Talk:Slovak lands

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (Its sourced term, it was regional name for a Slovak inhabited territory from a 15th century. Its also a term used by historians to describe a history of Slovak ethnic areas. Its a lot of references in article. Term is widely used in the connection with Slovak history: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Slovak+lands%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy-ab&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Slovak+lands%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Slovak+lands%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=27773l27773l0l27989l1l1l0l0l0l0l169l169l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2900bb6b13d12473&biw=1246&bih=645 I dont see a reason for a deletion. Similiary article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovene_Lands) --Samofi (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So what if its sourced? Your wannabe article is completely unintelligible, has an absolutely unclear context, generally doesn't contain any meaningful information and even if it does, it's some minor detail that's already been discussed elsewhere. But let me be more specific: you started the article by stating that Slovak Lands refers to the Slovak-inhabited parts of Central Europe. Then you've inserted a highly dubious map (to say the least) with Polish labels, which depicts an alleged look of Poland from the 11th century (what the hell do Poles have to do with Slovaks?). Then you proceeded with the article by uttering this complete nonsense: "Term Slovak Lands describes Slovak ethnic territory from the 5th century when Slavs inhabited this lands[7] until the time of Czechoslovakia[8]". So no Czechs, no Moravians, no Poles, only Slovaks all throughout the centuries (the millennium-long Hungarian oppression, right)? Oh and then you try to support this whole historical confabulation of yours with sources that have absolutely ZERO relevance here (they either deal with the usage of term "Slovaks' land" in general, mentions the "Slovak element" to be present since the 16th century, or talks about the "Slovak awareness movements" from the 19th century) and call this article a well-sourced one. I'm sorry but there's just simply no way this article could be turned into a meaningful one. And quoting the Slovene Lands article for reference is a joke itself as well, because it seems to be free of the annoying myths that are ever-prevalent in the Slovak historiography (and people's minds too). -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Its only your nationalistic point of view. Its clear nationalism from you: "it seems to be free of the annoying myths that are ever-prevalent in the Slovak historiography (and people's minds too)." Read something about personal attacks. Its clear ethnic motivated attack to Slovak people. This is about term and usage of this term. Term "Slováky" (it means land of slovaks, for exmaple like Rakousko-Rakousy or Uhersko-Uhry) is sourced in Czech texts in 1405. It doeas not mean that Slovaks did not call their territory Slovenská zem before 1405. In text is nothing that Slovak lands were independent or something like that. Its standard demonym in historiography used by neutral historians. Sure better than nationalistic article [Principality of Hungary], we have a 3 books which used this term but it exists, is it okay for you because its Hungarian nationalistic mythology? When was officialy used term Hungary for a Regnum Marianum? I think never, it was Regnum Marianum or Lands of the crowns of Saint Stephen. Its product of Hungarian nationalism from 19th century. Read this: http://www.ian.muehlenhaus.com/muehlenhausCollege/TermPapers/Undergrad/undergraduatethesis.pdf --Samofi (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Slovak ethnic territory from the 5th century" is an "interesting" and highly dubious statement. Maybe Slavic ethnic territories. I only know about Slavic tribes around 500 AD. Moreover the source does not mention this statement and the book is a simple travel book (Czech & Slovak Republics-Lonely Planet).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We know "slovak tribes" ([1]). See talkpage of principality of nitra. In 5-6 century slavs in the present day Slovakia started to separate from other slavic tribes - started ethnogenesis of Slovaks, so we can talk about Slovak tribes. In 8-9 century it was specific language, only slavic language which was between east and west slavic dialects (it was not separate language but it has a own specifics). In 10th century we can talk about separate slavic language - about ethnic Slovaks. I speak about ethnicity, nationality is question from 17-18th century and realized in 19th century - for Slovaks and for Magyars too. Your problem (a both fakir and cool) is nationalism, because you connect Slovak nation with Slovak ethnicum and ethnic Magyars with Natio Hungarica (hungarian nation). I did not notice that you are able to desynonymize it. This is article about ethnic Slovak area before independant slovakia. Same like Czech lands, Slovene lands, Ukrainian lands, German lands, Polish lands. You are calling history of Budin pashalik "Ottoman Hungary", but it was no Hungary officialy in that time. It was just a ottoman province. Or Royal Hungary was a province of habsburg and than austrian empire - you hidden it in article "Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)". Royal Hungary was mostly ethnic Slovak realm. There was only 28% of ethnic Hungarians and significant part of them were nobles. So Royal Hungary covers history of ethnic Slovaks and Natio Hungarica. But its better to create a nationalistic article "Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)" hide this fact and talking here about 1000 years continuity of the kingdom. Why it was a german and latin as official language before 1860ties? Why it was correspondence of Szapolay, Thurzo, Corvin in Slovakized czech language (biblictina)? Jan Baltazar Magin called Slovaks from Trencen county "natio slavica" (http://books.google.com/books?id=aHcvAAAAIAAJ&q=%E2%80%9Enatio+Slavica%E2%80%9C&dq=%E2%80%9Enatio+Slavica%E2%80%9C&hl=sk&ei=nxCcTtW1MILg4QTIx7i1BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ) thurzo in 1606 used term "nostra natio slavica": "The statement is attributed to addressed to the cities he speaks with emphasis and love about nostra natio slavica, or o naSej slovenskej ndcii.n (p. 64) Juraj Thurzo considered Slovak his mother tongue".([2]). Interesting informations also here: [3] [4]. So we can talk about Slovak nation from 16th century, about Slovak ethnicity from 10th century and about ethnogenesis of Slovaks from 5th century. --Samofi (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

About Tótország.The old name of Slavonia was "Tót-ország" (Sclavonia, Thotország, Tootország, Tothorszag, Tótország).[5]Fakirbakir (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"The expressions of "Slovakia" and "Slovak" are problematic in relation of the medieval period, because they are essentially the product of the modern nationalism as it emerged after the 18th century."[6]Fakirbakir (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About Totrszag - firstly it was a Slavic land in general, but later it was used for Slavonia and also for Slovak lands: "Totsag" or "Tot imperium" in corespondence of Rakoczi. But from 19th century it was term descibeing exclusively Slovak lands. Its problem of Magyar language that it made no difference between Slavs. In German, Polish, Czech and English it were normal terms Slovaks or Slovak lands. Its sourced that a term was used from 15th-16th century in connection with Slovakia and Slovaks: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gm1pAAAAMAAJ&q=%22%C2%B4tot+vijalet%22&dq=%22%C2%B4tot+vijalet%22&hl=sk&ei=4yWYToCMEYSL4gS9xZ28BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ --Samofi (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia and Slovaks. But this is article about Slovak lands. --Samofi (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)