Talk:Trnava

Wikimedia Commons has more media related to: Trnava :This sentence at the bottom of the article may be true, but if one clicks on that link they can only read the following: (There is currently no text in this page) --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone would delete the reference to the original "parva Roma" name, here is a Slovak reference: http://www.inzine.sk/article.asp?art=9496 Árpád 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would remark, that Karol Dobiaš is not native a Trnava. He is come from Handlová, as Iknow, and from 80s he has been living in Prague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.70.43 (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have fully protected the article for a period of 2 days. Please use this time to discuss the changes. If either participate continue reverting after the protections expires, further action may be necessary. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Magyarization

The strong Magyarization is a malicious Hungaro-phobia and an unsubstantiated declaration. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit war over Magyarization/industrialization should end. Can you explain to me what a national consience movement would have to do with industrialization? If you want to know more about Magyarization from independent sources, see this link and this one of the U.S. Department of State. Markussep ^Talk 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is not mentioning, omitting Slovakization. Due to Slovakization, ethnic cleansing, mass deportations the number of Hungarians went from over 30% of total population to 10% in the area in 80 years a shocking decline by a factor of 3. Slovakization included things like mass taking away citizenship mass taking away properties valuables, deportations, ethnic cleansing and other "events". An NPOV article on a city should take care to mention all details or link to both articles or none to avoid tendentiously omitting certain events while mentioning others. And there is also the issue of calling something "strong" which did not include ethinc cleansing or mass deportations while completely omitting something that did. Hobartimus (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Hungarian population of Trnava decreased significantly in a certain period, that is worth mentioning in this article, of course. Please be careful when using words like "ethnic cleansing" and "deportation", I'm sure that's not applicable to the period after 1991 (as Nmate seems to suggest), or even after 1948. And don't trivialize 19th century Magyarization, because something worse happened during or after the World Wars. It is a bit strange though that the history section skips the period between 1918 and 1977. Markussep ^Talk 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1910 exactly 52.97% of the population was Slovak and if we can beleive the article today the same number is 96.89% meaning almost all of the non-Slovak population vanished almost without a trace. This is completely unaddressed by the article. Ethnic cleansing does not apply today but I don't think Magyarization applies either in present-day Slovakia. Also there are some in present-day Slovakia who openly advocate ethnic cleansing of Hungarians today so it's not in the "distant past" altogether. About 12% of Slovak voters voted for a party whose chairman Ján Slota said the following "Hungarians are the cancer of the Slovak nation, without delay we need to remove them from the body of the nation."source [1] What is important here is to look at the big picture and if the article deals with these topics in an NPOV way or tendentiously omits certain facts. Hobartimus (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from adding these figures, preferably with a reference. The article isn't about Magyarization in present-day Slovakia (that would be silly), but in the period 1870-1918. I've heard about this Slota person, fortunately 88% of the voters had more sense. Markussep ^Talk 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Between 1991 and 2001 were not deportations of course in Slovakia. I said it simply that there is vigourous Slovakization currently in Komarno in Rimavska Sobota in Nove Zamky in Levice etc..., which means multitudinous Slovak settlements to these cities. I know it that 30% of the France's population was not a French, at the time of the French revolution.That means strong Frenchization compared to the Hungarization from 1867 to 1918.Your independent sources are not serious unfortunately.I believe it because of that I live in central-Europe. Nmate (talk • contribs)

Not serious, Columbia encyclopedia and the US Department of State? Is there an active Slovak state policy to promote non-Hungarian settlement in those towns, are Hungarian schools forced to close, are Hungarian organisations forbidden? Markussep ^Talk 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hungarians settlements is not supported , so the Hungarians have to be looking for job on the Slovak settlements .There are few college and university in Hungarian language, so intellectual Hungarian stratum is slender in Slovakia.Language laws are created ,that defending the Slovak official language.Speaking in Hungarian on the official places is prohibited. An absurd administrative system was created in Slovakia, that is not exist a county with Hungarian majority. This furthers the assimilation.This is not a history. Nmate (talk • contribs)

I have trouble understanding what you write. What do you mean with "settlements", towns? As far as I read at Hungarians in Slovakia, those language laws are under debate. Exactly which official place do you mean? I wouldn't regard it as strange that Slovak is the only language in the national parliament, noone speaks Frisian in the Dutch parliament (they do so in the provincial parliament of Friesland). Still, this doesn't change the fact that Magyarization existed in 1870-1918, just like Slovakization existed between 1945 and 1948. Markussep ^Talk 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the settlements means an area with towns and villages for example an area with Hungarian majority. It is necessary to use the cities' towns villages name in Slovak in Hungarian newspapers. The Hungarian historical persons' name have to write in Slovak form in the Hungarian school coursebooks.Public places means :marriage hall, hospital...The Slovakization is current from 1919 to present-day. Slovakia is not west Europe.Nmate (talk • contribs)

I don't think all of this is true. I checked the website of the Hungarian-Slovak newspaper Új Szó [2] and I see Hungarian names like Pozsony, Aranyosmarót, Rozsnyó, Felsőpatony allover. The only Slovak name I see is Ružomberok, in parentheses after Rózsahegy. Or is what you say only true for the paper version? Markussep ^Talk 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify here (from memory) The current Slovak government (Ján Slota's SNS included) tried to abuse privately owned Hungarian newspapers in the past by making the claim that these privately owned newspapers conduct "official communication" and therefore should only be permitted to use "official" names even when writing in the Hungarian language. Since this attempt of Government interference with privately owned newspapers was contrary to Freedom of Press, I don't know how it ended but your point that some Hungarian names survived on the web is not proof of the abuse not happening. Hobartimus (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was today's edition of Új Szó, so I don't think it's a question of "surviving on the web". The SNS may want to implement Slovak names only, but they're obviously not succeeding in that. There's a gap between what that party wants, and what's official, fortunately. My point is though that I'm doubting all the things Nmate has claimed above about present Slovakia, because the few things I can verify turn out to be false or exaggerated. No EU member can get away with oppression of minorities in the long run, we have the Court in Strasbourg for that. Markussep ^Talk 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw what you wrote on my talk page. I remember those blank pages etc., I think the issue was that the government wanted equal space in newspapers for their response on what they perceive as attacks on the government. How silly can you get, did they manage to get that through parliament? Markussep ^Talk 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the controversial press code has passed (article in Slovak Spectator). However it has nothing to do with magyarization nor slovakization, it is general law. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's general law this is why I posted at Markussep's talk page about that, this is a slightly different topic, what's being discussed here. Hobartimus (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are mixing the Slovak education law and the new press code. The first affects only Hungarian education, the latter the whole Slovak media. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I do not read Hungarian, I am unable to comment on the Slovak education law from that source. As far as I know education law is in preparation and having Slovak National Party is in this case not a good sign for minorities, for sure, and I believe they have something to criticize rightfully. Further there were accusations that support for Lisbon treaty was bought for favourable changes in the education law under preparation. ([3] - sorry, only in Slovak).

But well, what does this all legislative mess have to do with article Trnava? :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia-related articles tend to overemphasize Magyarization of the past (back to topic of that section), but ongoing Slovakization is not mentioned at all. Squash Racket (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the debate went a little off course. I think the original topic was how to maintain NPOV in relation to including something about Slovakization as well if a terminology about "strong Magyarization" is already included but then we got into all these side questions. Do you know about the exact law that regulates "official communication" in Slovakia? I recall the government trying to claim school text books, newspapers all types of stuff as "official communication" and trying to apply that law to them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So here is disputed term strong Magyarization. What is important, it is used in the context of what was the role of Spolok sv. Vojtecha - founded in Trnava, that is why it is here - and basically one of the Association roles was to keep up the Slovak national conscience - why? - because of the Magyarization. Strong is in this context possibly unnecessary quantification, although it might point to the acute need of similar organization who would keep the national conscience, mightn't it?

More generally speaking, however, having learned from the List of Slovaks debate, I think the best way forward would be to source such (potentially - and already really) controversial statements. Editors interested in that can start looking for source... --Ruziklan (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the speakers for other minorities are glad that there will be more Slovak language in education. Also, SMK doesn't speak for all Slovaks with Hungarian ethnicity. It's more on the case to case basis.
Suggesting that proper education of official language of a country you were born in and live in something bad is ridiculous. Or maybe I should demand that the English learn Slovak and I shouldn't learn English.--Svetovid (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

About a million (czecho)Slovaks migrated from the Kingdom of Hungary during the turn of the XIXth and XXth centuries, and I do not see it anywhere, just magyarization, magyarization, magyarization. Slovak American shows all Czechoslovaks as Slovaks wich is a "minor" slipping (ethnic Jews, Czechs, Germans, Hungarians are in that group too), but no problem. Almost all Slovak(ia)-realted articles are impregnated with this SNS propaganda, negligating other factors of the era, and in fact, the era itself as well.

"Slovaks were shut out of voting" as I read somewhere is a joke too. There were multiple censuses (age, gender, wealth and social [=nobles only]), general suffrage occured only after 1918 in Hungary. About 5% of Hungarian citizens were eligible to vote regardless to ethnicity (aka the nobility) wich was still amongst the highest number in its era. Magyarization article itself is obviously written by some anti-Hungarians. For example, the magyarization was a response to germanization, the official polic of Austria, and targeted germans and jews. For example jews were emancipated, wich resulted in mass voluntary assimilation, as it was perfectly pictured (as the era in general) in the multiple award winning film Sunshine (1999 film), so wherever "magyarization" occurs, it should be investigated that wheter those "magyarized" people were really forcfully magyarized or chosed that on their own, as jews did, whom were living al around the country numbering at almost a million people. (when total pop. was ~20 mill.)

Well, at least the "brutal magyarization (c Johnnyboy) in todays south-Slovakia" (sic!) is not included at yet. And I hope it never be. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a very long post, however I think you are to large extent out of topic here. Please, bring your challenges regarding accuracy of other articles on their respective talk pages and we will see what happens. Moreover your naming of politician Ján Slota does unfortunately sound like invective. This is not the way the content should be discussed.

Magyarization of Slovakia in the last part of XIXth and beginning of XXth century is well documented by multiple sources and here it is not judged, only used as a reason why Spolok sv. Vojtecha founded in Trnava was important for Slovak national conscience. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any green in my eye? "Invective" huh? Don't even think of trying to "play" like this, Ruziklan. You read, and was aware of them too, since the media was full with these that times, as well as now with his petty and not so petty crimes. --Rembaoud (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Four things:

1. You are out of topic here. The changes of Ján Slota article should be discussed on its talk page, not on page about Trnava. Why you bring this diff here?

2. Last word here to explain. I have removed that content not because it is not true, but because it is about living person, potentially libel and completely unsourced in the moment, thus per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. It is not my business to provide sources, you are free to do so and thank you for doing so.

3. If you do not understand, naming Ján Slota as Johnnyboy is invective, as simple as such.

4. Please, do not call my actions "playing" (with quotation marks), I am trying to adhere to all set rules and acting in a good faith.

I am copying these two replies also to Talk:Ján Slota, please, continue the discussion there if you wish. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History and Geography paragraphs fully unsourced

Most material was introduced in 2004 (!), unsourced and by an anonymous editor who never edited under that IP again - is that the right base for the history paragraph of an important European city? Arminden (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Until it do not contain huge mistakes/OR or any really inaccurate stuff, it does not really matter who was the editor...since then many eyes seen that material, as well in the future will be seen, and it will be corrected/corroborated likely.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

Hi KIENGIR. Sorry, but that's quite wrong, and it will save you a lot of headache if you do accept it sooner rather than later - and this truly is a friendly advice, nothing else. If you're editing pages where no admins or experienced editors ever come to read, then it might work (but what do you gain from it?), however bigger topics, and most certainly contentious ones (Transylvania would surely be such a topic) won't allow that. It is strictly against the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not only against its sometimes petty rules. And for a good reason. An example: this article here, along with several other related online reference sites, have been quoting without naming the source, a "fact" that seems totally implausible, to say the least: 12 Jews being publicly burned in Trnava/Tyrnau in a 1870 (!) pogrom. Here is what I believe is the source: "Slovakia" of Bradt Travel Guides, 2007, p. 133. On the Trnava page this fictitious pogrom was mentioned and then removed, both times without offering a source. Wikimapia, Academickids, and Familypedia are still spreading this non-fact. It most likely stems from a mashup: in 1494 there was a blood libel that ended tragically in the burning at the stake of 14 Jews, and here at page 231 it says specifically: "1494: Tyrnau (12 Jews and 2 Jewesses burned; the remainder expelled)". The 14 victims of 1494 are already mentioned, the 12 are a mistake. In 1870, in a wholly different era, there were some other, totally disconnected events, and the Bradt Guide author mixed 1494 and 1870 into one. As you know, a lot of useless stuff gets published online, some even gets printed, and that's why any work of reference that respects itself, even an open-sourced one like WP, requires ACADEMIC sources, quoted according to a certain template (with slight variations). Otherwise we might as well listen to some gossip on the street or in online chatrooms. And "many eyes seeing the material" mean nothing, I've seen grave mistakes surviving for many years without being detected, and on pages with a much larger influx of readers than Trnava. So sources are a must, and not for pedantic reasons, but for very good, objective ones. Bye and happy Xmas, Arminden (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Arminden,

maybe you misunderstood me in a way, I did not say everything would be ok as it is, but to completely delete everything would not have sense, since then in the vast majority of pages we may remove mass extent of material all over WP which are anyway accuarate and useful. Now you specified problems with content about the Jews e.g., then go on, delete, source or tag there, and if it won't be reinforced in a cosiderable time, then delete. I never said we should ignore sources, neither not to fulfill WP requirements. Merry Christmas to you as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC))

My friend, yes, there was some misunderstanding here. There is a standard template for "insufficiently sourced articles or paragraphs". Its wording has been put together by some WP admins. I have NO INTENTION whatsoever of deleting anything. If you look up my comments & edits, you'll see that I am always in favour of having as much good info as the user would possibly like to find, so I'm usually putting back in info taken out by others. I'm only inviting fellow editors to go back and source the material, and often enough the good sources lead to changes, which add quality to the article. So the template mentions deletion, but I didn't pay much attention to that, and in my experience it never, ever happens. We two got on the wrong foot, it seems, and we should fix that, it's not needed. I'm as much using WP myself as I am editing, so finding good info here is essential to me, at work and privately. Do you know about "red links"? I'm often introducing them, or linking to articles in foreign languages when English doesn't have an article on that topic yet. If you come across important Hungarian topics that aren't covered in English yet, and if you happen not to know how to go about "red links" or linking to foreign language articles, I'd be happy to help. The latter is tricky, they have several templates and not all are working in every case. But maybe you know that already. So KIENGIR, a happy Christmas to you and may all viruses and bugs between people(s) disappear rather sooner than later! Arminden (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Yes I know them and even used then, however not so often, better just when I reparied or standardized them. The general problem is there is so much to improve and care even in one article sometimes that time is the biggest shortage. Again, all the Best Wishes fo the winter holidays, may all of us be/remain healthy. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

Editing

Imho the article need many arrangements to be done. At first I propose further standardisation of sections and their order, in regard to other article on cities and towns. I.e. History/ Geography/ Demographics/ Government/ Culture/ Education/ Sports/ Notable People. See e.g. articles on Munich, Zagreb, Split, Vienna, Glasgow, St. Petersburg etc., which are well elaborated articles,

Then, let us be rigorous and consistent in content itself, providing facts with references.

Then in someway try to eliminite inadequaces "to separate the wheat from the chaff" as they say. E.g. in section Notable people,however difficult it be, because of subjectiveness of matter.

... So I dare to change sections order to current: History/ Geography/ Demographics/ Municipal government/ Culture/ Education ... see Munich, Zagreb, Split, Vienna, Glasgow, St. Petersburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipcontributor800 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewish history renaming and moving

I propose to make a move. This part ,,Jewish history" to rename ,,Jews in Trnava" and move it to ,,Demographics section"

Reasons: Because in fact it has not suited well to general history of the town. (The Jews were always a small minority, not participating on general events) But is more suitable, according to content of that passage to historical development of demographics, as it has been established by previous edits. (In fact, if you read, that passage, you will see, that it is about development numbers, i.e. demographics of Jews) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipcontributor800 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Unregistered contributor has made some biased changes. Please be unpartial and support your changes with source. This article should not be used for ethno-historical disputes. Please supply the article with unbiased sources, not with conflicting statements.