Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 11 March 2011

Slovakia B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

diaspora

I'd like to open discussion on the term diaspora. When I first saw this article I felt quite uneasy about the terms applied to people of Slovak heritage. It's a very diverse group, and the term emigrant, migrant or even Slovak abroad might not correctly reflect their individual situation and shouldn't be applied collectively and broadly to everyone.

I believe that the term Slovak abroad is bound to be POVish, since it implies that the person has some form of active relationship with the present-day Slovak Republic or has declared himself or herself to be Slovak, which might not include the descendants of people born in Slovakia or other individuals of Slovak heritage, sometimes several generations removed from the country of their ancestors.

If you look up the term diaspora, you'll find that it has been used successfully for the Jewish community living outside of their historical homeland. There are other Misplaced Pages articles (Irish Diaspora), which use this term as well. Please note that diaspora does not imply that this group of people has to reside in the US or that they are Jewish.

However, since it's an English term and hence its present usage was quite likely coined in the US due to its predominance in the last few decades, it might seem unfamiliar to e.g. the Slovak disapora in GermanyJbetak 01:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Short answer: diaspora is an emotionally "stigmatized" term that is not used for all nations, but above all it refers only to those more or less FORCED to go abroad, which does not hold for all Slovaks living abroad. As a result, the sentence could be misunderstood as referring only to this special group Slovaks (plus bearing the unnessary "taint" of "oh, the poor Slovaks far from their beloved homeland"). And "Slovaks abroad" is fully neutral, and it requires a lot of speculation to come to the interpretation you are presenting above....I am not insisting on "Slovaks abroad", but I am insisting that the term "diaspora" not be used.Juro 03:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Have replaced the 'two version' tempalte with a smaller, less drastic one above the diaspora section. This dispute is not about the whole article but the phrasing of one section.

By the way, it was my understanding that diaspora is a neutral term for a nation's foreign population. However, the wikipedia diaspora page clearly states that the population had to be forced aborad. For the sake of consistency then, diaspora should only be used if that is the case. Robdurbar 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. Especially after reading some outside sources. Although I'm sure we can find satisfactory wording for it, please have a look at

Polonia

Serbian diaspora

Romanian diaspora

Indian disapora 1

Indian diaspora 2

Jbetak 05:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If you look into English monolingual dictionaries, the term never means just "the people outside the borders of the homeland", but the meaning is always somehow restricted, e.g. "far from their homeland", "similar to the Jewish diaspora" etc. So, since the term is not unambiguous, I see no reason to use it for a section with numbers. I am sure you have other proposals...like "outside the borders of Slovakia", for example...Juro 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

difficulty understanding

The "2 016 000" number is highly outdated. All other people-pages have 2005 statistics. The 2005 estimate dropped to about 1.1-1.4 million Slovaks abroad (probably due to assimilations within other ethnic groups and/or return to Slovakia). Why do we keep reverting the numbers?

We keep the old numbers because they refer to true figures - i.e. to censuses (the next one will be in 5 years). Any other figure is a "double estimate" (of the census results and of the "true" number of Slovak with respect to that number). In addition, the figures are only 1 year old or so (not outdated), your figure is not consistent with them, and I do not believe that the estimates have changed so much over 4 years...So, just tell me your source and we will write: According to XY, the estimate for 2005 is ZW. That's all. Juro 03:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S> There has been not mass return to Slovakia (rather the opposite).Juro 03:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you consider changing the diaspora estimate? 2 mil is way off from the real number. According to a recent census here 800,000 slovaks live in US with about 200,000 living in Canada. (I'm sure the rest of the world is no more than 100,000.)

That's not my estimate, but the best currently available estimate of Slovak demographers. In this sense, the "accuracy" is out of question. Personal impressions are just personal impressions.Juro 03:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yea, unless the personal impressions aren't personal impressions There are so many nationalists on wikipedia.

797,000 + 120,000 + 100,000 (Latin America) + 50,000 (Serbia) + 100,000 (rest of East Europe) = 1,200,000 + 4,600,000 = 5,800,000

That's a big difference.

Look, I see you have absolutely, but really absolutely no idea what you are doing. You just take any number you see on the internet, but you do not know how they define the nationality, who is the author, whether it is reliable etc. You just know nothing. I have a complete table for all countries with both official numbers and official estimates based on the same principle. You have nothing. There are by no means 100,000 Slovaks in Latin America for example not even by coincidence, that's ridiculous. Also, the number of Slovaks in the US is higher then you think because officially there were as much as 1800000 Slovaks in 1991 and 1000000 Slovaks could not have left the country in 14 years, because there is no place where they could be etc. etc. we could go on like this for every Country. So, just go play elsewhere...Juro 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I seem to be the only one attaching sources to my numbers. All but one (the Canadian one) are completely credible. I agree with you 100,000 Slovaks living in Lating America is extreme so I used your estimate. How did 1 mil Slovaks disappear in 14 years? Dunno, but they did. We must also realize that the US census includes NON-PRIMARY ancestry. In essence, we could be including people who are only 1/4th Slovak, so lower estimates are all for the better.

If you feel that census numbers arent that reliable then you should be complaining at the Russians page too (which I need some help on btw) Also, there are articles that talk about the underestimation of Gypsies in Slovakia. Maybe we should bring down the 4.6 mil .

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, but the point you are seem to be unable to understand is that the data must either mention various alternatives (which I tried to express by the XY - YW ranges, but which in reality is impossible because you, unlike me, are unable to provide a source covering all countries of the world in the same manner) or they have to be compatible. If they are to be compatible, then either we use official data only (but then the problem is that in many countries Slovaks are not registered) or we use estimates. If we use estimates then again it is extremely important to use the same approach everywhere - note the "illogicality" (is that a term?:) ) of your statement above: you require US census data, but then you require not to use SK census data, but to use estimates ...This is not how demographic data work. Another question: What source (please name it) says that there are 5.7 m Slovaks in the world?? I have no problem to name it as an alternative, but the data in the table must be, as I said, compatible, otherwise the whole table is useless, because it makes a huge difference (of millions of persons) how "Slovak" is defined. Take Hungary for example: officially there are 17000 Slovaks, but 70 000 people admit to have Slovak as mother tongue. This means that there are at least 70 000 Slovaks in reality (because no other person speaks Slovak in Hungary, except for say 50 translators). Therefore I have used this source (assembled by an American/Canadian Slovak), which uses the same approach for all countries (it is the only such estimate I know). And as for US, this is exactly the definition question: Slovaks are well known for "denying" their nationality very quickly after leaving Slovakia (after all, that's why they leave the country in many cases especially if they go to countries like USA) - believe me, it is just impossible that 1 million Slovaks out of 1.8 millions disappear or "stop to be ethnically what they have been 10 years ago". Assuming that there are no technological distortions in the US census, they just redefined themselves as Americans, that's all. Therefore, the 1.2 estimate is a very good one (between the 0.8 and 1.8). And we could go on like this with other countries...Juro 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the US census data more carefully - I have imported Table #2 from the 2000 US census into Excel and have there seem to be a few discrepancies. I have also tabulated the census data all the way back to 1910 and it seems highly unlikely that there were more than 1 million Americans of Slovak heritage at any point of time. Of particular interred: the 1980 census and the 2000 census both list people of Slovak ancestry at 700 to 800,000. In the light of all this, the 1990 census must contain some aberration. Jbetak 09:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. First of all, could you tell me what the columns stand for (i.e. add years)? 2. Its only now that I have realized, that the true number is even higher, because they also have an (ethnically non-existent) "Czechoslovakian" nation in the table. 3. The third problem is that the above anonymous contributor does not react...Juro 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have explained my last changes step by step in the article comments. The US census page does not work currently, so small changes regarding the Czechoslovaks might be necessary when it works...Juro 04:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't have much time lately. The Excel sheet was simply Table #2 from the 2000 US census. All columns and rows should be identical and have the same meaning. I did this to run a few quick tabulations and came to the conclusion that the census data is not terribly reliable when it comes to determining ethnicity. This is inherent to the way it's collected. However, it's the best data we have - save some estimates.

This prompted me to tabulate the number of people of Czech, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Austrian ancestry in the US from 1850 to 1980. I have not posted this data, but you are welcome to poke around yourself: Historical Census Browser. There is also a Misplaced Pages article on this, which really needs to be updated with more recent data.

It's very unlikely that there are more then 1 million American of Slovak or partially Slovak heritage. Most of them seem to be descendants of early 20th century emigrants, as evidenced by census data on Mother Tongue of the Foreign-Born Population . However, this data is from 1970, and is not entirely conclusive.

As to your dispute on how many Czechoslovaks from the 2000 US census should be declared as Slovaks: the census data states that only 2/3 of people have declared single ancestry. Others have declared multiple ancestries and it's entirely possible that some selected both Czechoslovak in addition to Czech and Slovak.

I don't believe that the other editor is acting in bad faith. I think he's trying to counter a possible POV - as am I. If you care for a personal observation: there are very, very few recent arrivals from the countries of former Czechoslovakia here. Most people I have met are one or more generations removed from their migrant parents and have really no ties to present-day Slovakia. Of course this would also apply to the vast majority of the 65 million US Germans Misplaced Pages so proudly claims in the Germans article ;-)

Jbetak 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I do not have days to analyse those weird US numbers, but let me summarize a few points. (1) The problem seems to be that the census interrogates about "ancestry" - a concept different from many other censuses. And people obviously understand "ancestry" as having ancestros even from the time 100 years and more ago (so they give German although they don't even speak German, for example). The problem for the wikipedia and encyclopedias is that they use THESE numbers, so we cannot decrease the number of Slovaks, because we think the census is wrong, while keeping THESE numbers for other nationalities and articles. (2) From another perspective: You personal estimate is just wrong to a large extent, because you have never dealt with Slovak history in connection with ethnology (which after all few people do): I have no numbers with me now, so I will write what I remember: There was a high number of Slovaks who emigrated to the US during the 19th century, but the numbers before 1870 are unknown. It is known however that some 500 000 Slovaks emmigrated to the US between cca. 1870 - WWI (the number might be even much higher because they were registerd as "Hungarians"). Other 600 000 Slovaks emigrated between the two WWs - many of them are registered as "Czechoslovaks", while in reality almost of them are Slovaks, because Czechia was not poor, Slovakia was. There were other four waves (100 000 people at least, could be 100 000s in reality) in 1945, 1948, 1968 and a smaller one after 1989 - in other words there is virtually permanent emigration to the US. (3) Despite your doubts, as a matter of fact, there were 1.8 m Slovaks (in the way the US define it) in the US in 1991 (10 years before to the last census). There is no reason, why someone else should declare himself as Slovak other than Slovaks themselves. The probable reason for the high number in 1990 was that there was the Velvet Revolution etc. so many people were "suddenly" proud of their Slovak origin. Ten years later some 2/3 of them declared themselves as American, died, declared themselves as non registered (note that there was a 10 pecentage points increase in people giving no ancestry - a total of 53 millions, which without any problems can include the lost 1 million) or - !! - as Czechoslovaks, because note that there was an increase of 100 000 ! in the number of "Czechoslovaks" compared to the last census, although the country does not exist anymore - so there is a manifest shift in self-definition compared to the previous census. In sum, in reality, the true number of Slovaks (as they are defined in the US) did not decrease that much (if at all). (4) People are still (increasingly) emigrating to the US/Canada, if it cannot be seen from the big US perspective, it can certainly be seen from the small Slovak perspective. (5) Unfortunately, I am unable to find a section in the US census data that would explain whether the table takes into account those double ancestries - I can hardly immagine that they have not adjusted for it. Irrespective of this and given that double namings are not accounted for in other articles either, a large majority of those "Czechoslovaks" are Slovaks, because Slovakia was the primary country of emigrants, not Czechia - I have taken a half, which is still a low estimate. (6) Now that you see some of the typical problems involved in estimating ethnic data from a simple look at census data, you should understand why I have taken the numbers from a text written by an author who uses to write on Slovaks in the US, and which specifically deals with this topic. In the end, you always need some expert text, you cannot rely on personal impressions, primary school knowledge and web data...And that text has an estimate of 1.2 m Slovaks in the US for 2000 (1.9 for 1990), so our 1 m "dilentant" estimate is still too low, but I am able to accept it. Juro 00:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Juro, the american census gives a number of 800,000 slovaks in the US. This number should not be bombarded with unrealistic propaganda, that in fact there are 1.8 million slovaks in the U.S, because they are not that many. in 1990, a lot of czech residents, stated that they were czech, slovak, and czechoslovak. The number for 2000 is probably a little undercounted (slovaks around 1 million). Czceh residents in the U.S declared themselves as Czechs and Czechoslovaks in the 2000 census, and not as slovaks as well, because of the break up in 1992. The remark that you made " slovaks are known for assimilating very fast" or something a long that track, is total rubish. There is now "way" that any nationality can lose over 1 million people in the space of 10 years. think logically! There is no way that there are over 2 million slovaks abroad.

The 1.8 are the OFFICIAL US census number of 1991. Your personal impression is hardly decisive here. I have explained the rest above (especially the definition proble, which howeever has not been discussed with articles for other nationalities here). And the source is not nationalist, it gives a lower number for some countries than we have it here. I cannot change the approach for one country, because some people just have the impression they can "feel" how many people of a certain ancestry there are in the US. You must provide arguments, not impressions, at best with a scientific source. Juro 18:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that most of the hand wringing is about the alleged "disappearance" of 1 million people over a decade. If you reviewed the census numbers more carefully, you'd see that other ethnicities have suffered large declines as well, albeit not as large as Slovaks have. You'd also notice that "Slovak" ethnicity was an example in the instructions for the 1990 census. I think that it's entirely possible that the numbers were influenced this. There will be always mindless people copying stuff.

We already know that the numbers collected are not terribly reliable because at least 30% claim multiple ancestry and can choose whatever they feel like. There are also very vague categories such as "Europen" one can chose now. Either way, I don't think that it's likely to figure out the fluctuation between 1990 and 2000. I have reviewed all census numbers going back to 1860 or so and have posted the results above. It appears that - save 1990 - there were never more than 1 million Slovaks in US census data and that should include any and all declaring themselves Czech or Hungarian. Feel free to check for yourself and interpret it as you may.

It would be also helpful to lay off this confrontational tone. It's not gonna benefit anyone anything. Jbetak 23:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

]]==US numbers==

My apprehension to the numbers in the US estimate is because of the following:

Although I agree with you that Czechoslovaks should be included (and the majority are probably Slovaks)....you are allowed to choose two options on the US census. It is likely that the people who chose Czechoslovak also chose either Slovak or Czech....therefore the numbers are just repeated. It is best to keep it at a range. A range of 800,000 to 1 million and 5 million to 6 million.

I see no reason why not to include that.

An answer to both. I will partially repeat myself. I really don't care anymore, but I have to remind you that if you "switch off" your feelings or impressions or average numbers applying only to the the US as a whole, what really remains is the following: we have absolutely no idea, whether all, none or what part of persons gave "Slovaks", "Czechoslovaks" etc. , we do not know whether those numbers are adjusted for this (the normal case is that they are, but I really cannot say), we know nothing. Your calculations are just plainly wrong, Jbetak, because this is not mathematics, this is all about how you ask people, what you ask people, when you ask people, how you define something and above all how people define themselves and their ancestry. I have explained above - and that is the only reasonable way of thinking given the information we have - why and how the Czechoslovaks should be included, I have also explained why the notion of "ancestry" is misleading, but unfortunately the only one they seem to use inn the US (and the only one we use here for all articles, so we should accept it here too). What we are doing know is that we are ignoring up to 400 000 people (the "Czechoslovaks"), ignoring the fact that the number (the same as in any other article here) was 1.8 in 1990 and above all ignoring the fact that the scientific table I have used has an estimate of 1.2 (I do not know whether with Czechoslovaks or without them). And my previous answer was juts an answer to a person trying to argue with alleged "logics", but somehow forgetting that the number actually WAS 1.8m, which - if with keep the US definition of nationality - actually "cancels" all your historic extrapolations, because it shows that the "potential" actual number - as defined in the US - is much higher then thought previously. And as I have explained using historic numbers, this number is by no means a surprise (if you ask about "ancestry").

Ad: Jbetak: And will you do the same "rectifying" calculations for all the say 200 nationality articles we have here? You won't.

Juro, I'm not sure what your problem is. I'm not arguing and I do not wish to argue, yet you seem to enjoy another approach. It's not the first and I'm sure not the last time we are seeing this from you.

I believe I have posted a fairly unbiased explanation pointing out that the 1990 number is an aberration considering all available historical census data. I'm not sure if you have really understood what I was saying, but if you wish to ignore historical data, please suite yourself. Then only the current census (2000) should be considered and it has a column for "Slovaks" and a number in it. I suggest we stick to that, as you are not open to any interpretation other than your own.

We should then also stop speculating about a "potential" number of Slovaks and the like. The question of how many Czechoslovaks are actually Slovaks and how many might have selected both categories on the census form can be led ad absurdum and ad infinitum. With everyone laying claim to the most enlightened and unbiased approach. I hope you agree, we all have better things to do. Jbetak 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I can be more clear: You are constantly repeating your diletant excel extrapolations and completely ignoring what I have been saying to you here 100 times. The 1.8 ARE THE OFFICIAL US CENSUS NUMBER (your opinion is irrelevant), meaning that in 1990 1.8 people said that they consider themselves having Slovak ancestors, meaning that the previous numbers are "wrong" in the sense that as much as this number of people is able to give Slovaks as ancestors. Nevertheless we are not discussing 1.8 or 1.5m we are discussing 1m. I have also added historical numbers confirming why this number can perfectly be correct, you have no idea of this, I do. These are no company spreadsheets, Jbetak. There are no "aberrations" in the magnituted of 1 million people. Secondly, I have a scientific text from an US Slovaks expert using an estimate of 1.2 m. Thirdly, we ignore the 400 000 people. In sum, the true number might be even well above the 1.2 m, but the 1m were a good compromise, if there was not for 72.144.92.117, a "person" that uses wikipedia mirrors as "external sources", does not even know that Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia do not exist anymore (see history of the Magyars article), and in regular time intervals just vandalizes the chart, hoping that I will forget it. 20:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in endless repetitions (we all know about the 1990 census) or personal insults - you are. For all the verbosity, you have neither acknowledged and nor adequately responded to the points raised here by me and others. Instead you are hiding behind unaccessible (and hence unverifiable) documents and estimates, commit ad hominem attacks (e.g. people with google numbers) to discredit other participants and pick out the numbers that suit you and your purposes. This is not the way any discussion should be conducted. I think you are doing yourself a your country a disservice on top of wasting everyone's time. Please reconsider - if you want to come to a reasonable resolution here. Jbetak 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ad Canada: If you say you keep the 120000 (and my computer says that it was YOU who changed it), why are you then reverting it back to 50 000??? I really have the impression that you are just vandalizing the numbers all the time. Juro 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the 100,000 numbers for Canada not the 120,000 numbers for UNKNOWN. 72.144.92.117 05:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a dab at a the article content, as I agree that it should contain more than just a repetition of the census data. That repetitive census data could move to the talk page, since it would be nice to capture it. The main article could contain some of Juro's claims as a point of criticism. I seriously doubt that the US census is undercounting, but some European countries might (e.g. Hungary) since there is a history of ethnic assimilation and sometimes even suppression.

I took some stuff from http://slovakia.org/society.htm and from other Misplaced Pages articles. Feel free to add/change anything. Best Jbetak 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just must tell you this: Slovakia org is generally an absolutely terrible source (although some selected parts may be right), the fact that you use it as a source just shows the level to which I have to react here. I am sorry that I have to tell you this. The fact that you find something on the internet does not mean that it is an (appropriate and correct) "source". There is virtually NO serious text on Slovak history, culture etc. on the web. The same holds to a lesser extent for many other countries. Juro 18:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

jbetak, i dont think the hungarians are undercounted in the U.S census. remember, that people who came from the austro-hungarian empire, were declared as that. i think the number for hungarians is correct, id be inclined to look more carefully at the number for romanians, i think they are undercounted. ŜĞΜ

Better Reasons

Is it necessary to include (the most urbanized part, intense mining of gold and silver) for Slovakia being the most advanced part of the Kingdom of Hungary - is there a source maybe or just a better reason? HotelRoom 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember the sentence arose through a correction of a previous sentence saying that Slovaks were just peasants, which is not true for each century. Of course, we can completely delete the sentence, but if I was a "newbie" in this sphere I would find this an interesting piece of information. As for the Germans: the maximum estimate of their percentage is cca. 20% (Slovak estimates) - 30% (German estimates) of Slovakia's population in the 14th century. The influx of Germans largely stopped in the 15th/16th century. Almost regularly, their settlements became towns (legally) (in other words, most big towns in the kingdom are originally German towns), therefore they outnumbered the population in the towns (some 4% of the total population), and in some selected small islands, but not in the whole country. There was a second wave of German immigrants to the Kingdom of Hungary after 1700, but this wave was to western present-day Hungary. And as for why I have added this: They had cultural, legal and quite surely a genetic influence on the local population and we mention other nations e.g. in the Hungarians article, as well, so I thought we should use a similar approach. But, again, if you wish, we can delete those other nationalities altogether. Juro 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Vojvodina

The Slovak language is the official language of Vojvodina, making the Slovaks one of the 6 linguistic groups in that Serbian province. I think that it should be stated in the article... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

proto-Slovaks

An anonymous user inserted an unclear sentence about proto-Slovaks into the section on contemporary Slovaks. The addition was completely unsourced (and tagged as such). It also made a claim that the current government coalition is far right, which contradicts the fact that the governing party is a socialist party. I removed that text. If anyone wants to reinsert it, please find reliable sources for it and put it where it belongs. It certainly does not belong to the section on contemporary Slovaks. Tankred (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"ruling coalition is leftist" - LOL SNS, HZDS are commies then? :) I think this proto-Slovak thing was discussed once before somewhere... --Rembaoud (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

The edits of user: Wizzard are falsifications: Jedlik and Benyovszky were Hungarians with (perhaps?) Slovak ancestors. Calling and adding them as slovaks is POV pushing. Please check: Talk:Ányos Jedlik, and Talk:Maurice Benyovszky.Baxter9 (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no, but I changed that image. --Wizzard (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Early Slovaks

"Slovaks also have significant Hungarian (Magyar) roots." Somebody must be kidding here. Please provide reasoning, or I suggest deleting.

Slovaks have one of the highest asiatic haplogroup markers in Europe.

Do the Slovaks claim this themselves? Small genetic markers hardly make for "significant" roots. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Poland

Poland (2002) (47 000 / 2 000*) - ancient minority and due to border shifts during the 20th century Does anybody have a source for this? Hrcolyer (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Slovak genetic background

The genetic reality of present-day Slovaks is important.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/01/mtdna-of-slovaks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks have the highest ratio (3%) of Mongoloid "Haplogropup M" in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadruplum (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Serb language

I think the part of the sentence in the introductory paragraph stating that the Slovak and Serb (sic) languages are closely related should be deleted (unless Serb should say Sorb). Slovak and Czech tongues are obviously closly related, but the relationship with the Serbian language is not significantly greater than to any other Slavic tongue. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation

"Current ethnolinguistic Slovak nationalism traces the roots of the Slovak nation to the times of Greater Moravia, claiming the polity to have been the ‘first Slovak state’. However, there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation." source: Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. This is a joke, right? They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation: example Ján Stanislav: Slovenský juh v stredoveku I.-II. (1948; 1999, 2004), Starosloviensky jazyk (1978; 1983), Dejiny slovenského jazyka I. - V. (1956, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1974) and million others grammarians and historians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please ensure English source about this?Fakirbakir (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added to the article 2 sources that support Great Moravian - Slovak connection

However, I can't find the text "there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation" in Tomasz Kamusella's book. (Iaaasi (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Keep looking.--B@xter 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

wiki is tragicomedy :-D Baxter9 reverts vandalism :-D This user has reviewer rights on the English Misplaced Pages. :-D And the best: This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. Especially slovak :-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"the last one is a czechoslovak source from 1965" - I don't understand what is wrong about this, the fact that it is czechoslovak? The fact that this is from 1965? (Iaaasi (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

We have to distinguish Slavic ethnic groups in the 9th century and the nation of Slovaks because these two are different things. 'Proto-Slovaks' is a very ticklish word. We can not talk about Slovak state or Slovak nation in the Middle Ages. We can do that from the 15-16th centuries (like Slovak ethnic group, not nation, not state). Slovak nation was born in the 18th century. If we talk about proto-Slovaks, we need to handle the ethnic situations (like Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Rusyns, Germans, Hungarians, Croats, Moravians, Pechenges, Oghuz Turks, Cumans etc.) in Upper Hungary during the time of Kingdom of Hungary. I concur Slovaks can consider the Moravians for one of their ancestors, but that is all, not more. We do not have to write nationalist songs about 'Slovak continuity in the Middle Ages'. Maybe Slav continuity, but we do not know the correct ethnic ratios, especially in the 10-11-12th centuries. Slovak historians also know this problem, written sources are usually missed in this period and after that we encounter a continual Slav migration from North, West, East to Upper Hungary (and we have a lot of sources about this). Some archeological findings exist, but two or three villages prove nothing, and the data about that is a misconception sometimes. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Slovak nation was born in the 18th century." Could you please ensure English source about this? lol another "expert" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it good for you? "The Slovak nation-building process, which had begun in the 18th Century" Illustrated Slovak history: a struggle for sovereignty in Central Europe By Anton Špiesz, Duśan Čaplovič, Ladislaus J. BolchazyFakirbakir (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Slovak nation-building proces is not Slovak nation. "The Slovak nation-building process, which had begun in the 18th Century, ran its course trough same very unfavorable circumstances, because it was concurrent with an analogous Magyar process." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is not how we can interpret this expression "member of the 'Hungarus' nation"? Before the 18th century, everybody belonged to the Hungarus nation. Prior to the 18th century, there was not Slovak nation, it is a fact. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary was multiethnic kingdom. Similar to for example: Kingdom of Spain or UK. "member of the 'Hungarus' nation" is not "member of the 'Magyar' nation". It is only propaganda that Kingdom of Hungary was magyar kingdom. If there was not Slovak nation, so there was not also Magyar nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Slovakia articles
• Top-importance Slovakia articles
• All WikiProject Slovakia pages