Talk:Slovak Uprising of 1848–49

Slovak Uprising

"Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary" Slovakia in 1848?

Removed fake information.Baxter9 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These were the uprising Slovaks as a nation, no State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.28.249 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first target article for improvement in the WikiProject Slovakia, so it may be updated at irregular though hopefully succinct intervals. Anyone wishing to help is welcomed! Demokratickid (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay first update is up, much more work to still be done including fleshing out my source citations which I do have. Demokratickid (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Second one is done, I'll keep working. Demokratickid (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would just yet again like to reenforce that this article is very much a work in progress Demokratickid (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Demokratickid's edits

I put some template to the article on the ground that Demokratickid's edits are based on Slovak POV sources. While I am admitting that Demokratickid is very proficient in the English language, his/her addition is a drivel ,which hoodwinks the readers of Wikipedia rather than conveying them realible information. The most howling problem is that that the article triggers a false semblance that if Slovakia had existed as early as the 19th century at least in informal form. Ludovit Stúr and his chums such as Jozef Miloslav Hurban, Michal Miloslav Hodža, Janko Kráľ, Ján Francisci Rimavský were not not equal partners of Kossuth Lajos. The "Slovak militia and peasant guerrillas" name is beyond ridiculosness. In fact, the Slovaks also supported the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Ludovit Stúr's group have no many supporters, and they were hired by the Habsburg emperor without recognition and reputation even among the Slovaks. Funny to see names like Budapest and Bratislava in historical context. These addition are not possible to corroborate with Hungarian sources, and they say the opposite than what are in Špiesz's writing and the Connecticutian travel guide. In short, these sources aren't veracious, aren't trustworthy; they are good for nothing more than to promulgate Anti-Hungarian sentiment on the English Wikipedia. This addition should be deleted in whole, pursuant to Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also it is interesting to note that Demokratickid divulged a basic level familiarity of the Slovak language on his/her own user page in the meantime he/she works from Slovak sources that recall the most wildest Slovak POV.--Nmate (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I am not even close to being done with the edits to this article which are going to include a much more varied range of opinions, including detailing those Slovaks who did support the Hungarian revolution. As I have stated above this article is very very much a work in progress and I am simply updating it as I work. More sources and more history context will be provided as time goes on. I have no interest in promulgating any sort of anti-hungarian sentiment as I find the whole Slovak/Hungarian issues entirely childish. Though many sources do not agree with what one says, it is only fair that all viewpoints be provided. As time goes on I will be citing such sources as Ridpath's History of the World, Edition 5 published in 1907 which gives the Hungarian cause a very favorable write up. While I appreciate your concern and acknowledge you are operating under good faith, ask you to respect my attempts at making this article better overall and also acknowledge that there is still a long way to go. The main article on the Hungarian uprising, it can be argued though I care not to argue it, is biased as well towards Hungarian opinion. This is an article about the events occurring in Slovakia around these events, and therefore I will not be covering the entirety of the Hungarian revolution as that is adequately cared for in other articles, but will rather focus on the Slovak realm of this fascinating conflict. This article is not my soapbox, has never been and will never be. I love history and I will not be put off by your objections. if you wish to help me and collaborate with me on this article, I would welcome it. I understand that this would be difficult as your personal opinions would naturally diverge greatly from a historical middle-ground as any quick look at your talk page would make plain. I ask you to please respect my work and I shall respect yours. Very sincerely, Demokratickid (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Update

The newest and relatively final installment is in, though by no means is this article finished. I would still like to add more Hungarian perspective so anyone willing to help in writing that is welcomed to contact me here or otherwise. Also, in the final summation of their opinion, I removed some of the more contentious language from Anton Špiesz and Dušan Čaplovič 's summation of the era so that it would not offend Magyar reader while still maintaining the spirit of their scholarly opinion. As always, any suggestions or offers of genuine help to make this article better are appreciated! :) Demokratickid (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovak POV

I think the part dealing with the Slovak perspective should somehow incorporate the fact that tens of thousands of Slovak honvéds fought for the Hungarian govenrment, including former regular batallions who could easily defect to the Austrians. In fact Slovaks contributed disproportionately larger percent of the volunteers than any other nationaly in the Kingdom of Hungary, including Hungarians.

Step 1: Find a source and add it to the article.

Step 2: ????

Step 3: PROFIT EllsworthSK (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add it, sir, as my free time is not what it used to be to edit such articles. Demokratickid (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

It should be either "Slovak Uprising" or "Slovak Uprising (1848–1849)".89.121.160.79 (talk)

Misleading terminology

Ditinili, despite now you refer it as a "geographical" form, there was not really any de jure or any firm meaning of it - not even known in Hungary even such as an unofficial region-, a reference alike once "Sarmatia" to Poland, and it would not mean that we may add categories involving "Sarmatia", since it would be quite odd, but in this case twice as odd because it renders the usual confusion and often anachronistic reference in some historigraphies to reflect back present-day conditions to older times in an innacurate and unhistorical way or any other purpose. The one who added it made deliberately - however, by an ignorant mistake - also i.e. with the Czech Republic putting it into 1260 etc., thus it was undoubtedly not the meaning you wish to pursue, that anyway would be arguable certainly what it would mean.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to stick to professionalism and avoid any possible ambiguity and disorder in order to avoid any even unwanted confusive or supportive steps to any fallacious identification with the Slovak State or 20th century established boundaries, political or administrational meanings (also including Czechoslovak affairs or politics).

Thus, again I describe more detailed what are the problem with the categories that was added carelessly:

"Wars involving Slovakia" -> This category is meant for the anytime Slovak State, thus it cannot be put here, on the other hand factually the war involved Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian forces along with other ethnicities and revolutionaries, involving Russia later. Especially Slovaks fought on both sides, though the majority sided with Hungarians.

"Rebellions in Slovakia" -> ibidem, the "Rebellion" was made in the Kingdom of Hungary

"Wars between Hungary and Slovakia" -> as well ibidem, empahiszing again that among the belligerents such that "Slovakia" did not exist, all the categories are meant for the anytime Slovak State categories.

Consequently, these categories are useless since by the "19th century in Slovakia", "Military history of Slovakia", "19th-century rebellions", "Slovak Uprising of 1848–49" the article is already properly categorized with proper categories without any ambiguity or problematic terminology.

However, if you wish to have new categories, you have to name them properly first and add them after, like i.e.

- "Rebellions in Slovak history"/"Slovak rebellions" or similar

- "Wars involving Slovaks"/"Wars in Slovak prehistory" or similar

Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

"Wars between Hungary and Slovakia" I agree, this was not a war between Hungary and Slovakia.

"Rebellions in Slovakia" The category is not problematic - the rebellion was in Slovakia. Slovakia existed, like Kurdistan or other geo-cultural regions exist.

"Wars involving Slovakia" - well, it depends how do you define it. It can give an impression that she was a belligerent, we can remove it.

I have some difficulties to understand your comments. Firstly, you wrote that "Slovakia did not exist then". When I answered that she definitely did (as a geo-cultural region, not a separate administrative unit, and the usage of this term is reliably documented centuries ago), you came with obsure statement: "Slovakia did not exist in 1848 thus of course it could not even been a "separate administrative unit". In other words, you use your (faulty) conclusion as an assumption to prove your (faulty) conclusion. --Ditinili (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say the same to you, since you did not express yourself in such details - like now -, in case i.e you did not understand me, it does not mean it would have any connection to any "obscurity". Your "conclusion" are drawn to early and faulty as well, I would say, because your answer did not verify Slovakia's existence as a "geo-cultural" region, your answer referred to a mention/first reference that is not one and the same, thus I did not have any "faulty conlcusion". Upper Hungary existed as a geo-cultural region that time i.e. , but we cannot say that safely to such terms like "Slovakia". Moreover I clearly expressed in the edit log as well the confusion with the Slovak state. The category "Rebellions in Slovakia" may be accepted like "19th century in Slovakia" as it is projecting back the present-day entity's territory events back to the past, but nothing more (it is very interesting that if with the removal of "Wars between Hungary and Slovakia" you agreed, then why you reverted it twice? Does not matter, I assume like in our previous discussion, you like to revert all-in-one, not just the current instant...come on...)(KIENGIR (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Kiengir, nobody projects "present-day entity's territory events back to the past". I have absolutely no idea, how did you came to this conclusion. In the 19th century, the term was used. Look e.g. on the second stanza [1] (To Slovensko naše/That Slovakia of ours, 1844). So, did this geo-cultural term exist before the 20th century? Definitely, yes. Of course, it was not invented by Stur's generation, because the names like Slováky(cz), Slowakey (de) or even Szlovák Országh (sic!, hu, the 16th century) were recorded long time before the 19th century. Unlike the word "Slovakia" which is absolutely correct and reliably documented in the 19th century, History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest is (at least formally) an absolute non-sense. However, even professional historians use such simplifications. If we can write about roughtly defined regions like Kurdistan, if we can write about Hungary before Hungarians, I really don't see not any reason why we cannot refer to Slovakia as Slovakia.--Ditinili (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ditinili, again, if a term exist in some circles, it does not mean we can present or evaluate is an existing geo-cultural "entity", or even a recognized one. In other words, you should feel it is an arguable and borderline instance and subject, if we wish to properly deal with the terminologies in the proper timeline. If "History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest" is a "nonsense" please propose a solution and I will support the renaming, while I will never support "roughly" or improperly defined terminology, shall it be with Hungary or anything else (I will personally initiate the renaming process).(KIENGIR (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

I don't have any need to propose "a solution" for History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest. As I wrote, similar simplifications are used even by professional historians (although they are /formally/ non-sense, we are humans and not logical machines). However, if you never support "roughtly" or as you say "improperly" defined terminology, you can begin there and at Kurdistan talk page. By the way, who "recognize", geo-cultural entities?

P.S.: The term "Upper Hungary" is not the best example, towns like Pukanec, Kremnica, Banská Štiavnica, etc were historiccally in the Lower Hungary.

Ditinili (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I know and remember when you brought this to attention in an article, did not forget it.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

I think always a solution may be found with the less controversy possible. About professional historians, some use terminology properly, some not, aynway Wikipedia suffer with many improper ot at least heavily ambigous and misleading category naming/deisgnations, though I see some evolution into a good direction, the new ones at least should be much more accurate and careful (a recent mistake was i.e. by Leslie Howard or Hedy Lamarr where the whole process should have been revisited). If I will deal with Kurdistan articles, I will follow the same principle, you can be sure. "Recognition" means not just in the way you interpret, but what is safely/generally known or used in an adequate and indisputable manner. We can say the county system was official, unlike regions/entities.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

What do you mean by "official"? I.e. the official documents of the Slovak National Council? Do you want to say that they did not use the adequate term and the contemporary press did not use the adequate term and their parners did not use the adequate term, ...? --Ditinili (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"the county system was official" -> administrative divisions.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

...and? How could it exist "officially", when according to a contemporary state supported ideology even Slovak nation did not exist. The term has been used for centuries. --Ditinili (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if we properly understand each other and/or speak about the same thing. I did not state anything about "contemporary state stupported ideology", I made a statement about the county system.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

...and? The term existed and was used, there is nothing wrong about it.--Ditinili (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

...I really don't know right now especially what you are reffering to, you've made a jump from the county system...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC))

Obviously, not all geographics names are related to counties.--Ditinili (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but in any case we have to carefully evaluate when and what could be treated as a proper/common geographic term, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC))

Firstly, we have to carefully evaluate myths like "the term did not exist", "the term was created by the Slovak nationalist in the 19th century", etc. It is attested by historic documents, used also by professional historians and comprehensible for an average reader.--Ditinili (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with careful evaluation (btw. regarding any case), with a stress pattern on the fair, proper and unambigous/non-misunderstandable usage. The context and the way of usage is important to check, only after we may judge if the particular ones are using/comrehend it properly.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC))

I am curious what is not fair, ambigous and misunderstable on the term that is used in English.Ditinili (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Slovakia was only a political concept before the 20th century, it had no administrative and territorial traditions. Of course, we can use "Slovakia" term when speak about the Slovaks' political concept (for instance, when they demanded an autonomy for "Slovakia"), but those sentences that e.g. Hurban left Slovakia in order to attend a conference in Vienna, is quite misleading and anachronism. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the name Slovakia has been used from the middle ages and its origin is not related to any political aspirations or concepts. Of course, in 1840s it had also a political context for a part of the society. Uličný, Ferdinand (2014): The name Slovakia (Slovensko) – its origin and content, Historicky casopis, 2014 (3).--Ditinili (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Slovak is one of the youngest and latest recorded ethnonym in Europe. Mandliners (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian perspective section

Dear IP,

please read WP:NOR and better discuss in the talk before any further modification. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC))

Guys, you should focus on the importance and consequences of the uprising rather than playing a game about the alleged "Slovak" and "Hungarian" perspective. For example, Slovak historians would easily agree on the fact that more people fought on the side of the Kossuth revolution - the alleged "Hungarian" view (and de facto the only one information in the section). "A widespread myth" is a Hungarian widespread myth, or Slovak,...? --Ditinili (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was a remnant of teh former verison, I assume (better I am sure) it is not a Hungarian myth. Better rephrasing/removing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC))

I suggest to remove these alleged views and to focus on the results like:

* the legacy of the uprising and the influence of contemporary demands on later Slovak political programs

* the impact on later Czech-Slovak relationships and cooperation of both national movements

* how was the fact that majority of Slovaks fought on Kossuth side (not) reflected in the policy of later Hungarian governments and the impact

* etc. --Ditinili (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please first write a draft in your sandbox, to what you'd replace these two sections, and after we may decide about it (though I don't see how the information presented would be ignored, maybe shortened a little bit).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC))

I cannot do it now (I have a different work), maybe later. But few notes:

* "the claim that the Slovak nation sided with Vienna is erroneous" It is not clear who claims it.

* "could hardly recruit around 2000..." This is at least misleading and incoplete info about the participation. According to Škvarna, cca 10.000 people participated on the uprising in the first ten days of the september campaingn (not all at once). www.forumhistoriae.sk/documents/10180/887951/Kovac_Sondy-2013.pdf, p. 93.

* "on the other side was at least two orders of magnitude greater (estimated around 40,000 by historians)" The order of magnitude is equal the whole number floor of decimal logarithm. om(2.000) = 3, om(40.000) = 4. The difference between 3 and 4 is not at least two. Estimated by who?--Ditinili (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. The first is the remnant of the earlier verison we met..I suppose there are some Slovak circles who would claim that, if not, then it means such claim does not exist anymore, maybe you have more information who and when claimed it, though because there were Slovaks who fought against Hungarians, many associate this with a common standpoint of the Slovak nation (as per the stakes of the Slovak National Council I suppose). The second is sourced and we may put as well "according to" who said it, not a problem is more viewpoints are represented. About the third: sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

"Slovak Republic" vs Slovakia

KIENGIR I cannot understand your comment: "it was not the Slovak Republic, but the region of Upper Hungary in the Kingdom of Hungary". It is clear that there was no "Slovak Republic" (and there was never such wording), we talk about the region of Slovakia. Like we talk about the region of Upper Hungary, but the location is more precise, because the term Upper Hungary may include also Ruthenia. In addition, this term is less unambiguous (especially for an English speaker), because the meaning of the term "Upper Hungary" has changed significantly over time (i.e. the western and not northern part of the kingdom). So, what's the problem?Ditinili (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, indeed, I don't understand your edit log about "don't be ashamed", so there is a big misunderstanding from your side.

So, you linked Slovakia (aka Slovak Republic) to 1848, being under Hungarian rule, that is obviously fallacious (and what you call here clear, is definetly not, since the supposed region of Slovakia is not identical with Slovakia (Slovak Republic). Contemporary speaking, Upper Hungary is the valid region inside the Kingdom of Hungary, where the events took place. Hence, your addition is not just more ambigous, but really confusing, more than other confusions you try to insist in that are really speculative, as the current case. As discussed earlier, such are not supported (we may mention of course the planned Sovak region/disctrict concept).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC))

I see several notable problems in your interpretation:

• Both Slovakia and Upper Hungary (and their equivalents) are contemporary terms.
• It is not clear what makes the term "Upper Hungary" valid and the term Slovakia "invalid". It seems to be your own

arbitrary decision.

• These two terms are not equal and they do not reference to the same geographic entity. The first term is more precise, the second means a larger region. Strictly saying, we can find contemporary sources that still interpret "Upper Hungary" as a western, not northern part of the kingdom. Similarly, we can replace the term Upper Hungary by "Habsburg monarchy", "Central Europe", "Europe" or the "Earth", but there is no real reason to be less precise. "I don't like the term Slovakia" is not a real reason.
• The term Slovakia is not "supposed". Such expressions were used by Hungarian revisionts in the past or may be used by modern Hungarian extremists, but they should not be used in a serious discussion. Although some Hungarian editors firmly believe that this term was created only in the 20th century or in the 19th century by the Slovak nationalists, it is a pseudo-scientific myth. See i.e. the last similar statement diff and my answer.
• The "Hungarian rule" has absolutely nothing with geographic names.
• There was never any link to "Slovak Republic" but to Slovakia. I have no idea how did you come to this conclusion. See i.e. links to China that also links to China (surprise!) and this article contains also information about the modern official name (the People's Republic of China). The same applies to other countries (regardless of their historic independence).
• You did not explain what is "confusing" or "speculative". It is only a statement. Ditinili (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's see:

(**) Your approach are arguable and does not take into consideration an earler discussion I already referred. While Upper Hungary is a widely used and accepted georaphic term, and without debate the region of the Kingdom of Hungary, while this we cannot tell about Slovakia or whatever it would be called. It is not my arbitrary decision, usually we refer to the contemporary status you and the modern designation, or in case more designations, we list them by a kind of relevance.

(*) As I referred contrary to your earlier and now repeated argumentation, nobody said they are equal, and the first them is not more precise, because it not just does not have clear boundaries, you made it queal with a boundary that did not even exist that time, including territories that are certainly would not belong there, but this is just again another problem of the earlier and future mentioned. No, it may not be replaced with "Habsburg monarchy", "Central Europe", "Europe" or the "Earth", because we talk about an internal affair of Hungary, and your invented "I don't like the term Slovakia" is again false, I explained clearly the several problems for a reason you did not wish to see or did not understand so far.

(*) As we discussed earlier in this talk page, it is in a way supposed, quite undetermined of really, precisely what it would mean, my answer has nothing to do with i.e. other editors what answered to you in the past in other pages.

(*) As I said, the sentence and the reference you set intially was totally fallacious and misleading, obviousy Hungary is under Hungarian rule, etc.

(*) It is surpsising what you say, but definetly not true. Slovakia is the link to the present Slovakia in a time-invariant way, similary to all other articles could be listed up to infinite, as China is also about the People's Republic of China.

(*) I explained clearly, as also here, as I always explain.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC))

The argument about "clear boundaries" fails on a plain fact that "Upper Hungary" had no clear boundaries. For the same reason, the argument about "territories that are certainly would not belong there" is meaningless, because it is just the term Upper Hungary that includes large territories when these events simply did not happen (unlike the term Slovakia which not only perfectly matches with the real region where they happened, but it is also fully comprehensible for any English reader). The "contemporary status" is the existence of this region and it has absolutely nothing with the government, rule, "internal affair", etc. The problem is not even in wiki links. The purpose of wiki links is to navigate a reader to useful information. For example the page Slovakia does not provide only information about the modern Slovak Republic, but also about the etymology, history, etc. This argument is completely artificial.

I cannot understand your statement "the reference you set intially was totally fallacious and misleading, obviousy Hungary is under Hungarian rule". Which reference?

The question is simple. Can we use the term Slovakia for events that occurred before 1918? Surely, we can. It was not created in the 20th century, it is not a product of modern nationalism and it is comprehensible for an average reader (more than Upper Hungary). There is no real reason why not. Ditinili (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Upper Hungary has more clear boundaries and anyway more defined, as well in this context. No, present Slovakia as well did not match perfectly, the English reader just falsely would believe similarly to the earlier discussions expressed, that there has been a legal Slovakia in the framework of the Kingdom of Hungary, which were not. No, my argument is completely accurate. Of course the anyland-links contain historical information in their relevant section, but similarly as Slovakia, they will ever represent their current status, as today, as tomorrow, as 10 years, even 50 years later, in case it would change to a kingdom or if she would double her territory, etc.

By "reference" I meant the wordage of the sentence; e.g. how it referred to the situation.

I think we should be utterly careful of the usage, as discussed in the Misleading terminology discussion, and yes there are real reasons, also presented here. I disagree Upper Hungary would less comprehensible (even if it would not be immediately after the reference to the relation with present Slovakia).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC))

"Upper Hungary has more clear boundaries" Who says? As far as I know, the term was completely redefined in the 18th-19th century from vertical division (Upper in the west) to horizontal (Upper in the north).

"No, present Slovakia as well did not match perfectly". It obviously does: the map of capaigns.

"the English reader just falsely would believe ...there has been a legal Slovakia" Was there a legal entity Upper Hungary? I don't know about such administrative or political entity, except a vague unofficial term. This is a very inconsistent argument. I can say that an English reader would believe that there was no Slovakia but Upper Hungary ("today's partially Slovakia). I have never seen any English reader be misguided by the first wording. On the other hand, there are several editors who believe that they are qualified to write about the topic and who incorrectly interpret the second wording or they even believe(d) that it is true. See your own post dif about the alleged "backward projection" of terms, a similar post by another author diff, or the last repetition of this fringe theory diff. It seems that the terminology is not clear mainly to Hungarian editors. Sorry.Ditinili (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

- Yes, the exact extense of Upper-Hungary may vary a bit by some interpretations, but nevertheless is historically commonly used and accepted term, anyway satisfies inclusion

- I don't see how a map of campaigns would be fairly associated to boundaries defined much later (and anyway not a perfect match, but it is secondary in this context)

- You've made a problematic comparison (I was not inconsistent), since the legal entity is the Kingdom of Hungary, and we appoint to her region, while you wished to commensurate another term making identical with present Slovakia. And again, as we discussed, it is not really well or properly defined what kind of Slovakia we may speak about that time. I don't agree all of the listed editors would see the subject enitrely false (and on the contrary the point is there is not a clear terminology on this), and yes it is a common phenomenon that present Slovakia is often falsely believed to be existent backwards, and both of us know why, as not just we discussed this, but also higher forums regarding the historical relations/the way of teaching history of both countries, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

"Yes, the exact extense of Upper-Hungary may vary a bit by some interpretations". It is demonstrably less stable term. We don't talk only about "the exact extense", but about its principial definition (west? north?). It means that it not only suffers from the same problems as the term Slovakia but it introduces several others.

"I don't see how a map of campaigns would be fairly associated to boundaries defined much later". Who and when defined the borders of "Upper Hungary"? The map of campaigns clearly shows that it did not happen in Upper Hungary in general (even if we adopt the opinion about its northern location).

"legal entity is the Kingdom of Hungary" And what? Not all geographic names are legal entities. There are no legal entities like Záhorie, Kysuce, etc.

"that present Slovakia is often falsely believed to be existent backwards" It definitely existed although it was not an administrative unit. This is not a relevant argument - I can argue that "it is often falsely believed that the term Slovakia was created only in the 19th/20th century" (a nationalistic myth spread here by several Hungarians editors, see the diffs above). Please, don't take it personally, but I recommend that you solve your own myths and then take care of the others. Your fear is not the reason to remove the name. Normally, we would clarify the problem (inline note, footnote) rather than "censor" geographic names. The article says that it was not an autonomous region, so alleged "misunderstanding" is a hypothetical and artificial problem. Ditinili (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I would not say in total Upper Hungary would generate more problem in a certain weight, because in the timeline we are discussing it meant and included obviously the full northern part

You claimed equivalence, I did not claim such with any existent border, we talked about inclusion, that satisfies as per the earlier mentioned

I just asnwered to your previous question...it seems obvious we refer to the region of the entity connected itself

"present Slovakia" did not exist...I don't think you could charge me with any myths, it was about not "censorship", but explained more times we cannot make it equal with present Slovakia, and it is not widely accepted or used as a region of Hungary, as we discussed also, it is not really clearly defined, so it is obviously not a hypothetical and artificial problem. On the other hand, it seems you are overreacting this, although Slovenské Okolie is mentioned (and this the article says about the planned autonomy) in the lead. I would understand your concern, if Slovakia would not be mentioned at all, but immediately it is linked clearly with explained relation and in an unambiguous manner...in case Upper Hungary bothers you - that would be really amazing - then we could remove it and just talk about plainly "northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary"...or in the brackets where present Slovakia is mentioned, you may describe like part of the region also referred as Slavonia, Sclavonia etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

Kiengir, the term Slovakia is absolutely normal geographic term. I hope that we already agree that it was not created in the 19th or 20th century and such claims are historical mystifications. Information that Slovakia was called also Sclavonia (for example in Newton's correspondence) or Slavonia (Slováky, Słowaczyzna, Słoweńsko, Slovákországh /Magyar krónika, 1574/, Windenland, Slowakey, whatever) belongs to the special section (Slovakia - Names and etymology). I have absoletly no problem to mention that it was a part of "Upper Hungary" . However, it is not OK to remove some geographic name just because we don't like it. I honestly don't understand why the Latin names Sclavonia or Slavonia are acceptable but Slovakia is not. I will follow the well-established rules of Wikipedia.--Ditinili (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I uphold my argumentation, it seems you try to argue some conflict points you experienced with other editors, our discussion was not about when and what was created etc., and as well do not insist the improper accusation of anyone "liking it" or not. Nobody removed anything based like that, and noone said anything else accepted over something else, etc. please remain at the point and avoid the reccurent misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the argumentations. In the first place, a widely used well-defined term has to be mentioned, and after in the brackets you may explain anything you wish accurately about this regarding the geographic Slovakia, but it should not be mixed or confused with present-day Slovakia. That's all.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC))

No. WP:PLACE describes how to use geographic names and what to do if there are several names of the same location. If there is a geographical subdivision (A is a region of B, B is a region of C) we do not evaluate if A is more frequent than B in EN sources. That's not the purpose of WP:PLACE and the concept of widely accepted names. If it may be unclear where the A is, we write "A, B".

Example:

Myjava and Záhorie are regions of Western Slovakia. We do not evaluate if Western Slovakia or Slovakia are more frequent terms or not. If something is specifically related to Záhorie we simply write Záhorie. Of course, we can write "Záhorie, Slovakia" or "Záhorie, Western Slovakia" to clarify the text. But there is no rule according to which the term Záhorie cannot be used, it must be in brackets, etc.

This is your own invention and (at best) a tentative idea. I will simply follow the existing rules and conventions. The same applies to Slovakia (historical region) or any other region. If you want to define your own rule or if you want to extend region-specific guidances, here is the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).Ditinili (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Now you again speak of something else, that may be related, but just partially. As well I never said something cannot be used (again you insist something I never said, just as before), or something must be in brackets (ibidem). Henceforth, all the conclusions you draw from a false premise here (like own invention/tentative/defining own rule, etc.) is null and void. You should avoid this type of recurrent straw man argumentation. Here the order/brackets are formed by consensus, as we may use or choose from more alternatives overall at the first approach, other details we may decide in a second phase. Feel free to present here some alternatives, and I am sure we can work something feasible out.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC))

Ok. So, the term Slovakia will be used like any other gerographic term. If there is no consensus and we can choose from several alternatives, let me completely ignore your trials to "enforce" some order, etc. ALternatives? If something happened specifically in Slovakia (historical region), we will simply call it Slovakia. If it is not clear from the context that Slovakia was in the Kingdom om of Hungary, we can write Slovakia (Kingdom of Hungary). From cca the 18th-19the century we can write also Slovakia, Upper Hungary. If it is not clear from the context that we speak about a traditional region and not an administrative unit, we can emphasize it. However, then we should do it consistently also for the term Upper Hungary, because on administrative level there is absolutely no difference between these two terms (they are roughly defined geographic terms). --Ditinili (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand accuarately what you tell about no consensus/trial/enforce (well my recommendations are not necessarily "enforcements", but the healthy combination consistency&common sense&rules, as far as possible (even if we could not agree sometimes). So even before you clarify these, I also reiterate what I meant: here in these page, locally (see above here), the consensus has been region of Hungary - (present affiliation). Regarding your argumentation above involved with examples, you argued if something may be unclear, we should write both. For that I reacted, if you wish to change the text, that should be formed by a new consensus, since the combination of order & brackets involving i.e. Upper Hungary, Northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary, present Slovakia or "geo-cultural Slovakia" etc. may have many possible alternatives, thus it cannot be interpreted as the ignorance of my trials (?).

Considering of your proposed solution, I consider still very problematic just to use the term "Slovakia", being identical that of the present country, while the "geo-cultural Slovakia" is blurry defined, not really often used or prevailing term in comparison with Upper Hungary or similar (if you argue both would be roughly defined, well considering Upper Hungary the degree of roughness would be much-much lower than the much less used and defined "geo-cultural Slovakia"). As well, "Slovakia (Kingdom of Hungary)" and "Slovakia, Upper Hungary" is heavily confusive and would just more increase misundestanding and confusions (that anyway exists regarding present Slovakia). Any proposed consistent usage of anything we may agree should depend on local context and relevance, because of the earlier mentioned.

Thus locally here I could imagine a version like "...Slovaks inside Upper Hungary, in a region also referred as Slovakia (today mostly Slovakia)", etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

On the other hand, the conflict started when Hungarian politicians learned that Slovak leaders try to shift Upper Hungarian territories to the Austrian part of the Empire. There were no such conflict until Slovak leaders demanded autonomy, because it was already a well known thing / information for Hungarian politicians for a long time (even a decade before the revolution). So their reaction was "Nothing new under the sky" However the real conflict started only after they learned that Slovak leaders want to shift upper Hungary to the Austrian Empire.--CumbererStone (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is erronous intepretation (the original intention was to achieve an agreement with the Hungarian government). It's off-topic in this secion.Ditinili (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, there was nothing new in the Slovak autonomy demands, it was well known for Hungarian politicians since a decade. The conflict started (from Hungarian side) after the Hungarians learned that Slovak leaders wanted to shift Upper Hungary to the Austrian Empire.--CumbererStone (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It is off-topic and I suggest you to read some serious work about the Slovak political program.Ditinili (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why is this an off-topic?--CumbererStone (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Because this section is not about the Slovak political program.Ditinili (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, this article is about a conflict, and the causes of a conflict are always central (core) parts of the story.--CumbererStone (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree but this section is about something completely different.Ditinili (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your explanation , why is this topic "completely different"?--CumbererStone (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

CumbererStone, if you want to discuss "Topic XYZ" then create a new section "Topic XYZ". That's all. Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No. It is very important to mention that the conflict was started when the (self-appointed) Slovak leaders tried to shift Upper Hungary to the Austrian part of the Empire.--CumbererStone (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

CumbererStone, it is well known that the Slovaks tried to reach an agreement with the Hungarian government even after the arrest was issued to Stur, Hurban and Hodza. At the Slavic Congress, Jozef Miloslav Hurban declared that Slovaks are (despite all reservations) loyal citizens of Hungary and their priority is to reach an agreement with the government (Rychlik, J: Czechs and Slovaks in the 20th century, p. 29). I suggest you to read some serious works.Ditinili (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)