak can be used in communication with officials, especially documents approved in Czech Republic (it is not said they must be in Czech language, however Czech Language is considered mutually intelligible), they must be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkekol (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The greater coat of arms

Hi, I would just like to point out this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slovakia_coat_of_arms_big.svg It is the greater arms of Slovakia and I think it is a shame it is not included on this page. I will also mention this in the Coat of arms of Slovakia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenflight (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is not. Constitution never mentions it and neither has any mention of motto as is written on that "coat of arms". EllsworthSK (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I was assured by a Slovak (judging by your name you are too) that it is and that it is from some official Slovakian documents but I don't know from first hand.

Avenflight (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He was wrong. Constitution mentions coat of arms, flag, vertical flag, presidential standard and anthem. This is custom made, I saw it several years ago. The motto is actually from Psalm 72. The man who made it says it is registered on heraldic bureau, but there is no law which mentions anything like that and is such it cannot be official state symbol. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2013

Please change GDP numbers to reflect British decimal usage (as do all other country pages)

GDP (PPP) 2012 estimate

- 	Total	$132,384 billion[3]

GDP (nominal) 2012 estimate

- 	Total	$91,186 billion[3]

should be

GDP (PPP) 2012 estimate

- 	Total	$132.384 billion[3]
GDP (nominal)	2012 estimate
- 	Total	$91.186 billion[3]

Thanks, Brett Pappenheim2 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jared Preston (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

Footnotes for statement that Slovakia is in Central Europe are incorrect. Footnote 6 has link to nonexistent web page(404) and content of link in footnote 5 places Slovakia to Eastern Europe. 212.47.11.2 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I pulled an old version of the dead link out of the Wayback Machine, so that should be working now. For future reference: while I see that this has been the subject of some discussion in the past, both sources quite clearly place Slovakia in Eastern Europe, so I made the change. If it should say Central Europe, this article needs to have a citation that backs that up. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

20 distinctive characters in the Slovak alphabet?

I'm not an expert on linguistics, but the second half of the following statement doesn't ring true.

The Slovak alphabet has 46 characters, of which 20 are distinctive.

Perhaps more information needs to be included (perhaps in Slovak alphabet), or maybe this phrase should just be removed. --Berkland (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is true. I am not Slovak, I am Czech but we share 99% of these, ranging from ě š č ř ž all the way to ch (yes, a letter in it's own right). --Avenflight (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand me. I believe there are really 46 characters. I don't understand the phrase "of which 20 are distinctive" --Berkland (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They presumably meant that 20 of them are digraphs or contain diacritics, distinguishing them from the basic 26 letter Latin alphabet. I agree the link to distinctive feature is confusing so I have reworded it. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)