Talk:Ľudovít Štúr

Wikify

Lots of good info but definitely needs a Wikify. 69.17.67.11 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A proper wikification would make this a B quality article.--Wizardman 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms

You people who are edit-warring about usage need to discuss some of the issues.

It sure seems to me that it would be desirable for someone to find various places mentioned here on a map.

It also seems reasonable that people reading contemporary accounts of the events ought to be able to connect up people and places mentioned in them with what is said in this article.

In many cases, that is best accomplished by using formulations such as "Pressburg, now known as Bratislava" and the like. That has the additional advantage of increasing chances that someone searching for information will find the relevant information, no matter which of variant terms is being used.

The accusations of "incivility" in edit summaries by Tulkolahten are nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to be falsely accused for "false accusations of incivility" in the cases where it is an obvious incivility. If you say about some edit that it is a historical falsification then it is incivility. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not incivility for the editor whose edit summary explained that it was fixing anachronisms to do so. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is incivil is to fail to give that editor due respect, and to discuss the issues here, rather than reverting them with those false accusations of incivility. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious, I just wrote please remain civil. That enough for me I am going to take this to the administrators table. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NCGN, articles in Wikipedia use geographic names as they appear in the title of the article about the place in question (for example Trnava). All historical alternative names can be found in the linked main article (Trnava) and do not need to be repeated here. If anyone believes that a certain name is consistently used in modern English to refer to a place in a historical context, please follow the guidelines outlined in WP:NCGN at the respective talk pages. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hungarian one. Articles follow usage in modern English sources. Tankred (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Falsification

I'm wondering if the above dispute started because of two different understandings of the word falsification.

falsify - To alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead (Oxford dictionary)

falsify - To make false by mutilation or addition (eg, the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft) (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

In the usual English meaning, accusing someone of "falsification" is accusing them of deliberately making something wrong.

But the editor who used the word "falsification" might have meant that the information was wrong without meaning the other editor made it wrong on purpose.

This is just a theory, based on reading the above discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's especially true with the fact that edit summaries are often cryptic in the first place, then when you throw in the limited room available to tack on something after the automatically generated text from the "undo" button.

Assuming good faith should lead to an assumption that the comment in User:Rembaoud's edit summary related to the resulting anachronism, and was not an incivil comment.

But it appears that some people are more interested in trying to get the upper hand in a dispute by making accusations of wrongdoing, than in discussing the issues involved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a need for more assumption of good faith in both directions.

As I said above, there are a couple of ways the word falsification might be understood. But based on a discussion I saw on another page, I believe that Tulkolahten, with his linguistic background, understood the word to mean deliberate lying and therefore a real insult.

This business seems to be a misunderstanding based on language differences. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hradec Kralove

Recent edits changes Hradec Kralove to Königgrätz. But the Hradec Kralove is the proper name, was the proper name and will be proper name. Königgrätz is German name, there is no reason to change the name to its German equivalent as German language has no formal nor informal status in Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It was a german town untill 1947.. Nothing to talk about. Nor Slovak, nor Czech was not official language at that times, just "widely spoken". --Rembaoud (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read some history books, Hradec Kralove was established by Wenceslaus the king of Bohemia. It was always Bohemian city, no care about the group of people speaking German. There is a minority of Greeks in some cities, maybe we should rename them too? This is ridiculous. Of course that Czech language was official, what do you think? Only German and Hungarian language had the superiority? In Austria were these official languages: German, Hungarian, Czech. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Without being uncivil, I want to ask you to do not ask me anything, and do not bring irrelevant things into this discussion. I do not see what is your point of Greeks, but it seems irrelevant so don't explain, please. You should investigate, what was the name of the town at that time, especially in the light of the Battle of Königgrätz (article). You are not right, it was Königgratz, as well as the other cities' names were rightly corrected. There's nothing to talk about. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Reverting each other every day, is still edit-warring. I have protected the article for one week. Please figure out at talk, how to resolve this dispute without edit-warring. --Elonka 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Clairfy}}

Reading through this nice source I found (also a nice piece that can be incorporated into the article, seeing the citation is already here), it says that the Catholics used a Slovakized Czech; depending on the individual, some Czechs were more Slovakized than others. Where I put the tag, it is ambiguous as to weather there is one standard, and if there is more than one standard, it seems it might be possible that some were Polozied, or some others were Germanized, etc. etc., owing to it's ambiguity.174.3.103.39 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Banknotes

should it not be mentioned tat he appeared on the Czecho-slovakian money (50 Koruna) and Slovakian money as well? Taxicats (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Žiadosti is not "requirements"

Žiadosti slovenského národa ("Requirements of the Slovak Nation")

This should translate as: "Requests of the Slovak Nation"

Or even maybe as "desires". 2601:184:487F:D470:F5B6:1ED7:2934:E735 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Off topic content

Here is the offtopic content that had been tagged for other a decade. I've moved it here. Mason (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Background

Language dispute

Ľudovít Štúr's quote on Štúrova street in Bratislava

At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, Slovaks were divided concerning the literary language to be used:

• Catholics continued to use the standard that had developed in Slovak writing by 1610. Anton Bernolák's language codified in the 1780s was an attempt to blend that standard with the west-Slovak idiom of the university town of Trnava (Nagyszombat), but most authors respected Bernolák's standard only to the degree that it did not diverge from the traditional written standard;
• Most Lutherans diverged from that standard in the late 17th – early 18th century and began to adhere strictly to the archaic language of the Moravian Bible of Kralice, whose imitation became a matter of faith with them during their persecution by the Habsburgs.

This situation did not change until the 1840s, when Ľudovít Štúr became the chief figure of the Slovak national movement.

At the same time, modern nations started to develop in Europe and in the Kingdom of Hungary. The Hungarians favoured the idea of a centralized state, although the Magyar population was only some 40% of the population of the Hungarian Kingdom in the 1780s. This was unacceptable to other national groups, including the Slovaks, and they expressed their disapproval.

Slovak language

In the 1830s, a new generation of Slovaks began to make themselves heard. They had grown up under the influence of the national movement at the prestigious Lutheran Lýceum (preparatory high school and college) in Bratislava, where the Czech-Slav Society (also called the "Society for the Czechoslovak Language and Literature") had been founded in 1829. Initially, the society operated in accordance with the ideas of Ján Kollár, a Protestant minister, poet, and academic, supporter of Czech-Slovak unity, and of the users of the language of Bible of Kralice. In the latter part of the decade, when Ľudovít Štúr came to the fore, its activities intensified. The most prominent representatives of the new generation were, along with Ľudovít Štúr, Jozef Miloslav Hurban (1817–1888) and Michal Miloslav Hodža (1811–1870).

Ľudovít Štúr expressed his philosophy in one sentence: "My country is my being, and every hour of my life shall be devoted to it". Štúr, a Lutheran, was aware of the fact that Czech, the language of educated Lutherans, was not enough to carry out a national campaign, and that Slovaks, if they were ever to become autonomous and be an effective force against Magyarization, needed a language they could call their own. The central Slovak dialect was chosen as the basis of a literary language. Štúr's codification work was disapproved of by Ján Kollár and the Czechs, who saw it as an act of Slovak withdrawal from the idea of a common Czecho-Slovak nation and a weakening of solidarity. But the majority of Slovak scholars, including the Catholics (using Bernolák's codification until then), welcomed the notion of codification. The standard language thus became an important political tool.

March 1848 – August 1849

Ľudovít Štúr Monument, Levoča

Ľudovít Štúr monument at Žofín in Prague

Štúr's notions (an autonomous Slovak area, a Slovak Diet (assembly), Slovak schools, etc.) came to fruition simultaneously with the 1848 Revolution in Hungary, which dealt with the liberation of peasants from serfdom and other national and ethnic issues. Hungarian revolutionaries called for Hungary's separation from Vienna, but at the same time, they wanted to see Hungary as one nation with one language and one educational system. But the desires of the Magyars for a centralized Hungarian state ran contrary to the wishes of other national groups, including the Slovaks. Slovak and Hungarian revolutionary claims ran counter to each other.

In the spring of 1848, Slovak leaders spread their ideas throughout Upper Hungary. Slovak nationalists, mainly in the progressive western and central Upper Hungary, joined them. In May 1848, a huge public meeting took place in Liptovský Svätý Mikuláš (Liptószentmiklós; present Liptovský Mikuláš), where a pan-Slovak program, known as Žiadosti slovenského národa ("Requirements of the Slovak Nation") was proclaimed and generally approved. Ethnic Slovaks sought to back this revolutionary manifesto by force of arms. The provisional Hungarian revolutionary government was not willing to accept the "Requirements" document and the situation developed into open hostility between Hungarian and Slovak revolutionaries.

In September 1848, the Slovak National Council was established in Vienna and it forthwith proclaimed the secession of the Slovak territory from Hungary. The so-called September campaign (consisting of 6000 volunteers) took place in western Upper Hungary. Slovak demands remained unfulfilled. Between November 1848 and April 1849, the armed Slovaks helped the Habsburg king – along with imperial troops in present-day Hungary – to defeat Hungarians and their revolutionary government on present-day Slovak territory (the so-called Winter Campaign or Volunteer Campaigns). In March 1849, Slovaks even temporarily managed to start to administer Slovakia themselves and they sent a petition (the March Petition) to the emperor. However, in the summer of 1849, the Russians helped the Habsburg monarchy defeat the revolutionary Hungarians, and in November, when the Slovaks were not needed anymore, the Slovak corps was dissolved in Vienna. Then in December 1851, Emperor Franz Joseph abolished the last vestiges of constitutionalism and began to rule as an absolute emperor. Francis Joseph continued his centralization policies. This came to be known as the period of neo-absolutism. Certain Slovak demands were met, however. In the northern counties of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Slovak language was allowed for official communication and was introduced in lower schools (see in section Charakteristika of Bachovský absolutizmus resp. Bachove Slovenské noviny). But in higher courts, the Slovaks faced the same Germanization as all the other ethnicities. Ján Kollár, who became a professor at Vienna University, obtained permission to print Slovak newspapers and was appointed a court adviser.