Talk:List of Slovaks

Individuals

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)

---

Maximilian Hell was one of dozens of astronomers who observed the 1769 transit of Venus from various parts of the globe. Their collective efforts at this transit (and the previous one in 1761) led to a determination of the parallax and the distance to the Sun. Note the parallax method, by definition, requires at least two separate observations at widely separated points, so it is impossible to single-handedly determine a parallax. Also, it is not accurate to say he was "one of the greatest" astronomers of the 18th century. Not to diminish him in any way, but a quite a few other 18th century astronomers have a considerably greater claim to fame. Curps 01:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)

Petofi does not belong to Slovak poetry

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)

I have hoped someone would express this opinion. You can delete him. (I just did not want another edit war) ...Juro 15:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So many saints...

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)

Sorry, but how do you define Slovaks then? Since the ethnic composition in territory of present-day Slovakia was much more diverse over the centuries (besides Slavs who may or may not be referred to as Slovaks during the Middle Ages, Hungarians and Germans (Zipsers) gave a fundamental contribution to the cultural landscape of today's Slovakia. In my humble opinion (ethnic identity was a tricky thing in the Middle Ages and the population in the former Kingdom of Hungary shared a common "hungarus" national consciousness), the most important criteria for identifying a person as a "famous Slovak" are the following: 1. Did the person have Slovak ethnic ancestry? 2. Did he/she possess Slovak ethnocultural consciousness (and is this documentable)? By these standards, persons like István Pongrácz (who was a Transylvanian Hungarian nobleman) can be readily excluded from the list, just as for example Maximilian Hell, Wolfgang Kempelen or János Selye who just happened to live and work in an area that was to become Slovakia later on. WiseGentleman 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Complaint from 195.56.63.199

"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)

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)~

(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)

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)

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)

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)

____

Lipszky János was also a Hungarian person, not a Slowak one. The most recent literature shows his career completely. The Slowaks say he is a Slowak hero, but they had destroyed his house in early 1980's... -- a sceptic H.

They destroyed their house??? What a persuasive argument...Juro 03:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Juro, I understand your passion. It was not an argument, it was a fact (they destroyed his house, not as you understood) Is Lipszky mentioned as a Slovak cartographer? Yes. Are the Slowaks proud of him? Yes. Did they solve his house, for a personal or professional museum? Sorry, no. If you doubt in his "Hungarus" self-identification, I search you the proofs. Do you want it? Or you are simply ashamed instead of destroyers?

Thököly, Báthory, Selye

I don't see why these people are listed as Slovakians. The article on Hans Selye states his father was Hungarian, his mother Austrian. The one on Imre Thököly makes no mention of his Slovakian ancestry. The fact he was born in Kežmarok doesn't prove anything. Germans, Hungarians, all kinds of people lived in Kežmarok at that time. As far as Elizabeth Báthory is concerned, her family was from Nyírbátor (she was actually born there), a town in what is today Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, in Hungary proper. She had no Slovakian ancestry whatsoever. Please remove these people from the list.--Tamas 23:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed those people from the list and anybody else whose inclusion is tantamount to cultural identity theft (Slovak nobility - yeah, right!!) 81.182.208.161 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your change because the lead of this article states explicitly: "This is a list of Slovaks and of individuals of significance to Slovakia." In other words, not only ethnic Slovaks are included, but the second criterion is significance for the territory of Slovakia. If you want to challenge this basic framework, feel free to discuss your arguments with other editors of this article. But without such a discussion, please do not remove content from Wikipedia. Tankred 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thököly, Báthory, Kossuth could simply not have been significant to Slovakia because during their lives, Slovakia, as a country or a territory did not exist, period. It is foolish to include Kossuth as a famous Slovak when he is probably the most demonized Hungarian historical figure in Slovak nationalist discourse. The grave-robbing must be simply stopped. 81.182.208.155 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another note, if you want to distinguish between ethnic Slovaks and "people of significance to Slovakia", at least stop Slovakizing their names for Christ' sakes. (Take the "Balasa", as an "ancient Slovak family" for instance from which one of the greatest Hungarian literary figures, Balassi Bálint emerged. Sounds fishy, doesn't it?) 81.182.208.155 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who added the names you mentioned to the article. But those people were certainly significant to Slovakia's history, so I think they should remain a part of the article unless the definition of who should and who should not be included is changed by consensus. You are absolutely right that Slovakia was not politically independent in the 19th century, but I hope you do not claim that it did not exist at all. As for some of the cases you highlighted: Elisabeth Bathory spent most of her life in what is now Slovakia and I doubt she understood the concept of "national" identity in the same way as we do since its Romantic redefinition in the 19th century; Kossuth had Slovak ancestors and his uncle supported the Slovak national movement, though Kossuth strongly identified himself with the Hungarian nation; Balint Balassi wrote poetry also in Slovak, etc. In general, aristocracy in Central Europe used to be multicultural, multilingual, and divided more by political and confessional cleavages than by the so-called ethnicity. Personally, I would prefer all names in their most frequent form, but there is no consensus in this regard. In the articles about Hungarian kings, for instance, the names are sometimes written in their original Latin form, sometimes in their English form, and sometimes in their modern Hungarian form. How would you fix it? Tankred 08:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. Slovakia did not exist as a political or cultural entity until the beginning of the 20th century, when it denoted an occupied part of Northern Hungary (and later on, codified into peace treaties). The list of "famous Slovaks" should be restricted to those persons who have some Slovakian ancestry or Slovak national consciousness. Thus, persons like Benyovszky or Báthory or Kossuth could be excluded from the list. Unfortunately, just as with other nations lacking significant historical figures or any significant history, a tendency exists in Slovakia to appropriate cultural figures from other nations. Take the "Slovak literature" section from Wikipedia as an example where Slovak literary figures born in Thessaloniki (!!!!!) are listed (has Thessaloniki ever been a part of Slovakia by any chance)?

I am sorry if you find my following comment offensive, but I am becoming fed up with the never-ending discussions, in which some editors (I guess the same ones all the time) argue that countries around Hungary miraculously appeared in 1918 despite the fact that their inhabitants had had no other political or cultural identity than Hungarian. I have already seen all sorts of Romantic legends on the Wikipedia’s talk pages, from the alleged Sumerian origin of the Magyars, to the claim that the Magyars flooded the deserted Danube basin even before the Slavs, to the persistent effort to proclaim all the Croats, Slovaks, and Germans living in the former Kingdom of Hungary to be ethnic Magyars. I am sorry, but I have no interest in discussing this nationalistic agenda. You must find yourself another sparing partner. Tankred 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, these countries did not "miraculously appear" but they were artificially created to destroy a thousand year old political, geographic and cultural unity. I am not denying that non-Magyar nationalities (including Slovaks) lived in the Carpathian Basin but I insist that the name "Slovakia" is anachronistic in the Middle Ages, just as the name "France" would be anachronistic to describe Gaul in Roman times. The persons we are discussing here (Balassi, Báthory) could be rightfully called ethnic Magyars not just because of their ethnic origin but also because of their national consciousness.81.182.209.198 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not remove content from Wikipedia. It may be considered to be vandalism. I reverted your last change because you are the only editor trying to cripple the article for the sake of your nationalistic POV (more precisely, your belief that Slovakia did not exist before 1918 and it is an artificial entity, established in order to destroy the Greater Hungary). As you know, this is "a list of Slovaks and of individuals of significance to Slovakia". So, there are many cases belonging both to this and to other lists (e.g. Lajos Kossuth who was of Slovak descent but identified himself with the Hungarian nation or Eugene Cernan who was a Slovak American). Many other people included in the list lived in the multicultural Kingdom of Hungary (which had not been a Magyar nation state until its Magyarization started in the 19th century) and they did not understand "ethnic identity" in its modern exclusive form. A typical example is Bálint Balassi who wrote poetry both in Hungarian and in Slovak. If you stick with your ethnic cleansing of this list, you must be consistent and remove content also from other lists. For example, you can find Mircea Eliade (a Romanian scholar) and Charlemagne (a Frankish, not a French Emperor) in the List of French people. Well, maybe you should also consider removal of all the members of the Croatian Zrinski familly from the List of Hungarians. Or you think, they were ethnic Hungarians, as was Charles Robert, an Italian king of Hungary who belonged to the French House of Anjou, spoke Italian with his Italian advisers and Latin with his subjects (yet is included in the List of Hungarians)? Can you see my point? It is absurd to project your modern exclusive notion of ethnic identity to all historical periods and some individuals were significant to several nations. Tankred 10:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The exact fact is that before the Ottoman occupation, the population of Hungary was largely Hungarian-speaking (i. e. Magyar), I am speaking about 80%, this is proven by tax censuses and mainstream historical research. I am sorry if it is painful to hear that Slovakia did not exist for the most part of history (or you would need to come up with an exact historical proof of the name Slovakia before the 20th century). Expressions like "Slovakia in the Middle Ages" or the "Renaissance in Slovakia" or "Slovak Gothic Architecture" or "Slovak nobility" are clearly nationalist POV, not only because the major exponents of art, culture, and history in the respective territory were clearly not Slovak and they have nothing to do with present Slovakia, since Slovak culture, language evolved not earlier than in the 18-19th century in an essentially Hungarian and German cultural soil. Calling Balassi, or Báthory Slovak is just as incorrect as referring to Julius Caesar as a Frenchman. Moreover, the example of Zrínyi is not correct since (despite their Croatian origin), they had a strong Hungarian consciousness just as it is obvious from their writings, whereas it can be hardly proven that Elizabeth Báthory or Jedlik Ányos or Benyovszky for that matter had any Slovak consciousness. I know it is off-topic here but maybe this "cultural identity theft" is the reason why Hungarian schoolgroups were recently attacked by the police in Pozsony because their teachers wanted to show them the Hungarian relics in our ancient coronation town. Sorry if I sound harsh but you should stay with what you have (bryndza, parenica, Jánosik, Stúr, Bernolák, etc.) and stop messing with our millennial history.

Samo

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)

The problem is that (1) there were no Slovaks in the 7th century (because there were no Czechs, Poles, Russians etc. before the 8/9/10th century, there were just generally "Slavs"), (2) Samo was explicitely Frankish and (3) the Empire of Samo was only partly in a part of what is today Slovakia - in sum, these are too much "buts" (restrictions) to include him in this list. All the other rulers in the list can be characterized as proto-Slovak or Slovak at least under a certain point of view, but not this one. In other words, including Samo is equivalent to including all rulers of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian monarchy in the list. Juro 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. Tankred 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A notice to all Slovak nationalists on this site (whether you are supporters of Matica or Jan Slota), I am giving you one week to prove with exact facts that the Hungarian persons you have listed in this article were indeed famous Slovaks, after this deadline, the gloves come off and your entries will be deleted.

Juraj Tóth

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)

At least you should agree to delete Kossuth from the list since he is the most demonized Hungarian historical figure among Slovak nationalists, most of his statues were destroyed after 1918 in the Felvidék, the remaining ones are subject to constant abuse (Do Kotleba or Slota ring a bell?) 84.2.101.29 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you have raised no objection, I have removed Kossuth from the list 81.182.208.176 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Individuals of significance to Slovakia"

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)

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)

I think this article (and any other Wikipedia articles dealing with the present-day Slovakia) should be carefully reedited to reflect a neutral point of view. It seems to me that at present, there is a Slovak lobby active in Wikipedia trying to slovakize every human being who ever set foot on the soil of the former Felvidék (Upper Hungary) Árpád 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Daar fascist vandal, I think the List of Hungarians, the article Hungary and every single article dealing with the history of Hungary and Hungarian towns should be carefully reeditted to to reflect a neutral point of view. It seems to me that at present, there is a Hungarian lobby active in Wikipedia trying to Hungarian every human being who ever set foot on the soil of the Carpathian Basin. Juro 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Slovakized spelling of foreign (Hungarian) names

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

First sentence

As I can see the first sentence is taking shape, it looks much more objective and clear now (thank you, Tankred). The only point of contention (besides Slovakized spelling) remaining is the title and the definition of the category "Slovak". Using this same standard for Hungarians and Czechs, Joseph Haydn could be called a famous Hungarian (he spent a significant amount of time in Hungary, Kismarton and Eszterháza), or Gustav Mahler could be called a famous Czech, or Pavel Országh a famous Hungarian (he wrote Hungarian poems, translated some works of Petőfi, Madách).

Robert Maxwell is NOT Slovak

The information contained herein about Maxwell being Slovak is absolutely ludicrous. He was born in a town in southeastern RUTHENIA, the province which was annexed to Ukraine in 1945. He never had anything to do with Slovakia. Why do people persist in thinking he is Slovak? His birthplace is 160 KM to the SE of the Slovak border.

Kempelen

Kempelen was not slovak. As I wrote it into the article (before, perhaps slovak nacionalist users deleted it). His father was Engelbert Kempelen and his mother was Anna Spindler. Also: Thököly was hungarian too. Where is, I mean is there any "Ö" in the slovak language?

ridiculous

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)

Rákóczi and Kossuth?

Why are Ferenc Rákóczi and Lajos Kossuth on a list of Slovaks? I can somewhat understand (although strongly disagree with) the rationale for putting Kossuth, with his distant Slovak ancestry, on such a list, but Rákóczi? He had no Slovak blood or identity, ruled in Transylvania...yes, he was born in a town that is NOW part of Slovakia, but if birthplace is the ONLY criterion that determines someone's nationality, then we might as well go put Béla Bartók on the list of Romanians. K. Lásztocska 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is yet unclear here? It states he was born in Slovakia, so what is wrong with that? And this isn't some exhaustive list either, as it is delimited ("famous"). I would otherwise suggest to put this machinery ad acta for now, because what we only have from discussions now are (fuelled) edit wars and heated arguments. But for some it is ideal state, throwing insults... MarkBA ^t/c/@ 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I assure you I have no interest in throwing insults. I merely question whether birthplace ALONE is sufficient reason to put someone on a list of a nationality that was clearly not their own. Had Slovakia existed as an independent (or even quasi-autonomous) state at the time of Rákóczi's birth that would be one thing, but that is clearly not the case. K. Lásztocska 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking. But we could discuss it over and over and still arguments would come up... as of now, two or three arguments could speak "for" - born in Slovakia + career (if we consider counties + uprisings) - and some "against" - Hungarian, never spoke Slovak (if I'm not mistaken), ... Although I see your point, I'm afraid there is a snowball's chance in hell that we will agree on a compromise good for everyone around (in other words, we just agree to disagree now). I'm sure you wouldn't throw insults, but some would... and recent examples reveal that almost exactly. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to throw insults, perhaps you can avoid them in your edit summaries. Instead of explaining your point on this talk page, you summarized your rationale in the curt statement "Slovakia" as such is less than twenty years old. The view that nothing like Slovakia or Slovaks had existed before the political entity called "Slovak Republic" entered the UN in 1993 is kind of offensive. Tankred 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I said "Slovakia AS SUCH", therefore referring explicitly to the current Slovakia. Again you are assigning views to me which I do not hold, and even if you're paranoid about Hungarians, I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. K. Lásztocska 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead is pretty explicit - nationality is not the only criterion. By the way, the criteria are pretty standard in WP. Rákóczi was born in what is now Slovakia. Therefore, he is included in the List of Slovaks. El Cid, Averroes, and Hadrian were born in what is now Spain, so they are included in the List of Spaniards. No one claims they had "Spanish nationality". At the same time, I have never heard about anyone trying to remove them from the List of Spaniards because Spain did not exist when they were born. So, I do not understand why some Hungarian editors are unhappy about the List of Slovaks. Why must you guys interpret everything related to Slovakia in an ethnic way? The list's criteria would work well for any other country, only Slovakia must be a special case. As to your reformulation of the lead, have you actually read it after writing it? I am sure you, as a native speaker and a skillful editor, could easily create something better if you tried. But perhaps an article that you do not like deserves a low-quality opening sentence, so everyone can see it is just a crap. Is this your intention? I am sorry, but I cannot accept the lead in its present weird form, although I do not dispute its content. What exactly did you find unclear in the previous version? And what exactly do you mean by "lands that now belong to Slovakia"? Are we going to put the "lands that now belong to the Republic of Hungary" into every article about Hungary, the "lands that now belong to the Czech Republic" to every article about the Czech Republic, and so one and so forth? Like it or not, all these countries had their borders set only in the 20th century. And why do you consider the formulation "lands that now belong to Slovakia" more meaningful than the words "territory of Slovakia"? Oh, I forgot that Slovakia has no right to exist and the "lands that now belong" to it, should belong to someone else. Tankred 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this list needs to be reworked or split into several lists, since "List of Slovaks" is clearly misleading in lots of cases. You just can't mix all people together without any basis or the list will lose all its meaning. The list should be split to "List of people of Slovak descent" (or List of Slovaks) and to "List of people living in Slovakia" (for those who currently live there regardless of ethnicity) "list of people who lived in Chezoslovakia" etc. Hobartimus 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, please settle down and assume my good faith. You apparently think that I believe Slovakia "has no right to exist." I assure you I believe no such thing: as a liberal nationalist I believe that every nation, including the Slovaks, has the right to independence and self-determination. I also assure you that I was not trying to sabotage the article. In fact, I had no "political" reasons for pointing out my objections to the list as it currently stands, and as it currently stands it is often misleading. Rákóczi is a prime example of the problem: he was born in what is now Slovakia, but that is all. He was not of Slovak blood or any allegiance to the Slovaks per se. However, putting him on a list entitled "List of SLOVAKS" implies that he was either an ethnic Slovak (false) or a citizen of Slovakia (impossible, as Slovakia did not exist as a separate entity during his lifetime.) How much clearer do I have to make my objections? K. Lásztocska 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I let your edit summary convince me that you meant to be offensive. I know you are a good and civil editor. As to this article, the criteria are only as vague as in other similar lists. I pointed out the example of the List of Spaniards that uses the place of birth as one of the criteria. Why should the List of Slovaks be more restrictive than other lists on Wikipedia? I would like also to know why you prefer the "lands that today comprise Slovakia" to the "territory of Slovakia". Tankred 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I do not see any reason why this list should use more restrictive criteria than other similar lists, I rewrote the lead using the leads of similar lists (Spaniards, Irish people, Latvians, Romanian Jews, Polish Jews, Romanians) as a model. The criteria are now explicitly listed, in a way that is standard in this type of articles. Tankred 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such standard and even if there was nothing could justify listing Hungarians who have nothing to do with Slovaks in a "List of Slovaks", that is simply unacceptable. Hobartimus 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The List of Spaniards does not really apply here. Why do we talk about Reconquista (Reconquest) when it comes to the History of Spain? We may refer to people who were born in the period of Moor occupation as Spanish. The Slovak part of Czechoslovakia was founded on the past territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. Why do you always mix different issues and present them as general truths? Squash Racket 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Double standard, dear. What is allowed to one isn't allowed to the other? Very interesting... And can all of you stop harassing Slovak-related topics? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just explained why you shouldn't compare the two, dear. Right now you are the ones falsificating Hungarian history, please don't call that our 'harassment'.

'Rodrigo (or Ruy) Díaz de Vivar known as El Cid Campeador, was a Castilian nobleman(...) became the alférez, or chief general, of Alfonso VI, fighting against the Moors in the early Reconquista. Well, maybe he belongs on the List of Spaniards. Maybe that also proves our point. Squash Racket 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Raising concerns over accuracy is "harassment"? K. Lásztocska 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider inaccurate? Spain did not exist in 1126, so it could not be occupied, as Squash Racket suggested. Averroes, born in 1126 (when Spain did not exist), was an Anadalusian-Arab, so he even did not come from any of the later constituent states of Spain. However, you can find him on the List of Spaniards. The reason is that he meets a standard criterion: the place of birth in what is now Spain. The List of Spaniards explicitly includes people who "were born in Spain or in the territory of present-day Spain, but who were not or are not Spanish citizens (either because Spain did not exist at the time of their life...". Similarly, the List of Irish people includes individuals "who were born on the island of Ireland and/or who have lived there for most of their lives". There are more examples like this. Since other lists clearly use the place of birth within the modern borders of a country as one of the criteria, this lists does the same. And yes, K. Lásztocska, opposition to this criterion here while other lists are all right for you, seems to be just harassment of Slovakia-related articles. Tankred 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you call what happened to Spain if not Moor occupation? It was originally a Muslim Arab state? Have you seen this: List of Hungarians who were born outside present-day Hungary? For "harassment of articles" see for example Bálint Balassa page history. Squash Racket 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus reverted this version of the lead:

This is a list, in alphabetical order within categories, of notable people who either:

* are or were citizens of Slovakia,

* are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,

* were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives.

to this version:

This list includes famous individuals with Slovak ancestry and/or identity or people who were born or spent a significant part of their life (and/or career) in lands that today comprise Slovakia.

The content is the same, but the form is totally different. Whoever support the short and badly written version, please state your reasons why you consider it superior to the bulleted list of criteria worded similarly to other lists of this type on WP. If there is no other reason than to annoy Slovak editors, I am going to revert it back. Tankred 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Tankred, don't be so pretentious and don't annoy Hungarian editors please. He just wanted to delete Rákóczi, Kossuth and Jedlik Ányos from the list without multiple reverts, because you restored them while writing a misleading edit summary. Squash Racket 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are doing, but this has gone to the level of proving a point. Repeat: all three are/were listed because they were born in (present-day) Slovakia. And such criterion is also part of the other lists, so don't make exceptions. Period. And you are the ones annoying Slovak editors in the form of harassing et cetera. Find yourself another hobby or consider your attitude to editing, because some of your opinions are looking like those in year 1907. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kossuth was born in Monok, Hungary. I just gave a simple explanation for what Hobartimus did, because I think the situation was misrepresented. Then you, the 'good faith' editor basically tell me to go away? You consider this very serious discussion harassment? All Hungarians here are outraged for no reason, they just enjoy torturing innocent Slovak editors? Squash Racket 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I forgot to add "Slovak ancestry". But the rest is still true. What we basically have now is Magyarization, largely hidden under "accuracy" rationale, except for some cases. I don't know why Hungarians can't live with this situation, that they can't rule over others forever. Addendum: this doesn't mean that the "outside" list is an exclusive place for this kind of information. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You add Hungarian national heroes to a list of Slovaks, then when we try to take those inaccurate additions off, you accuse us of wanting to "rule over other people forever." Is your national ego really so fragile that you have to falsify history to make yourselves look more impressive? Kossuth and Rákóczi were not Slovaks. Deal with it. For my part, I am now withdrawing from this debate as I can see it's quite pointless trying to argue my point if I'm just going to get accused of chauvinism and imperialism. K. Lásztocska 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, withdraw, but that will not lead to a solution. All I have expressed is a sad reality. To be precise, I HAVEN'T added a single Hungarian to this list. And I am sorry that you have slid into accusing me of rewriting history, sorry, but I'm not a member of Slovak National Party and don't support them for most parts, I'm not like the former User:Juro. All I want that some of you should reconsider their attitude to Slovaks and respect their opinion. If you do, then we'll do as well. If you don't, as is happening now (reverting), then it's your problem. But I won't stop editing Wikipedia just because some can't respect our opinions and values. Back to the topic, I'm still opposed to the original goal of this discussion, meaning removal of all H. from the list. It just doesn't work in all cases.

Off topic:Guess who started wide-spread argument over Beneš decrees? Neither of us. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Off topic:Yes, I also think it's a shame a user from Canada had to deny all the 'facts' presented by a certain user point by point at an official RfC. The Beneš decrees are still not mentioned by name in that article as not important enough, so Wikipedia is one step closer now towards becoming a real encyclopedia. Squash Racket 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe me some who voiced their opinion here think of Slovakization now. Please don't make a revisionist accusation out of this, this is history, not present day politics. The lead is OK now, title still misleading. If you would be an American and see a list like that, what would you think about Kossuth, Rákóczi and Jedlik Ányos? And don't come with WP:Othercrapexists. Squash Racket 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to urge my good Slovak friends to refrain from assumptions of bad faith. I have temporarily reverted to Tankred's version of the lead simply because, as he points out, it is clearer, more specific, and better-written. This version of the article includes Kossuth et. al. simply because they DO in fact fall under the criteria for calling someone a Slovak on this list (so at least it's internally consistent.) My main objection, however, still stands: do you really think it's accurate to refer to someone born in territory that is NOW part of the Slovak Republic but was THEN part of some completely other country AS A SLOVAK? (In short my objection is to the aforementioned criteria themselves.) I seriously doubt the validity and accuracy of such a practice, for precisely the same reasons that we don't have Béla Bartók on a List of Romanians. K. Lásztocska 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC) One more point: just because similar criteria are used on other lists doesn't make them any better (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) K. Lásztocska 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. In your case I don't assume bad faith, but I can't do that for some. I see your point and it's quite true that isn't very correct to call like, let's say, Rakoczi, a Slovak because he was born in Slovakia. However, as pointed out, you could remove Hadrian or Averroes from the list of Spaniards using the same reason, and I don't think that they should be removed altogether. One possible solution would be to either create a "special" section for people born in Slovakia but not having any Slovak nationality or ancestors (but I doubt this will pass), or to move all this into e.g. a list named "List of famous/notable people born in (present-day) Slovakia" or similar. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, "List of people born in present-day Slovakia" or something to that effect would be clumsy, but at least it's more accurate. K. Lásztocska 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument is getting downright silly using Hadrian and all. After taking a look at this so-called "list of spaniards", it has very little activity, close to no discussion at the talk page, in other words it's a low-quality list edited by a few ppl who do whatever they want with it and fill it with nonsense like the instances qouted above. If we look at the actual Hadrian article, a much higher quality article it correctly has the Category Romans from Hispania, instead of the incorrect and nonsense Spaniard classification. Anyone with even a small amount of respect for history would never put a Roman emperor on the list of Spaniards, and the fact that this nonsense here is brought up as an example to follow tells everything about how unreal this discussion is. Romans from Hispania (Hispania, not Spain) is exactly the correct classification as can be seen from the actual Hadrian article. It's unfortunate that some here are so intrested in deliberately MISLEADING the readers. Hobartimus 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, we already have List of Hungarians who were born outside present-day Hungary, take a look. Squash Racket 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I added Kant to famous Russians and Guttenberg to famous French, but Rakoczi I do not understand, I think both part of his ancestors are related to Transylvania, so he must be famous Vlach.., good to know at least that the good Martin (Saint according to the Catholics) of Szombathely is Hungarian together with Arany Mark who died at Szöny as the only Hungarian Augustus Philosopher fighting the Slovaks..--Vargatamas 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

once more I knew that Balassi has some Turkish poems, that are printed in his Hungarian edition, but the Slovak ones are missing from this nationalistic edition..

must be recent findings(!), and Moravia are bound to Slovaks only in Slovakian History books, some say it was in Austria, later in today Moravia, interesting very sporty.

Now I read the Fulda Annals, the official Frankish Carolingian record, and found no word on Balaton principality, only that Svato plundered Pannonia 10 years before that Barbars came..

do not worry, also Croats (like Dux Braslav, Liudovit both between Sava and Drava, but etnichally SK), Franks, Ruthens etc become Slovaks, not only Hungarians Jedlik might be Slovak or Czech, or Polish, and Slovaks were living around Budapest and in Bekes, or in Voivodina,

!and better would be check the facts than use our phantasy, letting people decide who they were (Kossuth might have Slovak ancestors, but may have felt Hungarian, Juli Toth the way around, use the surviving records and their statement and do not invent, please put ancestry/feeling/birthplace/language skills one by one with the weighted average that everyone see why who is what. Thanks!--Vargatamas 22:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting about all of this is how passionate both sides feel about this topic. I am Hungarian and I have to admit that we tend not to see past our own noses sometimes. Let's face it, the people who lived in the Carpatho-Danubian region have a shared history whether they're slovak, croatian, romanian, german, hungarian or armenian for that matter. What tends to be a little obscure or confusing is who gets to call who what. I personally don't mind that slovaks co-opt Rakoczi for instance or thokoly or balassa or kossuth etc... i'm certainly willing to share but what is missing perhaps from all of this is a bit of context. I think if you were to put Kossuth et all in context, Hungarians would not feel quite as threatened about their (my) own identity. Because really we are talking about history after all and if the underlying context is missing from the description, someone who doesn't have any idea about slovak or hungarian history might interpret these lists inappropriately. So to say Kossuth is a Hungarian-Slovak is a little misleading, a more accurate description of Kossuth would be to say that he was a Hungarian National Leader with an alleged Slovak ancestry. Alleged, only because he questioned this more than once as well. Or take Rakoczi for example; he could be listed as a Hungarian Transylvanian Prince who organized slovak regiments against Hapsburg rule in upper hungary. Just simply listing these historical figures as Hungarian Slovaks or Slovak Hungarians is in my opinion missing the point of context. Now having said that I am flattered as a Hungarian that Slovaks would call a son of Hungary also a son of slovakia. So in the end these lists for me do not provide the right context for a real interpretation of history, but i think it is right to say that rakoczi for instance had an influence on the slovak people living in upper hungary during the kuruc rebellions. now that i could live with. --Csango 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

page name

Since there's apparently next to no chance of ever getting people like Rákóczi (or other Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Moravians and who knows what else, whose only connection to Slovakia is that they were born in what is now Slovakia) off this list, can we at least rename the page to a less-misleading title? "List of people born in present-day Slovakia," or something--I don't have time to look around right now but I believe such a title would be not without precedent. K. Lásztocska^talk 04:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this. A Slovak Prince of Transylvania called Rákoczi. Great. If Romanians had known this, the Little Entente would have never been created. :-)

Princes of Great Moravia were Slovaks, too, of course. And rulers of the Balaton Principality were Slovaks too.

And would you believe this: The First Lady of Slovakia is Slovak by birth! --KIDB (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also support to rename the page to "List of people born in present-day Slovakia". This would be correct and not misleading, and perhaps also neutral and acceptable for all. --Koppany (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The title and composition of this list are quite standard in Wikipedia, see the lengthy discussion above. Moreover, the list does not include only people "born in present-day Slovakia". Tankred (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind this either but if the title stays as it is, people like Rákóczi should obviously not defined as Slovaks.--KIDB (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Tankred's comment: "standard" does not necessarily mean "accurate." Moreover, the situation in Central Europe is a rather unique one given how much the borders have been moved around over the past few centuries. K. Lásztocska^talk 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Page move proposal to rename this page to "List of people born in present-day Slovakia" as proposed by K. Lastochka :

Supporting the move:

1. Support Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this? I do not see any reason for a survey of this kind. Do you want to quantify the lack of consensus on this page? The proposed name is nonsense because the list includes three categories of people, as specified in the lead. The current name and the composition of this list are standard. Even if your proposal for some strange reason succeeded, the list would be moved back because its current name is in accordance with the naming conventions. Hobartimus, you are wasting time of good editors. Tankred (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your highly offensive and uncivil comments made above and elsewhere on this talk page aside, I will only point out that I did not propose anything here merely formalized an existing idea into a survey to gauge support and opposition to it as is very much standard practice here on Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Based on the definition in the lead perhaps List of people related to Slovakia would be more acceptable? Squash Racket (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I support the move but can accept also the above proposal: List of people related to Slovakia. --Koppany (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposing the move:

1. Very strong oppose - sorry, but this time I have to intervene. If you wish, you may create a separate list under "List of people (of non-Slovak origin) born in present-day Slovakia" and throw out "problematic" personalities there and leave that link as a "see also" here, but do not simply move the whole list. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. The current title of this article is standard in Wikipedia. The proposed removal of the name "List of Slovaks" from Wikipedia is just another pathetic attempt to deny the existence and history of the Slovak nation. Wake up, people, it is 2007, not 1907. The borders in Europe are not going to change any time soon. Tankred (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, as far as I know borders between Slovakia and Hungary will disappear in 3 days. Never mind. --KIDB (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, please. That is an utterly absurd accusation. Please refrain from such unprofessional behavior. I've stated my position on this issue at least a dozen times, but I can re-iterate it if you insist. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But I must ask you: do all of you have better use of your time than to suggest stupid ideas? When I see such proposal, I guess not so I can hardly assume good faith in you. I've already suggested a solution, but moving the whole list just because of some issues is absolutely silly. Sorry, but I can't say anything else to this behaviour. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No more degrading words please, it was not us who made the list this way. Squash Racket (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, no one deny the history and existence of the Slovak nation. I am proud of my grandma's strapachka :-), but this list in this form is simply not accurate and it is misleading. If you insist to include people that obviously were not Slovaks, than you should acept the move, or if you insist on the title name you should remove the "problematic" persons. --Koppany (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Koppány, that is called brinzové halušky you are talking about. Only Hungarians call it sztrapacska. One of the best foods available in the Carpathian Basin. I only buy Slovak sheep cheese because it is much better than the one produced in Hungary. You are right, there are things Slovaks can be proud of. Their economic performance has been great recently, too. But calling a traditional Hungarian noble family Slovak, just because II. Rákóczi Ferenc was born in a former multicultural region today part of Slovakia... Sounds a bit strange for me. --KIDB (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's no personal attack; it's just a summary of what we are seeing here. You wouldn't be very happy if I'd move List of Hungarians or whichever similar list using the same reason to List of people born in present-day Hungary (or any other country). So I got to insist on the current name, otherwise you're vilifying us. I hope you want to spend your time improving articles than to suggesting such ideas. If you even take this as a personal attack, keep in mind that I don't have anything against Hungarians in general; I just don't like such nationalism and "imperialism" as is often seen here. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the List of Hungarians seems to contain Hungarians. You are reluctant to remove Hungarians from this list, so in its present form the title is still misleading. You think you could put this list into Britannica with that title? Squash Racket (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MarkBA, I hope you won't call me an imperialist who doesn't consider you equal (as your user page says), but it is clear: if you don't want Rákóczi to be deleted, the article title has to be changed. Lástochka is better in English than us and she can tell you: List of Slovaks means a list of people who are ethnic Slovaks. I hope you agree with me about Rákóczi not having been ethnic Slovak. Anyway, I personally don't mind if you think he was Slovak, but unfortunately this is unscientific way of thinking which is (should be) alien for Wikipedia.--KIDB (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed about Rakoczi being an ethnic Slovak and almost whole of the list isn't mine either. But there is still that third criterion that says he was born in present-day Slovakia, and as such it is still valid as it stands now, about which nonsense about moving this page is revolving. I've said, the best solution would be to move such cases into "List of people of non-Slovak origin in present-day Slovakia" and everyone would be at least somehow happy, but moving whole list is just nonsense and most likely controversial move. Personally, I don't wonder that Tankred has said such harsh words; he must have had enough with VinceB and others, regardless if they are IPs or registered users. Though, it seems that almost anything edited by now-banned User:Juro is quite often controversial to you in some way.MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'd ask you to refrain from such comments. You say Tankred had enough of Hobartimus, KIDB, Koppany, K. Lásztocska, all IPs, and everyone previously involved in this discussion? So he is entitled to use harsh words?? Also is it my fault when a banned user's old edits often seem to be unacceptable but are defended by other users? I was not here, when those edits were made. Squash Racket (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(just re-indenting here...) OK. Here's how I see it. To refer to someone simply as a Slovak, I think, that person would have to be either an ethnic Slovak or a citizen of Slovakia. (or both, but you get my point.) If someone is of some other ethnicity (Hungarian, Croat, German, whatever) and was born/lived in a region that is part of Slovakia NOW but was not part of Slovakia at the time that the person in question lived, then that person cannot with any accuracy be called a Slovak. It's just bad history. I don't care what the three criteria at the top of the page say, the criteria are bad ones and lead only to historical inaccuracy and misrepresentation. And I suppose that I too must (again) officially and for the record state that I do not oppose the existence of Slovakia or deny the existence of the Slovak nation in the slightest. I love my ethnic Slovak relatives very dearly as well. My objections to the scope of this list are purely academic and I would appreciate it if you would treat them as such. K. Lásztocska^talk 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How bad my English is. I thought Slovak means ethnicity and Slovakian is a person who lives in Slovakia.--KIDB (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well actually that's more correct, but if I insisted on that, nobody would even bother discussing the issue anymore. K. Lásztocska^talk 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nice you don't hate us, but that still doesn't give answer to my question. I think the best solution for both sides is to throw out such personalities into separate list named as suggested above. If you'd move this, that would be very rude of you and one-sided. Although I think the best sign would be calling off this survey and accept some solution that is good for both of us, looks like I have to wait for a meteor shower to be of some effect. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A separate list would be fine by me, if you insist. I'd just as soon take out all the inaccurate entries and have this really be a list of Slovaks, and not bother with the list for everyone else who ever set foot in Félvidek or Great Moravia or whatever, but I'm sure such an action would just get me branded some sort of Slovak-hating ultranationalist. Right? K. Lásztocska^talk 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how you would define Slovaks and Hungarians in the 16th century, when ethnicity played little if any role and it was in most cases impossible to measure. Having witnessed some Hungarian editors adding the word "Hungarian" to every article on subjects of the King of Hungary and removing the word "Slovak" from the same articles, I guess the definition of a Hungarian should be as broad as possible (i.e. territorial) and the definition of a Slovak should be as restricted as possible (i.e. self-identification). I am not calling it "ultranationalism" as you have suggested, but it surely is an interesting discrepancy. I oppose any criteria that would be more restrictive than in other similar lists of Europeans. Tankred (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is my proposal: Why don't we specify for each entry whether the person was born in Slovakia, lived there, was a Slovak citizen or was of Slovak descent? For example, there would be a small note that Kossuth was of Slovak descent or that Elizabeth Bathory lived in what is now Slovakia. No readers would be mistaken. I think this solution would make everyone happy. Tankred (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be better than what we have currently. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is English Wki, "to someone simply as a Slovak, I think, that person would have to be either an ethnic Slovak or a citizen of Slovakia." is not the case in how American is commonly used. No one investigates people's citizenship or ethnicity in order to call them that, their presence, often very temporary, is enough. To use a Central European−American example, American sources commonly see Dvorak as an American without denying his other attributes although he spent barely 3 years in the US and the way he spoke bore little resemblance to English. Wki's List of Americans might be a model of solving this, but it would then probably need to become the policy for all the Wki lists, not just for the lists of Hungarians and Slovaks. That would be so much work and generate so many new controversies (who'd fail to argue about Martin of Braga's supposedly Slavic parents?) that it might be more efficient (plus fashionably inclusive) to accept multiple listings of the same person instead of seeing it as an either-or proposition. Rakoczi will rest in peace more peacefully if he stars on the lists of Hungarians, Slovaks, Transylvanians, Romanians, Non-ethinc Nobles, Invaders, Defenders, Patriots, Seccessionists, Dead White Men... at the same time. Who'd want to be on only one list. Carca220nne (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen a single English-language source refer to Antonin Dvorak as an American. So there's a problem in your argument right there. K. Lásztocska^talk 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see no reason for any change here. The preamble of article states: "This is a list, in alphabetical order within categories, of notable people who either: are or were citizens of Slovakia,are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry, were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives." In my view this is absolutely correct. If you wanted to give name including all these 3 cases, the name would be simply too long. All alternative suggestions of name here were small subsets of the preamble text. Although the name of article is very short, this preamble gives the right interpretation and it seems to be the best possible name. If anybody wants to have more specific list, in my view he is free to make it, e.g. by making appropriate subset from the present list. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"I have never seen a single English-language source refer to..."

That is merely a statement of an irrelevant fact in this context, not a counterargument. Whether an inidividal saw such a source is immaterial. A counterargument, although wrong, would be to claim that such references don't exist. But they do. Dvorak is commonly listed under American composers, e.g., Eight American Composers Festival, or, e.g., "Dvorak ought to be the American composer [to preserve folk-songs]" in a book on Dvorak, and there are many more − instances when Dvorak is referred to as American are common along with references to him being Bohemian, European, and what not.

A vast number of people associated with the US in various, often transitory, ways are commonly attributed as American and, conversely, there are vast numbers of those who maintain and proclaim their "foreign" heritage generations after their ancestors immigrated while embracing their "American" identity at the same time, and no one is any poorer for that. There are tons of people from multiple lists among those on the List of Americans, and so are among Wki's contributors. So let's not make the mistake of allowing ourselves all kinds of identities, but denying them to dead Central Europeans. Carca220nne (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Identities are not always exclusive and there is no Wikipedia's policy against overlapping lists. No one has made a convincing argument here why this particular list should use more restrictive criteria than List of Americans, List of French people, List of Spaniards, List of Irish people, and other similar lists. Tankred (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem starts when someone tries to falsify the identity of individuals, multiple identities are possible, but not everyone has them, what about the falsified identities jammed down our throat? To use your example we are "allowing ourselves all kinds of identities" but we do NOT allow others to force foreign identities on us or lie to others about our identities. Should we just allow deliberately placed false and misleading information into Wikipedia? That is the real question here. Hobartimus (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You think you could put this list into Britannica with that title? Nobody answered that very simple question. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Why couldn't one do? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody answered that very simple question."
"That is the real question here."

No. The only real question in this discussion was the following proposal just a couple of screens up: "Page move proposal to rename this page to 'List of people born in present-day Slovakia,'" not an infinite regress of shifting topics.

---- Should we want to shapeshift the topic to this new one, then the first step would have to be to establish who's qualified to correctly determine whether someone's identity has indeed been falsified. We'd first have to make sure that it's not "determined" by people who grant themselves the same right to "falsification" by claiming that they are, say, "Slabonians" without having been born in Slabonia, without native fluency in Slabonian, without having lived in Slabonia for an extended period of time, and without an ethnic-like mastery of the Slabonian cultural context. Or, if we accept such claims by our contemporaries who reserve the right to be Slabonians without passing such tests, and I'm all for such broad acceptance, then let's not waste any more time with worries about a "falsification" of a long-dead person's identity (although s/he "wasn't born in X" or "didn't speak X" or "knew little about X") by merely putting him or her on a list. Carca220nne (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes we allow ourselves to pick identity, but would YOU allow others to pick an unwanted identity for you and then spread it around like it was true? Will you allow others to pick the Slabonian identity for you and put you on a list of Slabonians? How about if we switch Slabonian with extremists, fascist, or other unwanted identity would you be fine with that? Or would you say "Hey thats crazy thats just an outright lie, you should not lie to others about me". Why should we allow false information to enter Wikipedia? If you want to make up an identity for yourself, go ahead, I have no problem with that, but when you start making up one for others, we have a problem. False, misleading information should not be in Wikipedia period. Hobartimus (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An interview with the last Prince of Transylvania

I think the best solution would be to ask Rákóczi personally: - Your Excellency, Prince of Transylvania, please accept the assurances of my highest consideration. If I may introduce myself, I am KIDB, I am coming from the 21st century Hungary. I have question to ask, very urgently. Are you a Slovak? - My son, I am so glad to see you. Tell me please, could we win against the bastard Labanc Armies (Habsburg supporters) and unite Transylvania with Hungary under my leadership? ... What did you say? Slovak? I heard the Tót pepople in the villages in my northern estates calling themselves Slovak but why do you ask? - Sir, I am sorry to inform you, but you couldn't win against the Habsburgs. And by the way, you were the last Prince of Transylvania. But after centuries of conflicts, we finally made a compromise with the Austrians in the 19th century. - That's very sad. And why did you ask about Slovaks? - Well, Sir, I am extremely sorry to inform you, but we lost Northern Hungary in the 20th century, along with most of your estates over there. Now the whole area is ruled by Tót (Slovak) people. I know you are not too much interested in ethnicities, but you would be surprised anyway that almost nobody speaks Hungarian in Kassa and Pozsony today. These cities are now called Kosice and Bratislava. - Oh my goodness. Now I realise you are a liar and a spy of the Habsburgs. This must not be true. Servants! Take this person and execute him immediately! --KIDB (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As ridiculous as the whole "discussion" here. I really liked your anachronistic sentences "we lost Northern Hungary", "the whole area is ruled by Tót (Slovak) people", "almost nobody speaks Hungarian in Kassa and Pozsony today". I doubt a mostly Latin-speaking magnate would consider descendants of Hungarian peasants any closer to him than descendants of Slovak peasants. And I doubt a mostly Latin-speaking magnate would use modern Hungarian names of two German-Slovak-Hungarian (in this order) cities you refer to. But this short text at least shows what people trying to remove the List of Slovaks from Wikipedia think about Slovaks. I believe we do not need any more discussions here because there is no way how Hungarians and Slovaks can bridge this huge gap in knowledge and understanding of each other. Tankred (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not say I want to remove the list of Slovaks from Wikipedia. I don't think anybody said this. Anyway, I hope there are many people who understand the above joke better than you and don't want to misinterpret it in order to prove how bad those people are who do not agree with you. And I am glad you think my senteces were anachronistic because (an explanation for you) the whole story was put back into the 18th century. --KIDB (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism = one that is out of its proper or chronological order. Tankred (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, KIDB, I laughed--good one. :) Tankred, it's informative to know that you believe Hungarians and Slovaks will "never bridge this huge gap in knowledge and understanding of each other." If that's how you're going to be, then we might as well not even try. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"that's how you're going to be"? No, I was talking about each and every one of us. You have not showed much of understanding of the other side either. Let us start with the joke that made you laugh. Try to read it again, replacing "Slovak people" with "Black people", "Tót" with "Niggers", and "Northern Hungary" with the "South". Still as funny as before? I hope this little exercise will give you some cultural context that you and your buddies here lack. We perceive things differently and two years of sporadic yet heated clashes like this one have made me skeptical about the merit of endless debates that rarely lead to a compromise. Since I am leaving for a vacation right now, I wish Merry Christmas to everyone. Tankred (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your delusional rantings should stop now. You really do need a reality check before you start comparing words you have no idea about. Since you are not a native speaker of English I strongly suggest you educate yourself before comparing any other word to the n-word. You could also take a few reputable English language sources and compare them with your own sometimes extreme position and instantly find reason for these so called "clashes" you so often find yourself involved in. I really wonder if Britannica would classify Rákóczi as "slovak" (a position you continued to argue here for months). Hobartimus (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are just proving my point. Before you urge me to "educate" myself, perhaps you should ask someone about how the word "Tót" is perceived in Slovakia. Tankred (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, Lástochka is able to laugh at it because she knows I did not want to hurt anybody with this short story which, after a second readig, doesn't seem to be the best one I have ever written :-) Anyway, I still hope we will be able to have fun together of our nationalistic past with you sooner or later and build our future together (we will spend the next 1000 years in each other's neighbourhood, hopefully). --KIDB (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not live in Slovakia (or in the regional neighborhood:-), I have the same hopes. Tankred (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But all we have reached is: we agree that we disagree. I'll just repeat my position: I've never claimed about Rakoczi being an ethnic Slovak, the only reason why he's listed here is that he was BORN in present-day Slovakia. No more, no less. Though, the best and least confusing is to mark the reason at such cases why they're listed here; but moving whole list is a silly thing to do and could imply that you question or worse deny existence of another nation.

So maybe it could look like this (example):

1. Francis II Rákóczi (1676-1735) - Prince of Transylvania, led the Hungarian estates in an uprising against the Habsburgs in 1703-11; born in Borša but not born as a Slovak or not having a Slovak ancestry. (addition italicized)

It's not best but still better than nothing. If you don't even accept this one, I suggest we should put the whole thing off for 2-3 weeks, because I hope you don't want to war during holidays. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, this doesn't seem to be the perfect solution for me. But if you allow me a question, I would be glad to hear about why Rákóczi is important for Slovaks. I heard he is a kind of national hero for you too, but I don't know the details. I tried to have a look at Rákóczi on the Slovakian Wikipedia but there is not too much there about him. Or you could include a couple of sentences in the Rákóczi article in the English Wikipedia about the participation of Slovaks in the uprising if there are any reliable sources. --KIDB (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should celebrate him as a hero... rather quite a lot of damage and plague in the end. But that's off-topic. If you're not fully satisfied with this solution, what's better then? Moving this page is very inappropriate and fairly arrogant against Slovaks, as explained above, other solution is to keep the current name but throw out "problematic" personalities into separate list, and now marking these cases as not having Slovak nationality or ancestors. Do you have a better solution that I haven't seen? Otherwise I think the third is the best solution, second is at least "normal" solution for both sides. I hope you want to end this dispute with some compromise so everyone would be happy. Or am I mistaken because someone enjoys warring? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically I am trying to understand your way of thinking. I am very much surprised that you insist keeping a person on your list who is not Slovak. He spent his childhood in a region which is today part of Ukraine, later he was brought to Austria. His ancestors were Hungarian nobles of Transylvania, he was ruling prince of Hungary and Transylvania. Where is the point in his CV which would convince me he was Slovak?--KIDB (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We have List of Hungarians who were born outside present-day Hungary, we just have to decide who belongs there from this list. Squash Racket (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No way. And link forgotten somewhere, right? Remember it's not only about Hungarians. But what would make me most glad is that all of you would restrict your peering into Slovak topics and care more about your "home" ones. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would stop your absurd insistence on claiming Rákóczi as a Slovak, we wouldn't even have to be "peering into Slovak topics." You are the ones who have made this a Hungarian issue as well. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastochka, I don't want to go out too much, but you aren't obviously reading the discussion properly. I have NEVER claimed Rakoczi being a Slovak (repeating myself again), all he has to do with Slovakia is that he was born and (off-topic) most fights were in present-day Slovakia AFAIK. Another mistake: most of the list isn't mine, and I haven't added any of the "controversial" personalities, so please don't accuse me of nationalism. You'd better look at the history page and find the ones who added them. Back to the topic, at least this has some flow; now the question is: who is to be taken away? I've also though if a title like "List of (famous) people (of non-Slovak origin) in present-day Slovakia" wouldn't be much more appropriate so cases like Moses Sofer can be included. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see we've come right back around to where we started. Allow me to again re-iterate my position, which certain people here seem intent on misunderstanding: There is a discrepancy between the title of this page and its contents. As KIDB reminded me, the word "Slovak" refers specifically to a person of Slovak ethnicity. The criteria for inclusion on this list, however, are much more general and vague. Therefore the title is incorrect.

But enough of that, I've had enough of beating that particular dead horse. As for a potential way forward: thinking back again to KIDB's clarification of the difference between the terms "Slovak" and "Slovakian," I put forth that even "List of Slovakians" would potentially be a much better name. There are still people on this current list who do not belong on any list of Slovaks OR Slovakians, but at least it would be a step towards accuracy and consistency. K. Lásztocska^talk 03:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really cool. Someone who's last name is an Ukrainian word for "swallow" then acts as Pure Hungarian Patriot...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.59.137 (talk • contribs)

Not that I need to explain myself to an IP troll, but it's not my real name. It's a nom de plume I chose about four years ago simply because I thought it sounded cool. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the words "Slovak" and "Slovakian" are synonyms. Tankred (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I could accept the proposal of MarkBA, to create a separate list. One thing that remains is that we should outline who would be transferred to the new list of "List of people born in present-day Slovakia". This proposal can only be understood and later voted on if we know exactly who will be removed from this list and placed on the other list. Hobartimus (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading Tankred's arguments I reached the conclusion that he is partly right. The Kingdom of Hungary (Uhorsko) was a multi-ethnic state and it is very difficult to decide one's nationality before 19th century. Before 1918 everybody was Hungarian (uhorsky), all people who lived before this date should be labeled as Hungarian, except if there is an evidence that he or she considered himself or herself to be part of another nation. Practically this is applied for persons living today as well. If someone living in present-day Slovakia has an article in Wikipedia he/she is labeled as Slovak, unless he expressed his different national identification. So people like Anton Bernolák should be considered Slovak because he was acting as a Slovak, but eg. András Hadik never said he was a Slovak. --Koppany (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

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)

That's basically what I've been trying to get at--thanks for expressing it so clearly. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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) USA or even was born there of Slovak parents.

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. Lásztocska^talk 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it systematically first-

C1 - Citizenship: "are or were citizens of Slovakia"

C2 - Ethnicity: "are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry"

C3 - Geo-nativity: "were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives"

What does C3 capture that are not captured by C1 and C2? Lots of non-Slovaks. C1 and C2 are uncontroversially correct (except I would rephrase C2 to omit "identity or" as that can be purely subjective - e.g. I wouldn't include George Patton on a list of Roman Centurions) The examples of emigrants, e.g. Slovak-Americans are included by C2. Tankred's questions a. Why should this list use more restrictive criteria than other similar lists in Wikipedia? and b. How [should one] assess ethnicity of people born before the modern concept of the nation was created? My answers: a. It is already more specific, arguably restrictive. Browse this and see that in most cases inclusion criteria is generally not given or is simply generalized or left to common sense; secondly a. is addressed by b. as Slovakia, one of Europe's special cases, existed as an independent nation since 1993 (happy 15th birthday btw). b. What about before the concept of nation was established? how far back are we to go? At the extreme, we should certainly not include neolithics who lived in present-day Slovakia, more recently there was the 1000 years when Slovakia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (even when present-day Hungary itself wasn't) But I dont think that's the issue. Including Rákóczi is a red flag that something is not right and I think its including people who are neither ethnically or formally Slovak. If such a criteria were acceptable then Hungarians sould claim this notable as a compatriot, though nobody really does. (except people from Szombathely). István (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! I think the best solution would be the following: create a new list of'Famous people of the Kingdom of Hungary from 896-1919'. Every mentioned person should appear on this list pointing on his originality, mother's tongue, birth place(just if these are known...) From 1919 every separate country has to have his own list of his famous people, but the every of them should be connected, linket to the above mentioned list. If there will be people that could appear on both lists(f.e they lived in nearby 1919), it can be decided that on which list should they appear.

I think there is no point argueing about their nationality as it wasn't the main caracteristic of them(so much more it was their ranking,religion or nobility). (Sorry for my poor english) - KaracharNevian (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with István and K. Lastochka. Slovaks should be listed here only. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Lásztocska^talk 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

False information?!

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)ű

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps being born in Bratislava and studing there is enough. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Detailed edit summary

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)

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)

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)

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)

page move discussion

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. Lásztocska^talk 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dispute centralized

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)

Inclusion criteria

(posts from April 17-18, 2008 were copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment)

There is a major disagreement about content of this list. The core of dispute is in my view rooted in the definitions of the inclusion criteria. One side prefers the following three-condition-start

This is a list, in alphabetical order within categories, of notable people who either:

• are or were citizens of Slovakia or Czechoslovakia,
• are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,
• were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives.

while the other side prefers the followinf two-conditions-start

This is a list of notable people who either:

• are or were citizens of Slovakia or Czechoslovakia,
• are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,

There are some other points within article repeatedly reverted, including in my view virtually non-disputed points, but the inclusion criteria should be made clear first. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruziklan.  :) Can you provide some links to where this has been discussed at the talkpage? Or is this another one where the disagreement is mainly going on via edit-warring? Also, could you please post a note at the talkpage there, linking people to this discussion? Thanks, Elonka 13:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed at the talk page see in this thread This is only distantly related though one connection is that it was brought up on talk of WP:Slovakia in a thread presumably to get more users involved in the specific content dispute. I think we really need a ruling of some sorts if it's acceptable to gather support for edit wars or disputes this way? Hobartimus (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was disussed extensively, but not fully. Other argument is brought by me in the thread False information?!. By way of example, so far nobody here denies that Johann Andreas Segner was not Slovak by his nationality (although some sources in Slovakia make Slovaks by nationality almost from everyone, :-)), but Segner's ties to Slovakia and his being understood as Slovak scientist in general sense (as well as German and Hungarian and whatever) make him in my view eligible for being included in the list of people that have something to do with Slovakia. Two criteria are not enough. The third in the present form seems to be disputed because it is not in line with page title. So let's discuss the third criterion.

And surely this page is not related only distantly as firstly edit warring involved more or less the same users as other pages mentioned here and secondly many disputed people on List of Slovaks are of Hungarian nationality. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Hobartimus, edit conflict) It really depends, such as on how many posts are being sent, and who they're being sent to, and how they're worded. See WP:CANVASS. It's definitely fine, and even encouraged, to request comments from related WikiProjects. If you want to get more uninvolved editors into the discussion, I recommend filing an RfC (request for comment). The way through this is to keep talking, and see if you can find a compromise solution. It might also be useful to look at how other contentious areas have solved this problem. For example, read the lead paragraphs at List of Russians and List of Poles (or other ethnicities), and see if there is something there that you might be able to adapt towards finding your own consensus. --Elonka 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All this has already been discussed at Talk:List_of_Slovaks#R.C3.A1k.C3.B3czi_and_Kossuth.3F and Talk:List_of_Slovaks#page_name. Please read those threads if you are interested in this case. Tankred (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this particular case I think the trouble is with the audience being partisan instead of non-partisan considering all of the above mess and the involvement of WP:Slovakia members. And maybe also the neutrality of the message. I guess my question is if a Hungarian user wants to use WikiProject Hungary to call attention to specific content disputes, in a similar fashion what can be told to him/her? Do it don't do it, do it until the message is neutral etc? As to the specific List of Slovaks the topic had extensive discussion even before Ruziklan's involvement starting two weeks ago with comments from a larger group of users spreading accross several threads there so this is definitely one area where we had plenty of discussion and I think consensus -regarding at least the issue of the inclusion criteria- can be determined after full reading of that talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And that consensus, as you see it, is...? My impression was that in the thread mentioned by you (Inclusion_Criteria) the discussion was lead mainly by users from the group opposing any third criterium, namely István, K. Lásztocska, Koppany, Hobartimus and Rembaoud, the exceptions being Tankred and KaracharNevian with one comment each, so no wonder if the result of this particular thread discussion would be in "no third criterium". My comments were made later, not in that thread, that is true.

Generally speaking, I think following the example of List of Russians given above by Elonka seems to be quite meaningful way forward in my view. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just give me a few examples that you think should be included in a "list of Slovaks" but could not be included without the 3rd criterion? If there are really such important persons that could rightly be placed on a "list of Slovaks" but they don't fit the first two, they could be included on a case by case basis perhaps? Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion on case-by case basis is probably not a good idea. One could claim that all included people not fitting the two criteria were included on a case-by-case basis - "I would include them" or "I would not include them" anytime in edit summary. Do you think this could work with previous history of edit warring?

Examples are abundant. I have already named Johann Andreas Segner and many of people included in my Talk:List of Slovaks#Detailed_edit_summary are good examples as well. Also, you can check the Slovak page [1] with subtitle "najvýznamnejšie osobnosti Slovenska" that can be translated "the most important personalities of Slovakia". The page includes many people considered as important personalities in the Slovak history in spite of not being of Slovak identity nor citizenship. Of course, these people are repeatedly named as such in Slovek printed sources, I am giving the page osobnosti.sk only for quick reference. This everything is just giving good reason to follow the List of Russians style. --Ruziklan (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear dividing line between Slovak and Hungarian participants of the discussion at Talk:List of Slovaks. I do not see any reason why you should call the members of WikiProject:Slovakia (a project having this article in its scope) partisans, while you do not say a word about the Hungarian discussants. They are impartial? People who have never contributed to List of Slovaks miraculously found that discussion? They did not came from the Hungarian regional noticeboard, right? [2] The Hungarian regional noticeboard is used regularly to coordinate action of Hungarian editors on articles related to Slovakia, Romania, and Serbia, see these threads: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Except for two very recent threads at its talk page, the WikiProject:Slovakia has been used to coordinate improvement of articles from stubs to full articles, from A articles to GAs, and from GAs to FAs. That is the purpose of this project ansd I protest against the attempt to discredit our fellow editors because they participate in a wikiproject. Tankred (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, I notified Czech editors at their noticeboard, also the Germans at their noticeboard. I didn't send a message to Slovaks, because they didn't have their own noticeboard. In fact, my next edit was helping create it. Thanks for the honest presentation of what happened.

BTW all the threads you mentioned at the Hungarian board are rather old, so I can't tell if you presented those the same way or not. Squash Racket (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Tankred) I can't help but notice that all of these diffs you link are at least half a year old, if not more while we discuss edits above that were made this month. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon has just inserted Gábor Demszky into List of Slovaks (see diff diff) in spite of

• discussion over the list inclusion criteria just now running here,
• no evidence on page on Gábor Demszky that he has any tie to Slovakia.

Also despite following current politics I have no idea how he is tied to Slovakia. The provided reference [14] should probably document his tie to Slovakia, but is in Hungarian language therefore I ask him to give brief summary here. Posting to his talk page. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the reference in Hungarian, but I couldn't find any in English. However the article is about Demszky's visit to Kosice to meet with Kosice's mayor. Part of the article is also a fact that Demszky's 80-year father is still fluent in Slovak, and he has spent many summer holidays during his childhood at his grandparents who lived in Kosice, and that's why he thinks it's important to reunite the families and ties cut by the borders (of Trianon), especially in today's globalising Europe. The proof of his commitment is the fact that he's writing a book about his grandparents, his grand-grandparents and the era they lived in.

So I hope this explains his ties to Slovakia (or at least to Kosice). CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Shortly said, it means his ancestors are Slovak.

This example thus gives good example of important point in the list construction. In Slovakia Johann Andreas Segner (included in the currently discussed list a few times according to the disputed third criterion) is surely considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky despite the fact that latter is Slovak according to the second (undisputed) criterion. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Johann Andreas Segner cannot be considered Slovak by any stretch of the imagination. We could just copy the debate here but you brought this source which states that Segner was born 9 Oct 1704 in Pozsony, Hungary. If you should argue for anything you should argue based on your source that you brought to the discussion, that he should be placed on a List of Hungarians, but as far as I've seen there is no desire to put him there or to mass populate that list with non-Hungarian people. But this was already discussed ad infinitum and consensus on the talk page was quite clear. And I don't really get how rehashing everything here is better than on the talk page, where actually a lot more people already commented and there were long and exhaustive discussions on the topic. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is important difference between Johann Andreas Segner is considered Slovak and Johann Andreas Segner is considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky. I have stated the latter, not the former. Believe it or not, some people consider Segner Slovak, he is for example sometimes referred to as Slovak scientist of the past. I do not share this opinion. The undeniable fact is, however, that he has strong ties to Bratislava.

Furthermore, I do not think there was reached consensus on the talk page, in my view the discussion went astray when mostly people opposing wider list discussed and agreed with themselves - as I have already stated above. Discussion has led nowhere and was turning into constant edit war. That is why somebody from outside had to step in and I am glad Elonka did that. She even provided useful links for possible way forward. Have you any objections against the way used in the List of Russians? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read your own source, he had strong ties to Pozsony, the city was renamed Bratislava more than two hundred years after his birth. I don't think anyone knowledgeable about this person would refer to him as a Slovak scientist just like no-one would refer to medieval Serb leaders as Kosovar or Albanian. Discussion did lead somewhere it lead to consensus about the criteria of the list, there is no point in denial. Anyone can just check the talk page and determine for themselves if they see consensus or not about the inclusion criteria. Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava = Pozsony, it is the same town. Name has changed, but the town is the same. Many people on the list are referred to as Slovaks in wide sense of word, precisely due to reasons similar to those in the preamble of List of Russians. I have given my arguments and now I give up. The discussion is stalled precisely as before. Somebody else? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The name has changed. Also the people in the town have changed. Unless the percentage of Slovaks is still 14% today the people have changed significantly. I don't see any reason why previous solid consensus should be subverted. And you still did not react if you would classify all Serbs Turks etc in the previous centuries as Albanians or Kosovars? Hobartimus (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people has changed, also new buildings were built - but there is something called historic continuity... Regarding you repeated question I can just say I do not know whether I would classify them that, I do not know the situation. However I know the situation in Slovakia. You have not answered my question about List of Russians. What is wrong with applying the similar approach here? I find its preamble very reasonable. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely replacing the population of a city by displacing the previous residents through various means can hardly be compared to building new buildings. You gave no reason why all the previous editors who commented on this should be completely ignored? Wikipedia works by building consensus and I don't think that by moving this dispute here you have the right to ignore all previous opinions including ones given just a few short days ago for example [15]. Hobartimus (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite opposite, I have already given a number of reasons and I have also adressed the issue of apparent consensus above (that including diff provided by you) - it was not discussion reflecting all possible arguments and involved mostly people sharing your point of view. I can thus understand why you stand by the result, but let's let somebody else give us other view. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other views were already given at the talk page. You think just because you started discussing this here the debate simply restarted and defaulted to zero? You can't just ignore people by moving the discussion around, that's not how Wikipedia works. Hobartimus (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me how Wikipedia does not work. To be sure, I have duly read the talk page in question, I have considered ideas given there ... and I stand by my arguments, they are no less valid. No consensus (including apparent consensus) is set in stone and as we two are unable to move forward - both of us standing at our positions - I am sure other users will be able to share their views and move the discussion forward. --Ruziklan (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the December 2007 discussion, and the current discussions. However, I have to point something out here: Talkpage discussion cannot trump Wikipedia policy. As it stands, List of Slovaks is in gross breach of the first pillar of Wikipedia policy. We are not here to provide original research. All information here must be linked to reliable sources. The threshold for what can be included is Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To be specific: No name should go onto the list, unless there is a reliable source which describes that individual as a Slovak. So instead of disagreeing about the exact definition, I recommend some rapid progress in providing sources for the names that are there. Any names for which there are no sources, should be removed. --Elonka 06:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is of course completely reasonable and going even to the deeper roots, thank you.

The question is now, how we should proceed practically. Should we delete the content of list except people with already sourced identity (e.g. on their own pages), should we allow some time to source identity people already on the list and delete reamining people? Finally, how that can be done most effciently if multiple people are expected to contribute in terms of collaboration? What would you recommend?

Another difficult issue was already mentioned by me a few times above. Let's imagine that I manage to find the Slovak source (I mean reliable source according to reliable sources) claiming that person XY is Slovak scientist. His article in Wikipedia however says and even other independent sources however claim, that he was of some other identity(ies). Should XY be included in the list? I would say yes, with proper noting of these points. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, taking your questions one at a time: Per WP:V, anyone can remove unsourced information on sight. However, simply going in and blanking the page could potentially be seen as a violation of WP:POINT. A gentler way to do this would be to add {{cn}} (citation-needed) tags next to anything you're not sure about. I spot-checked some other "List of (nationality)" lists, and to be honest, most of them are very poor in terms of sourcing. But consensus is pretty clear that just because one article might be poorly-written, doesn't give the excuse for other similar articles to be of poor quality. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  :)

For now, I've placed an overall tag about sourcing at the top of the page, and, speaking for myself, I am willing to give some time for sources to be found. Then again, if someone does remove all unsourced information, I would have a hard time seeing that as block-worthy disruptive, since they'd have WP:V backing them up. I was chatting off-wiki with another admin about this earlier today, and his reaction was, "Clear out the list. Insist that any person added must have a source referring to them as a Slovak. The end. Block anyone who adds without sourcing."

So, believe it or not, I'm actually going softer on you guys than another admin might.  ;) We're all volunteers here, so it's a bit "luck of the draw". I hope you guys think I'm doing a good job, but I'm prepared in case anyone decides to hate me for my crackdown here.  ;) The way it usually works on unsourced info though, is that on a non-controversial article, if someone adds info without a source, it'll probably get a "source needed" added to it. BUT, if someone removes the information, then it had better stay gone unless someone re-adds it with a source. If someone tries to edit-war to re-add the information without a source, they're clearly on the losing side of the policy at that point.

As for your second question, if you have a reliable source saying that someone is a Slovak scientist, then I would have no objection to their name going on the list. If the individual is also claimed by other ethnicities, and there are reliable sources which state it, his name should go on those lists too. It might be worth adding a special footnote such as "this individual is claimed by multiple ethnicities", but that's up to the editors to figure out. The only case that might be made for not including him on the Slovak list, might be one of undue weight. Or in other words, if 100 reliable sources say that a scientist is (for example) Italian, and only 1 says that he is Slovak, and the information on Wikipedia is challenged, it might be worth discussing him on the talkpage to determine if too much weight is being given to his Slovak heritage, and/or if the 1 source might be a fringe source, or even if it might be a typo (mistakes happen!). But that's multiple "if's", so it would take some doing to get into that grey area. Or in other words, I'd only worry about it if it comes up. --Elonka 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do think you do the excellent job here, thank you for the answers. For me the situation with the List of Slovaks is pretty clear now. --Ruziklan (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sculptor of Slovak origin

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)

Clean-up templates

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)