Talk:Bratislava/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

BRD

I proposed, relying on History of Bratislava, the following discreet addition: The present name of the city was adopted in 1919; it had been revived as its Slovak name, from earlier Slovak forms, by Pavel Jozef Šafárik in the 1830's.

What's wrong with it? The official name under the Habsburgs was Preßburg, although I do not think we need to make any more than this out of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I did not delete your sentence, I do not think it should be part of the lead. This information can be found (in more detail) right in the next paragraph. On the other hand, I am fine either way. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Two paragraphs after, after the section break; which is why I didn't see it. Surely this is, like Brasilia, one of the more notable facts about the city; it is rare for such name changes to take. 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The transcription of pronunciation should list both variants, with -ti- and -ci-. Jakub.marecek (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

infobox issue

Can someone fix the problem? Red lettering announces "Expansion depth exceeded" in my browser. Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the "part_fold" field, which shows and hides the text/links. I've removed it. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

This page appears to be one in a large number of articles which are involved in disputes regarding Hungarian and Slovakian issues. A centralized page to discuss these matters has been setup at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please bring up any further disputes, or concerns about the editors involved in those disputes, at that page, thanks. --Elonka 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting the change of date in Names section as there is no source documenting change given and there is ongoing discussion on Hungarian and Slovak geographical names at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Names and this article is within its scope. Please, discuss changes of this kind before making them, you are welcome to join the discussion there. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava as a part of the Hungarian WikiProject

Looks like some of you think that Bratislava has nothing to do with Hungary. May I ask you that why are you denying the fact that Bratislava (a.k.a. Pozsony or Pressburg/Preßburg) played a key role throughout the history of Hungary? Why are you disputing the fact that it was the capital of Hungary for centuries (from 1531 to 1784 to be exact), that Hungarian kings were crowned in Bratislava (at least until Székesfehérvár, the traditional Hungarian coronation town was under Ottoman rule) and many famous Hungarians were born in Bratislava? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolKoon (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring about the WikiProject template stops, now. The next person to change it gets blocked. --Elonka 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Headquarters

The original sentence "The headquarters of many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are in Bratislava as well." was changed by 99.241.67.84 to "Many of Slovakia's large businesses and financial institutions are headquartered in Bratislava as well." It was reverted by Trusilver. I do not understand what is wrong with changed version, can somebody enlighten me, please? In my view original version is worse. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Slovakia's first bank was founded in 1842"

Wich bank? And was founded in wich country? Is this an attempt to create a legacy of a state wich was erected in January 1, 1993 (or in March 14, 1939) ? Slovakia did not exist in 1842, therefore it could not have for example a bank. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The bank was Prešporská sporiteľňa, účastinná spoločnosť. I will not comment on the "political" part of your comment because it has nothing to do with this article. Tankred (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True, since its the historical part. If you wrote "Bratislava's first bank", that would be just fine. But Slovakia, wich did not exist in 1842...is unfortunately the "creation" chapter. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I favour Rembaoud' opinion.Nmate (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version is good now. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava's official name

As far as I know, the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was the Latin until 1844 (with the exception of the period between 1784-1790), and then the Hungarian became its offical language. Therefore, I think that Bratislava's official name was Posonium untill 1844, Pressburg between 1784 and 1790 and Pozsony from 1844 untill 1919. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava's foreign names

Can we qualify 'Pressburg' or 'Pozsony' as foreign names? The former was used by most of its inhabitants for centuries, the latter was its official name from 1844 until 1919 (and the latter's latin form, 'Posonium', had been its official name before 1844 for centuries). Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in-a-hurry: why don't you rewrite it then? By the way, I think slapping many tags (sometimes just right next to a citation) doesn't help much, I think we should exercise more caution on articles like this one. I will comment later on your points The Autobahn (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by The Autobahn a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

Borsoka, I left your citations and added some of mine, however, I dispute the nature of some of your tags. I couldn't find any reference to any local nobleman Braslav right now, so I removed it, as well as mention about "official name" until it'll get resolved. But I must ask: what do you dispute in the name Istropolis? I assume either that: you dispute that Renaissance documents called it or that it was ever called Istropolis in Ancient Greek. However, you seem to have fairly good knowledge about Central European history (so far I've seen you're working in the Middle Ages), so if we will discuss this, it's possible we will work out a solution. What do you think?

P.S.: I assume you mean readding foreign names in the lead. I don't know if that's the best idea if we want a short, "clean" overview in the introduction, besides, a link links to Names already. The Autobahn (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by The Autobahn a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

Božaň

The article mentions that Pozsony was possibly named after Božaň, an 11th-century r u l e r (1053–99) of Bratislava Castle. Could we have more information on this person? I have never heard his name and all my reliable sources suggest that Pozsony was part of the Kingdom of Hungary during these years. It would be surprising if a ruler of one of the most important towns of the kingdom had not been noticed by Hungarian scholars, yet. Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken anchor

Anchor in first paragraph (foreign and historical names) is dead/broken. Didn't see where it goes during quick scan. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava itself borders Austria only

Bratislavski Kraj borders Hungary, not the city. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun il ca (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Panorama of the early morning sunshine over Bratislava's Old Town, to the left, and the New Town, to the right. Bratislava Castle is visible to the far left.

Panorama of the same area after a snowfall.

I really didn't think replacing one panorama with two would be described as creating a gallery, but what the heck. I'll ask nicely. Can these images be added somewhere? I believe they illustrate excellently both the Old Town and the New Town. Thanks. ;) --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the image only shows parts of 2 out of 17 boroughs, I don't think it should be in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit much in all fairness; how about you find me an image that shows all seventeen boroughs in any great detail, and then we replace it with that?! It shows a large part of what are probably the two most well-known of its boroughs, including the castle, and one can't argue that it shows far more than the image it replaced (Bratislava Panorama 01.jpg). --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

anonymous user(MarkBA)'s edits

I reject this anonymous user ?MarkBA's opinion. His hidden reasons are evident for me. It is possible that what I wrote was not perfect in English but that my all sentences were wrong it is nonsense!!! I did not write in so wrong English that my all sentences should be removed from here immediately!!!!!This article was written by MarkBA and Tankred so I think this anonymus user is MarkBA. Long ago MarkBA very often removed my all edits so edit summary that :stop Hungarization please! Because I wrote the Hungarian historical events to the article's history chapter it was very obnoxious for him.Nmate (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nmate: Firstly, if there is an article at Bratislava Castle, then that is how it appears here. If you wish to move it, go to WP:RM. Secondly, if you believe that to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA's, then make a case at WP:CHECKUSER. Otherwise, don't make the allegation here. Simple. Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter who the anonymous user is, some of Nmates edits were not very helpful, for instance the repeated "today's old part of Bratislava" and the complete removal of the Slovak name of Devín castle from the history section. He's surely not claiming that the Slovak name wasn't used before 1918? Markussep ^Talk 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's far from "no matter" it matters quite a bit who the anonymous user is. Banned users have no right to edit. This means that their contributions are reverted as per wikipedia policy WP:BAN. What's more it is also forbidden to edit on behalf of banned users per the same policy. The IP used in this case is a known confirmed range of banned user:MarkBA. Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, would you mind to stop that name-calling and blackmouthing? It doesn't help anybody at all. Then I will be glad to jump in and discuss, however, in a nutshell, the edits weren't helpful in some number of ways. Thanks for listening, 78.99.132.221 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the content of the article: could you (=Nmate and/or Hobartimus) indicate what you think is missing relevant information w.r.t. this article, current version, so we can discuss it? Markussep ^Talk 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Additions about city history

Copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Bratislava, 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC):

This sentence is unfair on top of the article, because the city's Hungarian historical roots is stronger:

Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

So this sentence would be better:

Pressburg was home many of Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

it is better crown jewels instead of crown jewels

This sentence is very one-sided also:

in 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, Presspurske Nowiny (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published.

better solution:

The first newspapers were published here in Slovak, German and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny, Pressburger Zeitung and Magyar hírmondó in the 18th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.

This sentence in not so good:As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848 in the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called March laws (also called April laws), which included the abolition of serfdom, at the Primate's Palace.

better sentence:

As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of a today's modern Hungarian constitution.

this is a wrong sentence with an anachronistic bridge name:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most (Bratislava), was built in 1891.

good sentence:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Frantz Joseph bridge, was built in 1891.

furtermore some absentee but very relevant hungarian related events from the 19th century:

In 1825 István Széchenyi offers his yearly income to establish the Hungarian National Learned Society (now Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in Pressburg. Between 1843 and 1844 Hungarian language is proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and teaching by the Diet in Pressburg. Here formed the first responsible Hungarian Ministry in 1848 on 7th of April. On 7th October in 1848 Josip Jelačić's army threatened the city with bombing but He marched away from Hungarian army who occupied the city until 19th December. On July in 1849 Julius Jacob von Haynau set up his campaign in the city. After this Pressburg became a center of military headquarters. In 1850 railway line connected Budapest and Pressburg. The city was prosperitied by mayor Henrik Justi and banker Theodor Edl in the second half of the 19th century. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 They were political opponents.

Nmate (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments, point by point:

• Slovak national movement: it would be very strange to omit this, it was very relevant, and it was for a large part based in Bratislava/Pressburg and surroundings. This doesn't deny the importance of the city for Hungary, does it?
• crown jewels: OK, not controversial IMO, probably collateral damage of the revert war.
• The Presspursky Nowiny was (apparently, I don't know it) the first newspaper in the Slovak language, that's relevant. The other newspapers are mentioned in the article History of Bratislava. The German one was definitely not the first one in German, if the Hungarian one was the first in Hungarian, it's worth mentioning here.
• I don't understand the fuss about March or April. If the 1848 law served as the basis for the present constitution of Hungary, that might be worth mentioning, but the article Politics of Hungary says that it's based on the 1949 constitution of Germany. Who's right?
• It's quite common to use the present name for a bridge or other landmarks. A better wording may be: "The Starý most, built in 1891, was the city's first permanent bridge over the Danube."
• Your "absentee" paragraph is rather poorly written. Let me rephrase the first part like this: "In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg."

• I'm not sure what to do with your "ministry" line (what does "responsible" mean here?). If it evolved from the 1848 constitution, it might be better to make it a clause of that sentence. The Jelačić/Haynau part is a bit too much for this article, and also treated in the History of Bratislava article. It suffices to refer to the 1848 revolutions. The railway line to Budapest: OK (was it Buda or Pest? they hadn't merged yet in 1850). "prosperity" is not a verb, and the mayor and the banker are not so relevant IMO, the development of Pressburg in the late 19th century is already treated. Markussep ^Talk 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

my point of view:

1, Slovak national movement: I do not want to omit it - I would like to move it from under the headline to historical context.It would be a good solution also: this sentence remain on this place but an another one very important Hungarian related event will be inserted under this headline too.

For example:

Pray codex is liked to the city - which was made between 1192 - 1195 - that is the first known coherent literary remains of the Hungarian language. The city was the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy from 1536 to 1783. Pressburg was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

2, Newspapers:Hungarian and Slovak are together in an sentence is O.K.because the Magyar hírmondo was the first newspaper in Hungarian language.

3, It is true both : These laws meant the transition from the feudal society into the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary so these laws included the basis of today's modern Hungarian constitution. But it is true the German pattern also.

4, What You rewrote at Hungarian National Learned Society is O.K . A good clause will be find out with first responsible Hungarian Ministry. First responsible Hungarian Ministry means: the official name of the Batthyány government.

5, Bridge name is not so relevant for me.

6, What you wrote about revolutions of 1848 is O.K. I do not know exectly that railwayline connetion was at Pest or Buda.

Nmate (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. What do you mean with "liked to the city"? Was it written there? And does this prayer book have a specific name? "pray codex" sounds very general.

2. OK, that's relevant.

3 and 4. I don't think the constitution is relevant enough for the Bratislava article then. The parliament (Diet) can be mentioned of course. Was it permanently in Pressburg, and when was it moved to Pest?

5. OK

6. According to German wikipedia, de:k.k. Südöstliche Staatsbahn, it was Pest, connected via Vác (Waitzen).

I don't have the time to do it myself now, but I can do the changes on Monday. Markussep ^Talk 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pray codex contain a Mortuary speech and prayer and a almanac of Pozsony , which contains the historical events from 997 to 1203.Nmate (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a rather weak link. It could be mentioned in the "History of Bratislava" article, but then for the almanac ("an early source for the history of Pressburg is the 13th century almanac in the Pray codex"), not for the sermon. Markussep ^Talk 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be right to wait for Hobartimus in the debate.

The first newspapers were published here in Slovak and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny in 1783 and Magyar hírmondó in 1780 - in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Is it good?

In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg.As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary. Here formed the first independent Hungarian Ministry so called Batthyány government in 1848 on 7th of April. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria although the local residents were mainly German origins in that time.

Is it good?

Nmate (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestions:

• The first newspapers in Hungarian and Slovak were published here, resp. Magyar hírmondó in 1780, and Presspurske Nowiny in 1783.
• In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. <skip part about official language and April laws, that's not specifically about Bratislava> During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria, and the first independent Hungarian government was formed here under Lajos Batthyány. <do you have a reference that the 1848 Pressburgers were mainly of German origin?> Markussep ^Talk 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What kind of reference?Concrete census nothing.But this is a general sentence in Hungarian:Száz évvel ezelőtt még magyar-német dominanciájú volt a közösségi élet, még korábban pedig szinte teljesen németek lakták. [1] and in History of Bratislava#Demographic evolution :1850: Germans (75%), Slovaks (18%), Hungarians (7.5%) - Note: all population data before 1869

Nmate (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I told you before I can't read Hungarian. Markussep ^Talk 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading above, I get only one impression and one opinion: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism, regardless whether being Hungarian, Slovak, German, whichever, whether for research, open or masquerading theories, and so on. From the above suggestions, only some mention about Revolutions of 1848 is worth some attention. Others are not, especially the establishment of the learned society and offering one's income to establish it - just not worth, for such and more details are separate History articles, otherwise any other could be mentioned, not excluding Slovak Academy of Sciences, established 117 yrs later. By the way, why was Etymology deleted? I hope no one of you want to destroy this article! 78.99.132.221 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The etymology is already treated in detail at History of Bratislava. That article definitely needs major cleanup BTW. I agree about Szechenyi's income, feel free to discuss more details that aren't worth mentioning in the main article in your opinion. Markussep ^Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? As far as I can see no or little part of the original etymology section has been incorporated into Etymology there; I can see only original untouched version. But I agree that it needs quite an extensive clean-up to be of some good value. However, I got bit strayed so let's return: from the original list, I can say: leave only Revolutions of 1848 and related with the laws, in a brief detail, discard the rest. The national learned society doesn't belong into brief overview, otherwise any other institute of same or higher level could be included. Railway connections are to be limited into milestones, that means its current form: horse-cars in 1840, steam locomotives in 1848. As said, the industrial revolution is already covered. I'm not quite sure of relevance of forming the first government, ministries or however it is called; IMHO it strays from neutral point of view a bit. And only one suggestion: when you have deleted Etymology, you could leave at least the first mention, as Brezalauspurc in 907. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right that information that was in the "Etymology" section of the Bratislava article is not in the corresponding section of the current History of Bratislava article (which is rather fragmentary and poorly sourced). I have just copied the section to the HoB article, removed some obvious duplications, and mentioned Brezalauspurc in the Bratislava article. Markussep ^Talk 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Markussep. To the comment just below me: sorry, but I still don't see why any learned society or academy or whatever should be mentioned in a brief overview. Let's keep it brief; otherwise, any academy or university from whichever period could be mentioned. As for the "Magyarization" point - sad but true; I guess it's bit tedious to repeat this fact again and again. So why from a German city became a German-Hungarian one (with other examples)? And everyone knows that Germans and Jews were the easiest targets for these policies. And this article does not omit that Slovakisation took place as well; both History and Demographics do that, and even mention Beneš decrees, though, in demographics in an indirect way ("accused of cooperation with the Nazis"). Otherwise, my standpoint remains the same: only Revolutions of 1848 + related, nothing else. PS1: the candle demonstration is connected with the Velvet Revolution, though both happened in different years, as said, it anticipated the fall of the communists; it would be strange to omit this. PS2: please don't delete my comments! 78.99.132.221 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hungarian National Learned Society is a very relevant information but It is good solution mentioning it without István Széchenyi: In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg

is it good?

But the "Bratislava candle demonstration" is not a very relevant information here.

This sentece is a assume bad faith in the demographics chapter with the strong Magyarisation:

From the city's origin until the 19th century, Germans were the dominant ethnic group.However, after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, strong Magyarisation took place, and by the end of World War I Bratislava was a German-Hungarian town, with Slovaks as the biggest minority.

This was a German city in that time and they in general voluntary magyarized because they saw that act as a tool (and possibility) of getting higher on the social and economic ladder.And there is not mentionig the Beneš decrees and the "Reslovakisation" process in this chapter.Nmate (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to discuss Magyarization again, are we? I think Talk:Trnava#Strong Magyarization and User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 3#Nové Zámky, Levice‎, Komárno‎ were more than enough. About the academy: how much impact did it have on Bratislava? From what I read at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences website, it first convened in 1831, and "Attendance was compulsory for full members residing in Budapest" in its early days, so I suppose it moved to Budapest soon after its foundation. In that case, its relevance for this article is small. Markussep ^Talk 13:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Academy of Sciences moved to Budapest because the capital moved to Budapest. This information means that this city was an important centre of the Hungarian culture. This means a huge prestige for the city , and this is a very important events for the Hungarians.But the Slovak Natitonal Movement was not an important events for the city because this city's population were German in that time and leaders of this Movement were not acknowledged leaders for the all Slovak nation.It was a smaller group which was supported with money by the Emperor Habsburg but this is important for the Slovaks.So this movement is mentioning here.Nmate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The capital was already in Buda since 1784, only the diet (Landtag) was in Pressburg in 1825 (and stayed there until 1848). That might be the only reason the academy was founded there. If the first academy meeting was in 1831 (and probably in Buda), I suppose it wasn't so much prestige for Pressburg. It never had a building or library in Pressburg, right? The importance of Pressburg for Hungarians has already been covered, for instance the long time Hungarian capital, the coronations, the first Hungarian newspaper. Let's not exaggerate Hungarian presence in Pressburg/Bratislava, they were never the majority AFAIK. Mention the academy in the history article, not here. Markussep ^Talk 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said for both comments, Markussep. The key is to keep our agendas in check, showing only glimpse of it. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary about what to include and what not:

• Slovak national movement: (still?) disputed by Nmate
• crown jewels: OK (implemented)
• first newspapers: OK (implemented)
• 1848 revolution, April laws: could be expanded a bit, Bratislava chose the Hungarian side, something about military conflicts in/near Bratislava? Revolutionary government may have been formed in Pressburg, but it resided in Pest. Link with current Hungarian constitution is too weak
• starý most: solved
• academy of sciences: probably limited relevance to Bratislava
• 1843 official language: not specifically about Bratislava
• 1850 Pressburg-Pest railroad: OK with me
• mayor Justi and banker Edl: not notable enough
• Pray codex: limited relevance to Bratislava
• 1988 candle demonstration: relevant as a prelude to the velvet revolution
• Magyarisation: that's a fact, maybe it wasn't extremely brutal and partly voluntary (assimilation, influx of Hungarian civil servants), but it would be silly to omit it. Markussep ^Talk 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point: 1. IMHO relevant, don't get the point of dispute. Yes, there were fractions (FYI over religion) but that doesn't diminish anything from its relevance. 2. ok 3. ok 4. keep it in a brief detail (choosing the KoH side but captured in Jan. 1849). 5. ok 6. belongs into history article 7. I agree with your comment 8. Seeing only one relevance: connection with the then capital, or at least with the Pest part 9. so I say 10. ditto 11. yeah, that gets the point - prelude 12. silly to omit, maybe softening the wording by deleting "strong", and adding "policies". 78.99.132.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line about the revolutionary events, and about the railway to Pest. Markussep ^Talk 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. Though I made a mistake when I said it fell to Austrians in 1/1849 - it did in Dec. 1848. Buda and Pest were captured in January, so I corrected it. 78.99.132.221 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The foundation of the learned society is trivial to history of Bratislava in this main article.--Svetovid (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it back my last edits without the ethnic cleansing statement because it is explain the reasons for this events. Later I am going to add sources to it. Nmate (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please revert the breach of the consensus

We agreed that Bratislava would be used there, not Pressburg. Please revert. Nmate, please stop breaching consensus and stop making chauvinistic remarks.--Svetovid (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, must have been in one of the archives, I missed that. It seems a bit strange to me to use Bratislava in pre-1919 context, like saying that Istanbul was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. I agree with you that Nmate's edit was out of line. Looks like he's on the Magyarisation / Slovakisation warpath again. Markussep ^Talk 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've used this example before: London is also referred to as London even in times when it didn't have that name. It's a matter of convenience.--Svetovid (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a counter-example: Saint Petersburg consistently uses Leningrad for the years 1924-1991. Markussep ^Talk 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a special case for obvious reasons. I am talking about a habit, also professed by historians, to use current names of cities (or any other geographical locations) when talking about their distinct past.--Svetovid (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you meant distant past? 1918 is not so long ago, you can't really compare Pressburg/Bratislava to the Londinium/London case. Markussep ^Talk 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Distinct too if you think about that ;).
Yes, I can. The current reader of English Wikipedia (and other general sources) knows Bratislava and not Pressburg (in general).--Svetovid (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew Pressburg, maybe I'm not general enough. I just read in the archive that there has already been an elaborate search about how the place is called in historic context in modern reference works, that more or less resulted in a draw. The thing is I've seen many editors complain about anachronistic names. BTW you said yourself that Pressburg is the historically preferred name, or was that only in combination with "county"? Markussep ^Talk 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do the revert since nobody else wants to follow the rules here it seems.--194.160.75.10 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid vandalized this article. Also It is very probably that this anon user is Svetovid.Nmate (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to do a newer revert because Svetovid's behaviour is absoluly incomprehensible. Nmate (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only did Hobartimus breach the consensus, but he also ignored WP:NCGN: "...In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased."--Svetovid (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you yourself have no consensus for your edit that you continously make, but also in my version there is no such "redundant list of names" only two relevant names not to be confused with irrelevant ones. Further what really is redundant is a link that points to a few lines below it is like a link that links to the next sentence or next word in a sentence. Also once more you are using popups to revert instead of using an informative edit summary as to your changes. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased."--Svetovid (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Famour persons born in Bratislava

I started this chapter from whom I remembered. Please add many others and relevant people. TomyDuby (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, there is already a list: List of personalities from Bratislava. TomyDuby (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IPA transliteration of Bratislava

At present, the IPA transliteration of Bratislava is stated as:

[ˈbracɪslava]

If I understand the information in the IPA page, then the symbol [r] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:

ŕ

(i.e. long r, like in Spanish perro) whereas IPA symbol [ɾ] corresponds to the Slovak consonant:

r

(like in Spanish pero).

So when transliterating the word Bratislava, we should use

[ˈbɾacɪslava]

Isn't that better?

I hesitate to change that because there are number of other pages (Prague, Rotterdam) where IPA symbol [r] is also used while it also is inconsistent with the meaning of that symbol on the IPA page.

Kosik (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pozsony

The form Pozsony is not attested before the late 18th century and nobody knowing the attested names of the town has ever claimed the opposite. Similar names (Poson etc.) are attested, yes, but those names can be (and probably are) Latin, Slovak, Croat etc., as well, and above all they are not the same name. In other words, claiming that Pozsony was used in the 16th century is a speculation. The situation is different for the Latin form Posonium and above all for the German and English form Pressburg, which is attested in this particular form for the 16th century (at least). Also, contemporary English (French etc.) sources use the form Pressburg, not Pozsony before the 19th century, and actually they use the form Pressburg until 1918, therefore you cannot write that the town was known as Pozsony in the 16th to 18th century, because that is plainly wrong. Uhlie (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The word Pozsony is derived from the old Hungarian Pos, Poson name.( I have sources to prove it). Also the name WAS used: The Domiciliation Letter of the Hungarian Chamber of Posony/today Bratislava: 7 May 1699. (check link, picture) [2]Baxter9 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pozsony, under the old spelling Poson was used from the 13th century that we know of. Obviously it was used a few hundred years earlier as well just no documents survived from that period. Hobartimus (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You have received a very simple instruction: Prove that what you claim is correct, i.e. prove that the name Pozsony (with zs and ny) was used as the Hungarian name before the late 18th century, not Poson or any other form which could have and had a different pronunciation and was a different name. And in line with all rules of the wikipedia and of common sense I also require a year for that prove. I am not interested in "obviously" or other fiction and speculation. The sentence says was known as "Pozsony" therefore you have to attest the existence and even the frequent use of that form in the 16th to 18th century. Do you understand what I require or not? If you do not provide a prove or keep reinserting such strictly wrong information, I will consult the administrators. Uhlie (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what you "require". You need to be aware of spelling, and the fact that alternative spelling exists for many words in English as well as other languages. If you don't know /deny the whole concept of spelling, alternative spelling we can't even begin to discuss this. Do you know the word "cancel"? Do you realize "cancelled" and "canceled" are the same word under different spelling both of them correct? Do you try to absurdly claim they are different words because they are spelled differently? Hobartimus (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Poson, Posony, Pozsony is derived from the old Hungarian Pos name. Pozsony is only an alternate spelling. (source: Kiss Lajos, Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára, Akadémiai, 1980: "Lajos Kiss etiology of geographical names, 1980 Akadémia). The name Posony was used in 1699 (check this picture): [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter9 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I see in the picture is Posonii, which is the genitive of Posonium, the Latin name of the city. The two final "i"s look a bit strange (like a "y" with dots), but it's quite normal in handwriting, see for instance the word "Consiliarii" in the first line of the document. Markussep ^Talk 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is another proof that the edits made by nmate and hobartimus are inaccurate and inappropriate.--86.42.242.96 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is a proof that Markussep, Uhlie and so on can't accept the fact that this city was Hungarian and used a respectively Hungarian name for centuries. As for the historians using contemporary (historic) names for cities, regions, countries, etc. it is pretty common, although the modern name of the city, region or country or countries is also mentioned. (80.98.230.214 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.230.214 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your speculation about the mental readiness of other editors to do this or that are irrelevant here. Please cut out such talk, and instead provide clear evidence for your assertions about the names. Incidentally I doubt that any sane person would claim that a Hungarian name was not used, or that a German name was not used. The questions are instead of which names should be used within this article, and these in places raise questions of the relative merits of the contenders. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments). About the "Hungarian" origin of the name: No, Poson is definitely derived from the Slavic personal name Božan. The source is any Slovak source that exists on this issue (and note that the town happens to be the capital of Slovakia, so that there are many sources). A detailed explanation has been provided several times by Ján Stanislav, one of the best or the best expert on Old Church Slavonic, Old Slavic, Old Slovak, Modern Slovak, Old Hungarian, Modern Hungarian etc., the person after whom the Language Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences has been named, the author of the biggest synthesis on the Slavic origin of geographic names in Hungary, the author of one of the biggest syntheses on Old Church Slavonic. He also explains linguistically why the Hungarian origin theory - which was outdated as early as before WWII - is wrong. Also, at the time of origin of the name, no Hungarian archeological findings existed in Bratislava, all are Slavic and no Hungarian rulers of the town are known, all are Slavic. Also, Hungarians are explicitely mentioned as "hospites" (i.e. new colonists) for Bratislava only in the 13th! century. So, however you turn it, the primitive "pos" ethymology is wrong and that is well known. Tamas52x (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I understand that you believe that its content is important; however, most people believe that their messages are important, and if we all put things in bold then pretty soon a battle of typographic exuberance may escalate to THIS. I've therefore "unbolded" your message ¶ The content of your message is most interesting. However, you don't provide a single source for it. If Ján Stanislav has indeed explained this several times, please provide the precise location for this explanation. (You may wish to provide two: his most detailed explanation, and his most authoritatively published explanation -- if these would differ. And you may also wish to point to a disinterested description -- particularly a description written by a knowledgable Hungarian -- of Ján Stanislav as an expert in Hungarian as well as Slavic philology.) Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Yesterday another nickname for Bratislava was added, so now we have Beauty on the Danube and Little Big City. What is the status of these nicknames, does anyone actually use them, and in what language (English, Slovak or other)? Unless they're widely used, I think they should be removed. Markussep ^Talk 11:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that those nicknames were removed. That's OK I think. The second is definitely contemporary a marketing slogan. The first one exists in Slovak (Krásavica na dunaji) quite some time. Maybe it was indeed literally translated to English but there it has no tradition. However strange it sounds, it is still common even though it was most probably estabilished in times when it was indeed true. :) Kosik (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Poson, Pozsony, Pressburg: Protection

Should the German not be Preßburg instead of Pressburg? --As at the time of the Empire and majority German population they did not use the new orthography rules!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC) In view of the recent intensification of the long-running edit war concerning the name "Pozsony", I have protected the latest version of this article. Do not take this to imply approval of the wide use of "Pozsony": I protected this version merely because it was the most recent.

Please discuss here the relative merits of "Bratislava", "Pozsony", "Pressburg", "Poson" to describe the town at different times (and perhaps also in different contexts). Please refrain from speculation about others' motives, and from hyperbole, exclamation points, rhetorical questions, and so forth. Evidence would be welcome. Also welcome would be citations from recent, apolitical, scholarly works about the history of what is now Bratislava. I trust that you will all stay dispassionate and reasonable, for an informed and collegial discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have two points: 1 - Why were edits not related to names reverted? 2 - The onus to prove that Pozsony is a word widely used in English is on people promoting this notion. If they are unable to do so, the article's version should not copy their suggestions and personal opinions.--86.42.242.125 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the IP can explain the reason since it's contribs show a number of reverts reverting exactly the described "other changes" as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Either prove the claim or apologize for falsely accusing others. BTW, 18 days gone and no evidence has been presented so far.--86.44.135.94 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asked on my talk page to unprotect the page. However, neither that request nor what I see above suggests to me that the edit warfare wouldn't resume.

Here's what I wrote:

Please discuss here the relative merits of "Bratislava", "Pozsony", "Pressburg", "Poson" to describe the town at different times (and perhaps also in different contexts).

There's been no discussion whatever.

Also welcome would be citations from recent, apolitical, scholarly works about the history of what is now Bratislava.

None has been proffered.

Please provide reasoned suggestions, with evidence. Once you've done that, address the other suggestions. Then work toward an agreement. When there is general agreement here, the article can be unprotected, and not before.

Of course, protection is undesirable. It's an obstruction to name-unrelated improvements to this article. However, I note that nobody has asked for any such improvement (or even complained about any name-unrelated failing) during the three weeks or so of protection. Anyway, if you do have a suggestion, go ahead and make it on this talk page: some admin will then implement it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• The price of freedom: a history of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the present, by Piotr Stefan Wandycz, Routledge, 2001, ISBN 9780415254908 p.83:

  Until the late 1650s Transylvanian observers were sent to the diet at Pozsony.

• Nationalism and territory: constructing group identity in Southeastern Europe by George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 9780847698097: p 84-85: refers to the city as Pozsony numerous times.
• The book "The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II" (by Erik Goldstein, Igor Lukes, p. 107, Routledge, ISBN 9780714649955, 1999) uses the "Bratislava (Pozsony, Pressburg)" format to describe events of 1938, almost two decades after the Treaty of Trianon.
• A History of the University in Europe: Volume 2, Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500-1800), p. 88, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 9780521541145, written by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, Walter Rüegg:

  University (Jesuit), transferred to Budapest in 1777/84 and to Pozsony in 1784. Catholic.

• The New York Times:

  That Bratislava is still known by three distinct names -- Bratislava in Slovak, Pressburg in German and Pozsony in Hungarian -- shows how memories here refuse to die.

• A social history of knowledge: from Gutenberg to Diderot by Peter Burke, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, ISBN 9780745624853: on page 69 uses the "Pozsony (now Bratislava)" format when discussing history of 14th/15th century events.

The Hungarian name Pozsony is pretty widely used in English historiography. Squash Racket (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is the kind of thing for which I'd been hoping. Thank you, Squash Racket. Let's have more input and more collegial discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squash Racket, while adding that Poson is an archaic form of Pozsony as the letters "ny" and "zs" did not exist in the 13th century where the first usage of Pozsony was recorded in this form. These letters were introduced later to bring spelling and pronounciation of words closer to each other, but that does not mean that Poson is a different word from Pozsony as the section title maybe suggests. On a side note downgrading to semi protection sounds like the ideal solution to solve this. Hobartimus (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information, and please keep it coming. Where (or before) it's challenged, please back it up with a source, no matter how otiose this may seem. As for the suggestion that protection should be replaced by semi-protection, I strongly disagree. Let's instead have an informed discussion, reach a conclusion, and then unprotect. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, I only see evidence that the Hungarian name is worth mentioning in the names section. To be in the introductory paragraph and in bold, there must some evidence that is widely used and recognized in English. Where is this evidence please? Obscure references in few history books is not it.--86.44.156.206 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Like the earlier history of virtually any town in continental Europe, the earlier history of the town now called Bratislava is not something that is widely discussed in English. (Even names such as "New Amsterdam" and "Londinium" hardly have wide use or recognition in English; after all, they're seldom discussed in Oprah or Celebrity Big Brother.) In order to make informed, intelligent naming choices within English (and not Slovak or Hungarian) text about this town as it existed and was referred to in the past, I see no better alternative to the apolitical, informed explanation and discussion that one can presume is presented in specialist history books in English written by people with doctorates in the subject and put out by university presses and comparable publishers. Please either (a) explain why some other arbiter of nomenclature deserves more attention than this kind of history book, or (b) give examples of this kind of history book that (perhaps after a token mention of "Poszony") use "Bratislava" to refer to the town during the period of Hungarian rule. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We should post the relevant sections of non-English speaking texts that refer to this so that editors can translate the texts themselves. Hopefully some libraries may have English translations of those texts. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand: How would the posting of these texts help decide which term(s) this article should use to refer to the town during different periods? -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin and German were the main languages during the "Hungarian rule". In fact, the city was under the rule of the Austrian Empire when the name Pozsony made its appearance.--86.42.248.93 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Like the earlier history of virtually any town in continental Europe, the earlier history of the town now called Bratislava is not something that is widely discussed in English." Which suggests in itself that the German, Hungarian... names are not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead paragraph and in bold.--86.42.248.93 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks confusing in the city's history to have it repeatedly named with its old names, I see it's cleared up in the names section and after that "Bratislava" should be used. Just my humble opinion. feydey (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But for much of its history the city that is normally called Gdańsk was called Danzig by the majority of its population and by its rulers, and (after long and dreary battles over nomenclature) the article on it consistently refers to it as Danzig when talking about it during that part of its history. (If you think that's pedantic, consider the city now called Tokyo. Tōkyō -- commonly rendered in English as "Tokyo" -- is indubitably a modern name for the city previously called Edo, and WP splits it across Edo, Tokyo City, and Tokyo according to period.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What about refering to it as "the city" instead of using disputed name? For example, instead of "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city." there will be "Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it." Still readable and in line with NPOV. (Sorry for not signing myself, but don not know and do not want create another dummy account and password for this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.219.116 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for any apology, and thank you for the input.

The acrimony in the article's history, combined with the ancient and dreary feud between Slovaks and Hungarians, surely means that whichever name or combination of names is used to discuss any period of the city's past it is sure to rub some people up the wrong way. This being so, it does seem a good idea to minimize use of the name (or name combination) and to maximize use of "the city" and similar.

But while this may mitigate the problem, it won't solve it. The city must be named from time to time within a long exposition, and I think people will seize on those instances and argue over them unless the matter is settled here first.

Again, I invite thoughtful input on this, backed up with nonpartisan sources or analogies. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is from any reason absolutely necessary to use the name, with infrequent use you can use something more descriptive, containing all the names Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava, maybe with link to the name ethymonology. The basic idea is to keep NPOV as much as possible. If there are competing POV, use both. If you do not find consensus on the usable wording, it is still better to have unlocked page with maybe a bit harder-to-read general noun than a locked page with disputed name.

Could you please describe in more detail, what kind of sources can back up the frequency of using the general noun and the name? I think, NPOV is the primary source for backup.

[OD] I am quite sure that the occasional appearance of for example "Pozsony (Bratislava)" will quickly be "amended" by partisans of one stripe or another to plain "Pozsony" or "Bratislava (Pozsony)" or plain "Bratislava" -- leading to counter-"amendments", etc. I'm not optimistic about ever being able to end this sort of thing. However, it seems a good idea to have a good and conclusive discussion about what the article should say; thereafter, variations from this (whether underinformed or partisan) can be swiftly corrected without any need to rehash the argument.

Of course it's not desirable for this page to remain locked. If you or anyone else would like some name-unrelated change, don't hesitate to say so. (In the interim, I acknowledge that a lock lasting over a month is at best highly unusual, so I'm about to ask for a second opinion on this.)

Again, I think we can assume that a scholarly book recently written in English on the history of [what is now] Slovakia and put out by a university press or similarly reputable publisher (Norton, Macmillan Palgrave, Routledge, etc) will show the fruit of informed, disinterested, apolitical thinking. So I suggest following the precedents of books of this kind. Google Books may help here. I'm purposely not looking for such books myself; I don't want to arouse any suspicion or allegation that, having locked the page down, I'm now on some hunt for sources that happen to back up my own partisan or otherwise tainted opinion.

Although there's no obligation for you to get a username and log in as this username, do please sign your comments (four successive taps on "~"). And please don't interpolate your comments within others' comments (a practice that is especially confusing if your comments are unsigned). Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for "interpolation" - new in discussion and thanks for correction :-).

Re: Pozsony (Bratislava). I would suggest first to try to avoid such names at all. Is it possible to start with this and rather discuss, how to formulate the information without the name than endlessly discuss the name itself? What about my example above? Could it be implemented?

Re: lock - the lock has its purposes. I am not asking to unlock the page. I just try to find approach that will avoid purpose of the lock - neverending disputes about the name.

Re: while scholary books are good on topics that are well covered, cities in Eastern Europe seems to not be this case. I assume that it is better to have a page that is resistant to vandalism while keeping merit of respective sources (including scholary books), than a page that strictly follows still disputabe scholary books and generating strong emotions on any side of the discussion.

Re: signing - I try now and see whether it works--85.216.219.116 (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments (and for signing).

Actually my purpose in locking the page was not to avoid arguments over the name but instead to avoid edit-warring over the name and indeed to kick off a serious, informed and conclusive argument about naming. (I succeeded in the former but only partly succeeded with the latter.)

Really, I believe that the city will have to be named from time to time in the context of its history. So I don't think that you have the solution here. However, I repeat that your idea of minimizing the use of names does seem a good idea.

If

1. there is a sizable academic literature in English at least mentioning the history of the city now named Bratislava,
2. there is general agreement among the authors over how to refer to the city during each period, and
3. we agree here to follow this convention,

then yes there will still be objections. However, we'd know how to deal with them, and would waste a lot less of our time.

There could also be objections -- either here and now, or later -- that practice among English-speaking academics is not as good a guide as some other, very different approach. Well, I'm all ears. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I also do not want to avoid the arguments. Goals is to avoid vandalism and find interim solution that will not upset too many visitors. If there will be agreement, lets follow it. Until then, let's make it as neutral as possible.

Could we try the following changes:

current	new
Pozsony was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17]	The city was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by the Hungarian King Andrew III,[16] and was declared a free royal town in 1405 by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who also entitled the town to use its own coat of arms in 1436.[17]
Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer the city.	Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged the city but failed to conquer it.
Pozsony flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria.	The city flourished during the 18th century reign of Maria Theresa of Austria.
The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed in Pozsony in 1805.	The Peace of Pressburg between Austria and France was signed here in 1805.
In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pozsony using a donation from István Széchenyi.	In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in the city using a donation from István Széchenyi.
Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pozsony.	Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in this area.
The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from Pozsony to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840.	The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary,[31] from the city to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840.

Seven uses in total. Could it be used? I assume that after such (or similar) rephrasing the vandalism regarding city name will be significantly reduced if not avoided. Discussions could still continue here, but that is OK.--85.216.219.116 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems a good idea to me, but let's see what others think. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

descent into acrimony
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't help but notice that the IP singled out instances from Hungarian history, for example the foundation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the first horse drawn rail in Hungary and other sentences with the single purpose of decreasing usage of Pozsony at all costs. I find it sad that one would make his sole focus on wikipedia to alter sentences about the Diet (Parlaiment) of Hungary at the time, which was seated in Pozsony. Unfortunately there are several banned users operating in this topic area such as User:MarkBA, User:Juro with their checkuser confirmed sockpuppet armies , including various IP addresses (not counting the LOT more populous group of unconfirmed but obvious cases), so it becomes hard to participate in the (same) debate after a while. Hobartimus (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) For my part, I can't help but be surprised by the certainty with which you ascribe a motive to the IP, and by your apparent reluctance either to engage with the substance of what the IP writes or to proffer a better idea of your own. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I don't see a problem with using the official name at the time in a few sentences or the Hungarian name for parts discussing clearly Hungarian history or the fact that the city was capital city of Hungary for more than 200 years. But I can also accept the differing opinion just It would be better if there was a good chance (i.e. a registered account) that I'm not participating in a debate against a 25th IP incarnation of the same user who liked to play games very much. Anyway I could think of a solution such as the case at Istanbul e.g. in the first line "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul; historically Byzantium and later Constantinople; see the other names of Istanbul)" the first line of the article would be "Bratislava (historically Pozsony and Pressburg see also other names) and then we use the IP-s solution of using "the city" more and eliminating some name usage, but this should be done then equally not just the IP-s preference of eliminating Pozsony everywhere. Hobartimus (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I fully support the explanation in the frist line. For sure there is no reason to hide Hungarian history of the city. I belive nobody will object proper explanation of the name history in the "Name" section. I did not touch it at all. As well as I did not touch the references to Hungary. I chose those instances, which I consider controversial and for whose the edit war started. If you are aware of any other, please propose similar changes. --85.216.219.116 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).Just to let everybody know, what happens here. User Hobartimus wrongly accusses some normal editors, whom he himself and his "collegues" has had banned years ago (and who continue their work in other wikis as visibly distinct persons, which even a blind could see) - completely off-topic - of activities in this article, although in reality he himself is a multiple sockpuppet (about the 20th as far as I can tell). He stopped changing his nicks so frequently about 2 yeaes ago, because all his opponents have been successfully eliminated, so now he plays the good guy (most of the time). In reality, he and about two other Hungarian radical nationalists have been present in this wikipedia for about 4 years. During that time, they managed to have banned virtually all Slovak, Romanian and Serbian users engaged in historical topics, and they try it again and again and as far as I can see they succeed each time. Either the users they don not like stop making any relevant edits or they simply harass them out until they leave with disgust and have them banned. They have done this for every single Slovak user so far, with the result that they have absolutely no opposition anymore. Ironically, this does not even happen in the Hungarian wikipedia, but in this wikipedia it does, in other word this wikipedai simply has been fatally failing in its basic aim to prevent POV edits and it has been failing in doing this for years now and nobody cares. It is also fascinating that articles about Hungarian municipalities etc. are missing here, but they are eager to make revisionist edits for the municipalities in all the neigbouring countries. Not only they do what I have just described, they also simply delete (sic!) sources that do not fit their nationalist POV and sources (with comments like "nationalist Slovak source" in article summaries for basic academic literature), they lie about the content of the sources they use - either by wrongly translating the Hungarian text or by simply lying in the hope that nobody understands the language and the issue (e.g. in one article they claim that a "Byzantine sources say Hungarians have 20 000 warriors" while actually the source says "Persian sources say HungaRY has 20 000 warriors" and many other such "details"). As for the names issue - as an example - they continue to insert MODERN Hungarian city names with modern spelling for countries outside modern Hungary and for a time when Hungarian was not the official language of neither part of the country (note the multiple logical fallacy of the practise) all over this wikipedia and they even "crown" this by adding in the text e.g. Svätý Jur (then Szent Gyorgy), although the "then" is a plain lie, because (a) Hungarian only started to be the official language definitively around 1867 (!), (b) Szent Gyorgy is simply the MODERN Hungarian name, (c) the Slovak and German names were equally official in the past (and in many cases there was no Hungarian name whatsoever at that time). I do not wonder that they try to do this like any true nationlist would try, but it is fascinating that they suceed in doing this without the slightest opposition. As an example see the article Maté Csák - all geographical names are wrong, 90 % of them did not even exist at that time, but "who cares" - the point is to turn this into a Hungarian Metapedia, historical accuracy is not important. In addition, look at the article title, in an incredible shell game on the talk page they managed to turn the name about a person called by contemporary sources Matthius de Trechin or Chak into an ENGLISH-langauge article title using a MODERN Hungarian name (Maté did not even exist at that time) with the only proof being wrong translations of modern Hungarian texts, although old English texts, including the old Britannica, call him - like any other noble - Matthew. But who cares, right, let them provide anything Hungarian, for which they can find a link (as if it was a problem to find a link for any possible mistake in google or books), and "who cares about the content". But this is not enough, they even start to insert MODERN Hungarian names for settlements outside Hungary for the time before the Hungarians actually came to Europe [4]. And nobody cares. As for the name of Bratislava, the Hungarian name was NOT used in the past in English (only very rarely), the English name used was Pressburg; even in 1910 - at the height of Magyarisation - the Britannica uses the name Pressburg. Modern history texts are irrelevant, because they are simply translations from modern Hungarian sources, they make no research and invest no time in finding out, what the correct historical names were (the historians and translators are not paid for such effort), in other words the sources are simply mistakes - anybody could equally cite translations from Slovak sources that use Bratislava and from German that use Pressburg - how does it change history??. As if this was not enough, the name Pozsony did not even exist before the late 18th century and the town had a negligible percentage of Hungarians before the 19th century, so the lie that Pozsony was used in the past as an English or generally non-Hungarian word is simply a double lie. The oly used form in English was Pressburg and in the kingdom also Poson(ium) but that is a variant of the Latin name and occurs also in Slovak and other text and is pronounced differently, so that it is not the same name, it is only the origin of the MODERN Hungarina name Pozsony. But again, nobody cares, you just let the sockpuppet cite any mistake taken over from a modern Hungarian text he can find and take the bait. And no Slovak or Gemrna user are asked, no sources dealing with the city names is consulted, no relevant English 19th or 18th or 17th century text is consulted, just let one sockpuppet cite the more links with obvious mistakes he can find, the better. So please, just ignore what he writes and completely ignore him. Regardez (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your very first edit Regardez! I've also noticed that contributions of some editors seem to consist only of adding Hungarian names and trivialities everywhere. What a waste of everybody's time. But at least featured articles should be protected from this mob attack.--86.42.248.93 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC) The truth is, that there are slovak users, like (user:Juro, user:MarkBA etc.) who try to push their nacionalistick POV here, on en wiki. Their main goal is to re-write history, remove any Hungary related material from the articles which are connected with Slovakia, and slovakize everything. QUOTATION:"Since deputy prime minister Robert Fico declared the "wise historism" concept, the history books are getting rewritten in a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride", which Krekovič, Mannová and Krekovičováare claim are mainly nothing else, but history falsifications. Such new inventions are the interpretation of Great Moravia as a (proto)-Slovak state, or the term "proto-Slovak" itself, along with the "refreshing" of many "old traditions", that are in fact did not exist or were not Slovak before. The concept received criticism in Slovakia pointing out that the term proto-Slovak cannot be found in any serious publication, simply because it lacks any scientific basis. Miroslav Kusý Slovak political scientist explained that by adopting such scientificly questionable rhetoric Fico aims to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification of history". "Speaking about the "wise (clever?) historism" and patriotism program proclaimed by the government on the occasion (note: 15th year anniversary of 1993) Miroslav Kusy Slovak political scientist said in an interview to Új Szó that by talking about Slovaks in Great Moravia Robert Fico prime minister adopted such -scientificly questionable- rhetoric that points to the fact that he wants to "strengthen national consciousness by falsification(lit. "false" "painting") of history" This is why we can see such things like:"the Slovak and German names were equally official in the past", although the slovak language developed in the XIX century and it was NEVER official in the Kingdom of Hungary. They continue to insert MODERN Slovak city names with modern spelling for a time when Slovak was not the official language, or the country (Slovakia) did not even exist. Mr. Regardez also forgot to tell, that although latin and german were the official languages, hungarian was used by the people. (or citizens spoke latin???) Mr. Regardez mentioned the Máté csák article: Although the Csáks were one of the oldest Hungarian families, (see Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum) the article was created under slovak name, because they lived where what is now called slovakia (or called as a slovak(!) [5]) I think it is enough to check this article: List of Slovaks or its talkpage: Talk:List of Slovaks. Thököly, Báthory, Hans Selye and other Hungarian personels are mentioned as Slovaks! Another good example is the case of the historic counties of Hungary, which were listed under Slovak names, although slovak was never official language in the KOH, and it was never used. Who cares! Reason: "This is about the Kingdom of Hungary county. The name SHOULD NOT be in Hungarian" [6] Although the latin versions are derived from the Hungarian names... Another one: The HUNGARIAN Franz Liszt, who was a proud Hungarian ("I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind...") became Slovak [7], [8]thanx to slovak nacionalists (note, that he is still slovak on the slovak wiki [9]. Of course they dont have any reliable english reference to prove their nacionalistic edits. Just have a look here. Only slovak sources. ps: dont forget about the current slovak party in charge, the Slovak National Party and its anti Hungarian statements. Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).Well, first, your typical emotional (and infantile) reaction containing off-topic nationalist mess typical of persons like you, spending all their time by reading texts about nationalist issues and making nationalist edits and engaging in nationalist disputes in the wikipedia (for years!) is self-explanatory. You did not notice that Regardez made some specific points, he did not speak of the nationalism of Hungarians in general etc., so what is the point? Second, you too are a multiple (the 50th?) sockpuppet, you can be recognized by always mechanically repeating what the person you are talking says or is making with the necassary retaliatory adjustments. Third, you have had banned much more (virtually all) Slovak, Romanian etc. users (one Serbian user ended in a hospital because of you guys) - established and new, scientists, geniuses, diplomats - so be proud of what you are doing, cite them all here, like you used to do on the noticeboard, why are so modest now?? Hungary needs propaganda guys like you, we desperately need you....So, I do not understand why you are lying now just abou those two randomly selected users (why do not you add Tankred and all the others). But regarding those two - it does not matter, but I am repeating (whether you believe it or not) - you are wrong (for years now), they are not the same person (and are not identical with anybode else), so if they have had them banned for having the same IP, I do not know which admin analysed that but then the system for checking IPs is wrong, they probably only have the same internet provider. Tamas52x (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your very first edit Tamasova52X! Well, first, typical emotional (and infantile) reaction from another nacionalist sockpuppet, nothing else. I know that slovak nacionalists are dreaming about this[10], [11] (Hungary annexed by slovakia) which appeared on the webpage of the Slovak National Party, thanks to Ján Slota... I have better things to do, but i will respond: 1) Those users were banned/blocked indefinitely by te community, not by the Hungarian users, because they used their sockpupet army to violate 3RR, start an edit war, and of course to push their nacionalistic POV, and not for constructive editing. 2) Im anot a sockpuppet, but ask a checkuser if you want.Baxter9 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC) instead of this is a plain lie and a nice proof of what Regardez said above, first the users you name are not the only ones, you have harrassed out, dear multiple sockpuppet,have not been active here for years, and About Pozsony: Pozsony is derived from the old Hungarian "Poson" name. It is much older than the Slovak one (which was created in 1919. march 26). The ethnic composition of the city was 80% German and Hungarian, so the name was used. The latin form (Posonium) is also derived from it.Baxter9 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments). Well, as I have explained above, what you say about Poson is wrong. But the point was another one: the point is that: (i) the name Pozsony (regardless of ist etymological origin) in this form did not exist before the late 18th century (it is not attested), while the name Pressburg existed in this very form at least since the 15th century and was the main name used by English texts in the past even in the 19the and 20th century (see Britannica 1910), therefore putting those two names at the same level in the text is simply Hungarian nationalist propaganda, (ii) nobody has said you are supposed to use the name Bratislava in the text on the grounds that the name was used before 1919 (although it was used, indeed) - you are supposed to use the name on the grounds that it is the current name under which everybode recognizes the place for periods when there no other generally accepted name (i.e. for the medieval period), for the remaining period, i.e. from the 15th to the 19th century, the English (and French etc.) name was Pressburg, (iii) the town did not have a considerable Hungarian population before the second half of the 19th century (the Magyrisation period), but a nice try: saying "80 % German and Hungarian" is a nice trick to hide this fact (acutally all of the 80% were German before the late 19th century - and the correct number is more like 70%), and I am sure Americans reading this take the bait, like always, (iv) the Latin form just like the Hungarian form are derived from the Slavic name Božan. I have explained above, why this is so. (Remark: Interestingly the article about Budapest contains - thanks to you and your "collegues" - no information about the fact that it was a German and Slavic town in the past (before the late 19the century) and contains no names in the corresponding languages in the introduction - hmmm, why I am not surprised?) Tamas52x (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life". The population did not speak latin! But tell me, how is it possible that slovaks and hungarians do not speak in latin today? It was the official language of hungary for many years, or not? And sources please! You always forget to add reliable english references to prove your statements. Dont forget, this one is not accepted.[12] About Budapest: I dont know how can the (slovak?) authors (Marko A., Martinický Slovensko-maďarské vzťahy – história a súčasnosť vo faktoch) be so sure... The only thing what is sure, that the Magyars' percentage in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages and slavs (slovaks, serbs) and later germans were settled aside of Hungarians (in Budapest, and in the entire country).Baxter9 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Stop misinforming please. The Hungarian name is derived from the Latin and German ones. The Hungarian language wasn't an important language in the Austrian Empire when these names were coined and Latin and German were used. See, for example, http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html --86.42.248.93 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC) What I wanted to say is, that the origin of the name is disputed. It could be derived from German/Hungarian or Slovak. We dont know it for sure. About that link: "Believing that use of a single language would increase efficiency, he imposed the use of German where he could for official purposes. Except in Hungary, the German language became a compulsory subject in all schools"Baxter9 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Restart

As you can see, I've hidden the continuation of the discussion above. Some interesting and intelligent points are made within it, but taken as a whole it's impossibly contaminated with charges of nationalistic motivation, block evasion, and so forth.

Blocks mean what they say. Evading a block via a new username or IP is a no-no. If you have good reason to believe that somebody is doing this, you're free to put as much effort as you wish into preventing that person from writing any more. Take up the matter in the appropriate place. This isn't it.

Some authors have been charged with pushing a PoV. If you think that an editor here is primarily, offensively or recklessly pushing a PoV, take up the matter in the appropriate place. Again, this isn't it.

Perhaps almost anything that anybody writes about ways of referring to the historical forerunners of what are now indisputably Slovak towns in Slovakia is compatible with this or that more or less political, ethnically favoritist, or even "racist" PoV. The fact that something is compatible with a PoV doesn't prove the presence of that PoV. If you can't "AGF", fine, just forget about the writer and concentrate on what's written.

Now please discuss naming within this article.

If, after reading this message, you think that something you wrote within the section hidden above was a substantive contribution to an intelligent, dispassionate discussion, feel free to recycle it below, after stripping it of comments on other writers and so forth.

I look forward to an intelligent discussion leading to a reasonable conclusion, whereupon the article may be unprotected and edits that are contradicted by the conclusion quickly reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say some infomations about the concerned languages. First of all, the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was either Latin or Hungarian, except a very short period between 1784 and 1790, when it was German. In 1784 Joseph II's decree ordered to change the official language from Latin to German. This caused a massive resistance at the Hungarian nobels and in 1790, before his death Joseph II revoked his decree about Germanisation. The Hungarian language became the officical language in Hungary in 1844, but it was used at some parts of the state affairs earlier. The text which was linked to the site by IP number 86.42.248.93 says the following: "The policy of Germanization offended and inconvenienced Hungarians who were used to conducting legal and administrative affairs in Latin or Magyar." Because of these facts it is a huge mistake to say "Latin and German were the main languages" and "the hungarian wasn't an important language". It was the most important, because it was a Hungarian city and Latin was a dead language. Secondly, if someone wants to use the slovak name, please remember, the term "Bratislava" was created in 1919. Terence75 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).The truth is, Latin was the official language all the time until the 1840s (i.e for 800 years !!), when it was replaced by Hungarian (which actually had no codified form and the necessary professional vocabulary until around 1800 so it could not be used orderly even if people liked to), but then in 1848 it was replaced by German until the 1860s, only then Hungarian became the official language (i.e. for 50 years). As an exception, German was official between 1784 and 1790, but it was always co-official since 1526 due to the fact that Hungary was in integral part of the Austrian monarchy ruled by German-speaking kings with a German speaking capital. Now compare those 50 years with those 800 years for Latin and 400 years for German. This is elementary school knowledge, it is incredible, that you simply deliberately distort elementary facts and the foreigners here simply believe you. Tamas52x (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life". The population did not speak latin! But tell me, how is it possible that slovaks and hungarians do not speak in latin today? It was the official language of hungary for many years, or not? And sources please! You always forget to add reliable english references to prove your statements. Dont forget, this one is not accepted. [13]Baxter9 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Baxter, your reminder that reliable sources should be added is an excellent one. (There is no requirement that the sources should be in English, although this is helpful.) What puzzles me is your reluctance to follow your own advice. And an exclamation point does not make an utterance more persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reluctance? What reluctance? I always added referenced informations to the articles (mostly from English sources), because without this (if you tried to prove something with Hungarian references) these edits were reverted by "some" users as "nacionalistic POV pushing" Et cetera>.. Just check some of my last contributions : [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. The problem is, that these users dont have reliable sources.Baxter9 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, for what little it's worth, the article History of Bratislava tells us that a variant of "Bratislava" was used by at least one faction at least as early as 1844. It also says -- without any source whatever -- that some unspecified 16th century source claims that the obviously related "Wratisslaburgium" was used in the 9th century. I do not claim that these claims are true. However, if they are true; it's misleading at best to say that the term "Bratislava" was created in 1919. Now, if "Bratislava" (or a trivially different version of it) was used as early as 1844, this of course does not mean that it was either an official name or a widely used name. More information, please, and nuanced rather than oversimplified. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that CU confirmed that User:Regardez and User:Tamas52x are the sock puppets of banned nacionalist user User:MarkBA. (Black out comments).I don't want to simplify the matter. A slovakian site, aktualne.centrum.sk wrote: "The Czechs took away the original historical name of the city, which, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles, became part of Czechoslovakia officialy too in June, 1919 and changed to a romantic futility". There is argument about the name of the city in Slovakia. Terence75 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

aktualne.centrum.sk ---- an "excellent" source, indeed. Why dont you cite a tabloid? Tamas52x (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand the short text that you quote. -- Hoary (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you for your opinion on my proposal above (using "the city" reference)? The historical name seams to be controversial, without clear consesus and hence attempt to find correct name in short time seems to me unprobable. The discussions can follow on this discussion page, but the page will look better without the lock. --85.216.219.116 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Using "the city" term would delete the hungarian name "Pozsony" from almost everywhere. It can be done, but in this case "Bratislava" should be replaced with "the city" as well.

For example, "The city is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings." instead of "Bratislava is the seat of the Slovak National Theatre, housed in two buildings."

Or "In 2006, the city had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." instead of "In 2006, Bratislava had 77 commercial accommodation facilities (of which 45 were hotels) with a total capacity of 9,940 beds." etc.

Can "Pozsony" be deleted when it was hungarian, but "Bratislava" not when it is Slovak? It is not the most consequent method. Terence75 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal is to reduce the use of any name where any choice of name would be at least somewhat controversial. In "In 2006, Bratislava had [...]" I don't think there is any controversy. Still, I see nothing wrong with "In 2006, the city had [...]." Although, as I've said before, the city would have to be named in various places, and in some of those places the choice might be controversial. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is hidden now, so I add part of a comment from earlier with a suggestion:

Anyway I could think of a solution such as the case at Istanbul e.g. in the first line "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul; historically Byzantium and later Constantinople; see the other names of Istanbul)"
the first line of the article would be "Bratislava (historically Pozsony and Pressburg see also other names) and then we use the IP-s solution of using "the city" more and eliminating some name usage, but this should be done then equally not just the IP-s preference of eliminating Pozsony everywhere. Hobartimus (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the level of protection on the article. It was fully protected; it is now semi protected. Although people who haven't logged in or have done so with very new accounts can't edit it, regular users can edit it. I'm hoping for the best here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for note. I still don´t understand why we can´t include hungarian and german acronym for Bratislava in Names section exclusivly. Historically it was Posonium till 1867 when Hungarian became official language, instead of Latin which was used ever since. Historically it was Prešporok, as well. Same goes with Brezalauspurc and Preslava (name of city from saint Stephen coint from year 1000). If Pressburg and Poszony has to be added (according to some users), than same goes AT LEAST with Posonium. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and one more thing. Arguments for using "historical" names (to be exact, name) were that name Bratislava haven´t been used in those times. That´s fine, but can somebody explain me these senteces:

"The Kingdom of Hungary was defeated by the Ottoman Empire in the Battle of Mohács in 1526. Thereafter the Turks besieged and damaged Pozsony but failed to conquer it."

Peace of '''Pressburg''' between Austria and France was signed in Pozsony in 1805."

"In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pozsony using a donation from István Széchenyi"

"The first horse-drawn railway in the Kingdom of Hungary, from Pozsony to Svätý Jur (then Szentgyörgy), was built in 1840."

Those sentences are written in context of years when Hungarian was NOT official language in the city. If we´re going to use arguments that latin wasn´t used in common speech, than why German (Pressburg) and Slovak (Prešporok) acronyms are not included? Like it or not, this wasn´t clearly Hungarian city, it was multinational city and including to this Hungarian source [19] Hungarian population in city in 1880 was 5.4% what is even lower than Slovak population in Buda in those times. If you want to be so objective as you declarate than historical acronyms should be replaced only by either neutral term "city" or Slovak and Germans acronyms should be added. This is clear example of hungarizated article and for non-interested user it makes feeling like this city was clearly hungarian with some german and slovak minority included. I won´t make neccessary changes before discussing it, but please make it quick. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian was official since 1844 and was de-facto official before then since Latin was a dead language for a long time. German names are added like in the lead "Pressburg". Please everyone check how Elsswort operates above because this is unfortunately a typical attack operating with falsehoods. He writes "[20] Hungarian population in city in 1880 was 5.4%" quoting an absurd statement he knows to be false. If you actually check the link you will see that the number of Hungarians listed is 10,393 for the absurd 5.4% to be true (btw the source wrote 5.7) the total population of the city would have to be 192 462. Unfortunately the real population was at most 48 000 at that time(see Demographics of the city. You see these absurdities quickly reveal themselves once you start thinking about them, but it seems that it's ok to find an obvious mistake in the data set and qoute that instead of the rest of the data (like 35.9%). Of course still forgetting to talk about that only 14% percent was Slovak in 1910, and then due to brutal Slovakization it's over 91% today in a very short amount of the time the city was completely Slovakized it's former demographic characther completely erased. And now some try to paint the city as if it were Slovak all the time regardless of the fact that the current distribution was created through brutal Slovakization (14%-->91% think about that). In fact the 90% number was reached by 1950 already according to page seven of this checz source So in the span of 32 years (from 18-50) Slovakization was essentially complete. However even though the city was completely Slovakized there is no reason to Slovakize it's history, instead it should be preserved as it happened. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn´t. Hungarian was official language since 1868 (sorry, my mystake in previouse post) and that de facto official language was only applied in hungarian areas, by same means we could say that de-facto official langauge was Slovak in Slovak areas, German in German areas, Serbian in Serbian areas and Romanian in Romanian areas (not speaking about Polish, Czech and others). Well, I wrote you a sentece or two in one unnamed article and it looks like I´m gonna repeat it once again. So point by point - mistake on that page is mistake on that page, what I used is a common quatation - if it´s false blame the site. Maybe they forgot to add 2 before 5, I don´t know still it would make everything as it is because 25, it´s not yours above 50. About your Pressburg - your statement is riddicolious, because mentioning Pressburg in beginning of the article and in the Names section and than using name Poszony can be only yours idea. It´s one great mess - you had months to agree upon which name the city is going to be called in history section and the result is that you have nothing, you just minimalize the cities name in whole article and rest is called Pozsony which was and is historical name only and only for Hungarians, no one else. So, there are only two options

First: There will be used ALL historical acronyms in every naming section (Prešporok, Pressburg and Pozsony)

Second: Only one name will be used - modern one

Third could be not mentioning city´s name at all but you were unable to do so for a long period of time.

And last point about your brutal Slovakization. I could start with you beeing provocateur but that would be just a waste of time. You are hypocrite, mister. You are using census data from 1910 and than comapring it with century later and calling that Slovakization and yet you are unable to accept that decrease of Hungarian population was caused mainly by ending of Magyarization era which you, from some mysterious reasons, forgott to mention. Also you forgott to mention that non-magyar was unable to find job in state sector and non-magyars were cutted of from public life and that´s the reason why Magyar population raised by 106.7% Magyarization#Magyarization_in_the_Austrian_Empire_and_Austria-Hungary during 60 years. Of course, due to you it were "natural" reasons. Silly me...

You, mister, are trying to magyarize this article - unfortunatelly that´s nothing special from your side. We could see the same things in tons of others (as mentioned in little discussion about you), but that´s little bit off-topic, right now. Point is that this article should be OBJECTIVE. That means it should not present the POV of one side (yours), but from all sides or compromise on one POV which is going to be included in article. That is not happening. On Elonka´s discussion page was agreed that acronym used for Bratislava in historical section is going to be Pressburg because that´s oldest casual name for this city founded in historical archives (Prešporok and Poszony beeing first mentioned in archives from late 18th century, as Regardez mentiond and what you in all your wisdom ignored), yet after few months it was changed just because. Your argument is that Poszony was used by the public - that is truth, BUT it was used only by Magyars, while Germans used Pressburg and Slovak Prešporok (and yet, only Pozsony is beeing used in article, hinting towards that this city was historically Hungarian and no one else). Your argument against modern spelling is that in historical section, historical name should be used - that is truth, BUT historically name Pressburg and Posonium was beeing used in most of the city history. Name Pozsony a Prešpurok came in late 18th, name Bratislava has been started to used in parts of Slovak population in second half of 19th century, beeing official in 1918. All your argumets can be easily used against you, yet you hold on this version because it fits you. And for your last sentece - I do not want to deny Magyar part of city´s history but I won´t accept that beeing the only one because your believe that everything in Slovakia, Hungary, Vojvodina and Transylvania was till 1918 Hungarian, without exception. And next time, react on all my points or don´t react at all. I really hate to repeat myself just because you decided that parts of my posts are not worth of you replying on it. As for Baxter9 sources - first of all you forgott on Slovak acronym, Prešporok, but that´s fine (bytheway call me blind, I checked only reference number 47, because of the Rakoczi, and I couldn´t find anywhere term Pozsony). Second - I never said that they were not used in common speech. I said that they were ALL used in common speech so we can´t just use one in the article, but all of them or none of them. Because now, only one (guess which) is beeing used and sorry, I just can´t accept that. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Again Pressburg is used in the article, nobody is denying that Pressburg was a valid name for the article and it is mentioned right there in the first sentence! Please do not claim that Pressburg is not mentioned because this is not true. I hope you will apologize for using that false data, You know a lot about the topic and should have known that 5% cannot be correct. Even today after all of Slovakization happened there is still 4-5 percent of the population that is Hungarian by the 1990/2001 censuses. Yes it is common quotation but there was the rest of the data like 35% (according to Checz source it was 40% Hungarian 40% German 14% Slovak in the last census before the time of Slovakization) and you just pick the lowest possible number without mentioning the others. We can say that it was a German-Hungarian city and this is one of the things to be considered. The other thing is that the city was in Hungary from 895 and not in Germany or in Slovakia. It was also the capital city for more than 200 years while it is the capital of Slovakia for 16 years (if we do not count fascist Slovakia under war criminal Jozef Tiso). More than 200 years compared to 16 years hmmm. Remember that you compared latin (a dead language) to Hungarian in the same way, I for one don't think that comparsions such as this are especially meaningful. Also I would ask you to stop using personal attacks it is forbidden per WP:NPA. You mention Prešporok however Prešporok is 1. Was NEVER the offical name of the city EVER. 2. Is NOT used today anywhere just do a google search on Prešporok, it will show that is used almost nowhere when compared to "Pressburg" or "Pozsony". however it is used in the article. However it must be said that even Slovaks themselves do not use that name any more. Hobartimus (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned that Pressburg is not included in the article. I repeated several times that it is included in article, but only in names and introduction section. In history section Bratislava is refered as Pozsony exclusively. I repeated it at least three times. Apologiz? Once again - 1910 census cannot be reffered as independent valid census because of the ongoing magyarization. I provided data to back-up this (raise of Hungarians in KoH by 106.7 percent during 60 years, cancellation of all Slovak gymnasiums, prohibited Slovak (and other) languages in schools, childrens were prohibited even speak in their native language outside thir houses, no non-magyar could work in state sector etc. Are you denieng this or not? Becuase if not than you cannot call 1910 census as valid one. In 1919 32 percent of Bratislava population was Slovak and I don´t know if you you have problems with written text because I cleary wrote this and yet, you didn´t have slightest problem in ignoring it. 1919 census is valid, accepted by Hungary as well without any objections so maybe you should apologize for stubornly hold onto your arguments and ignoring facts I given you. Your SAV source is nice, but it is quotation of 1910 census which does not represente even closely real number of nationalities in KoH. Next - 10 percent of population is Hungarian in Slovakia, during century their number staied constant, althought there was one world war and 40 years of communistic represalities. And once again - if you are talking about slovakization just say what was it. You are operating with this term without slightest knowledge, write here how schoolary system was setted up again hungarian minority of whatever - I´m eager to read about it from you because you have absolutelly no idea what does it mean for all I can say. About your 40%percent fantasy I wrote here something just few senteces backwards. About Bratisavy beeing part of Hungary since 896 (I really don´t know if you´re kidding rig.ht now)....well, how should I put it. If someone like you is calling me nationalist (like you did in Benyovsky discussion) or accusing me of support of either SNS or fascism, it´s funny. KoH as sovereign state was fouded in 1000 and lost control over itself in 1526, following the Mohacs battle and integration to Austrian Empire. Since than official language was latin and native population was Slavic (dated to arrival of Slavs to this area), while German and Hungarian population occupied this city as well. If you want to call it Hungarian, please, do not try to "improve" this article anymore. With you´re nationalistic point of view, you´re going to destroy even the remnants of what remained (bytheway Tiso was war crimal - such as your famous Horthy). Bratislava was capital of Slovakia in Czechoslovakia (while Prague was capital of Bohemia, Brno of Moravia and Uzgorod of Subcarpathian Rus) - later it became capital city of Slovak socialistic republic, within CSSR (as federation). About you´re arguments 1. Truth, same thing goes about Pozsony. It became official name of the city in 1868, yet in article this name is used in pre-1868 years. In those official name was latin. 2. Truth. But you´re arguments about using historical acronyms such as Pressburg/Pozsony are that in those years term Bratislava didn´t exist and it is modern name. If we are going to use historical names such as Pozsony/Pressburg (not from foreign point of view, but historical - note the difference) than Prešporok has to be included. And about Bratislava beeing historicaly Hungarian-German city. I really won´t ever understand how someone like you can be editor of historical articles. Ok, source is "Magyarország geographiai szótára, .... Kiad. (vyd./Ed.) Fényes Elek, III. köt.. Pesten, 1851; s. 255." 1851 - germans - 22 518 hungarians - 3 145, slovaks - 7 584. From the same sources 1715 (number of households, not inhibitants - census was made in whole Pressburg country, not just in city) Bratislava - germans - 642, hungarians - 2031, slovaks - 3431. 1720 (same as before) germans - 751, hungarians - 1922, slovaks - 3761. So much for your hungarian - german city.--EllsworthSK (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you do not know this but Hungary was recognized as a Kingdom in 1000 before that it was not a kingdom... Hungary was founded by Hungarians in 895. The Hungarian tribes founded a country for themselves so there is a place where Hungarians can live, there was no Kingdom at that time, Hungary was only recognized as kingdom later, in 1000. So you see it is incorrect to use Kingdom when referring to all of the history as Hungary was NOT a kingdom during some of it's history. You write a lot and I mean a lot but you do not research your statements very well, for example you claim "In history section Bratislava is refered as Pozsony exclusively.", these are your words, however search the article for this text "In the 10th century, the territory of Pressburg" (it's in the history section). So you do not check what you say, which is a problem. Another one "(number of households, not inhibitants - census was made in whole Pressburg country, not just in city)" first, I think you mean Pozsony County, an administrative unit of the Kingdom of Hungary, which is a lot larger than the city (check the article it's visible on the map). So the numbers are not relevant for Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava the CITY. So it's a misrepresentation of data. It's also a different matter because the city still exists today, while the county does not exist any more. "You are operating with this term without slightest knowledge" but please read some books on Slovakization, about the closing of Hungarian Universities, destruction of Hungarian works of art, vandalism of statues (how many statues of Kossuth, etc remained?) mass closing of Hungarian schools, oppression and violence against Hungarians, mass taking away of citizenship, mass taking away of property, deportations. Were there mass deportations of Slovaks in the Kingdom of Hungary? Were there mass taking away of citizenship from Slovaks? I didn't think so. And the other problem is that we are in the 21th century now, but unfortunately some sad events are ongoing even in the 21th century. Attacks on minority rights, beatings of persons who speak Hungarian in the streets, police brutality against roma and ethnic Hungarians, forces of the far-right allowed into government, the "wise historism" concept, falsification of history "to strengthen national conciousness", Gerrymandering of districts the list goes on. There is some data about this in wikipedia although far from complete coverage of the topic. Hobartimus (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[A comment not intended for any single editor:] Central European history is replete with injustices, invasions, pogroms, etc. Books have been written on these matters. The matter here is how this article should reflect the history of what is now called Bratislava. Please keep this in mind, and don't drift. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life". The population did not speak latin, because Latin was/is a dead language. Here is a list (as an example) of books, letters written in Hungarian, to show that Hungarian was used before/after it became official. ps: I still dont know what is the problem, another user listed a dozen of books which proves that Pozsony is still used. Funeral Sermon and Prayer from 1192-1195, Old Hungarian 'Lamentations of Mary' 1300, Gáspár Heltai Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds[21], Jókai kodex: XIV century [22] Bécsi kódex and Müncheni kódex, XV. century [23],[24], Margareth-legend, 1510, [25], Speeches of Arnoldus de Bryennio, 1511 "Hadnagy balinth" Salamon and Markalf, 1577, [26] Bogáthi Fazekas Miklós, Aspasia, 1591 [27] Károli Gáspár, 1590, [28] 1561:[29], 1580:[30], 1598:[31], 1586:[32], 1659:[33], Peter Pázmány[34], 1685:[35], 1551:[36], 1556: [37], 1588: [38], Gabriel Bethlen, 1616,[39], Mihály Apafi, 1662, [40], Francis II Rákóczi, 1704, [41], 1705:[42] 1705, Francis II Rákóczi, [43], [44], Mihály Teleki, 1705, [45], 1836: [46], 1849: [47], Franz Joseph I of Austria (!), 1869, [48], Kelemen Mikes 1794, [49], 1590:[50], 1809:[51], 1551:[52], 1664:[53], 1785:[54], 1767:[55], 1774:[56], 1792:[57] Sources: National Széchényi Library: [58], [59]Baxter9 (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I´m not going to disagree with your post, I´m just going to comment about your sources. Nr. 21 - term Pozsony not used, nr. 22 - 25 - unreadable, nr.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 (only Trnavia and Nagy-Szombat beeing used in this particular source), 34 (althought term Posomban is used, dunno what it is), 35 - term Pozsony not used, nr. 36, 37 and 38 is not readable (looks like letter of some kind, yet I´m unable to read in authors writing style), nr. 39 is once again letter of some kind, yet with readble writing style but still I´m unable to find anywhere in it term Pozsony, nr. 40 is one of the worst letter I ever read, it is readble but it takes really few minutes to read it all and yet term Pozsony is missing, in nr. 41 term Pozsony is missing, in nr. 42 in 4th word there is something like Po-something-yo-"n" or "m"-y (this handwrite sucks big way), let´s say it´s Posyony, I have already commented nr. 43 in my previous post, nr. 44 term Pozsony is once again missing, nr. 45 is once again stupid letter where once again term Pozsony is missing and I killed once again 5 minutes by decoding it, in nr. 46 term Pozsony is missing, in nr. 47 Temesvar and Transylvania (Erdely) is used several times but term Pozsony is missing, nr. 48 should be letter from Francz Jozef (althought I don´t know how could he wrote it when he didn´t knew hungarian) and once again term Pozsony is missing, nr. 49 mentioned Szombethely (I forgott the spelling), not Pozsony, Bible from nr. 50 does not mention term Pozsony either, no Pozsony in nr. 51, while nr. 52 is unreadable (and part of text is missing as well), nr. 53 mentioned Esztergom and Nagy-something but not Pozsony, finally for the first time there is term Posonyban clearly used in source number 54, same goes for 55, 56 unfortunatelly it all ends with source number 57 - some kind of Psychology book. And dude, I´m too lazy to read that tons of informations provided in source 58/9 (now I noticed that those are sources for what you mentioned). So pal, did you actulaly check your sources? Because from 57, Posonyban is used in three of your pictures and in number 42 there is something what resemble some derivate of Pozsony or something but I really can´t read it. PLease, next time check your sources because you provided some where are something like 10 words in it and no mention of what we´re talking about. Thanks --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So for Ellsworth from 14% Slovaks to 90% Slovaks, brutal Slovakization is nothing. How else can it be explained that a 14% small minority becomes over 90% in a matter of a few decades? Before Slovakization Slovaks were 14% of the population, that is a fact. Hobartimus (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain again "zs" and "ny" are modern letters that are written as "s" and "n" in older texts, Poson is Pozsony but spelling was modernised. Pozsony is used from at least the 13th century under the original spelling. Hobartimus (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pozsony/Poson - fine, that wasn´t my point. My point was that from 57 sources provided only 4 or 5 (one is not fully readable) are correct. Slovakization - no, because of few simple reasons. First - there were not 14 percent Slovaks in Bratislava in 1910. That census is not reliable for none KoH nation, except Hungary. Real number were higher, but many Slovaks because of magyarization changed their nationality "to make their life easier". Next, nerly 100 percent of German population fleed the city when Red Army was marching towards it to Vienna Carpathian Germans "Nearly all remaining Germans fled or were evacuated by the German authorities before the end of the war. Most Germans from Spiš evacuated to Germany or the Sudetenland before the arrival of the Red Army. This evacuation was mostly due to the initiative of Adalbert Wanhoff and the preparations of the diocese of the German Evangelical Church, between mid-November 1944 and January 21, 1945. The Germans from Bratislava were evacuated in January and February 1945 after long delays, and those of the Hauerland fled at the end of March 1945. The Red Army reached Bratislava on April 4, 1945." and Jewish population was victim of holocaust. These two events are not even closely realated to some kind of slovakization - all minorities had from the establishment of republic in 1918 beyond standart rights. German and Hungarian minorty had autonomus culture and schoolar system, there were schools specificly for Hungarians with native langauge as primar (they exist till the day) - in KoH during Hugnarization even last 3 Slovak gymnasiums, together with Matica Slovenská were cancelled and teaching of Slovak langauge was prohibited and if children were caught by profesors speaking it they were punished, Hungarians were always represented in parliament - on the other side, Slovaks had since 68 no representative in KoH parliament because only 10 percent of population had right to vote and so on. IF you want to talk about expell of HUngarians in 1918 they weren´t forced. Fact was that they became citizens of Czechoslovakia and they had to accept the citizienship which was offered to everyone - many of Hungarians rejected it and person without citizienship cannot be legaly emloyed, thus those Magyars which rejected this citizienship, lost their jobs and were forced by their economical situation to leave to Hungary. All they had to do was accept the citizienship and that´s it, they didn´t have to change nationality, they didn´t have to join the army or whatever - just accept the citizienship. If you´re talking about Benes decreets, they were something else. They established pressumption of guilty and all Hungarians have to proove that they were not supporting nazistic regime, or they were expelled. Next thing they could do was to accept the slovak or czech nationality in what we call reslovakization - result is that more than hundred thousands Magyars accepted this (they had to proove that they had Slovak nationality in last Czechoslovak census in 1931 or they had to proove that their grandparents were all Slovaks). As a result there was exchange of population when 70 000 Hungarians were expelled to Hungary and 70 000 Slovaks to Slovakia. Just to mention what lead to this situation - occupation of South Slovakia by Royal Hungary Troops in 39. In that time nearly all Slovak population was expelled from that territory and Hungarian population stared to settle them, after the war Beneš made a payback as to Germans so to Hungarians. In the end without any significant effect because nearly all reslovakized hungarians revoked their nationality after 48 when all hungarian schools were reopened and status of hungarian minority before war was revoked. Suma sumarum - Beneš plan on Hungarians failed miserably, in the long turm it didn´t have any effect. After that commies took the power and they were for status quo, and since 89 I didn´t see one serious attack on hungarian minority rights. It´s nice to repeat one term /slovakiazaion/ again and again but use it you should know what it means. You can´t compare it to magyarization from any point of view and I´m going to stand by my word. Increase of Slovak population was caused by first of all wrong starting numbers which you provided (14 percent because of disputed census, check 1921 census for relevant data) and by expell of Germans fleeing from approaching Red Army. Percent of Hungarians slowly decreased, but not drastically. PS: What about that name. Are we going to include all acronyms or change the disputed names to neutral "city"? --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To be exact. 1919 [60] census. Bratislava population was 29 percent of population Hungarian, 36.6 percent was German population and 32 percent was Slovak. Than in 1910 Slovak population of city had to be around 30 percent.--EllsworthSK (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Polarisation in an Ethnically Homogenous Town, PETER SALNER*, Institute of Ethnology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava. [61] From the Slovak Academy, on page 241 (page 7th in the pdf) The following info is found

1910 14.9% Slovak 40.5% Hungarian 41.9% German 2.7% Other 78,223 Total POP. Please compare everyone with the opinion of Ellsworth (" Than in 1910 Slovak population of city had to be around 30 percent.") I think the comparsion speaks for itself. Hobartimus (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not your "dude". Second: where did i say that they should include the word Pozsony???? Read my comment again, please. I only said that, "Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life" and "Here is a list (as an example) of books, letters written in Hungarian, to show that Hungarian was used before/after it became official", so the list shows that Hungarian language was used, although latin was the official language for many times. I think you misunderstood the sentences. But, I still dont know what is the problem, another user listed a dozen of books which proves that Pozsony is still used. What's the use of this conversation? ps: Here is a map from 1717 with Hungarian and German names [62]Baxter9 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You don´t have to be so touchy. But you´re right, I misread your text. My mystake, I apologize. About problem - Pozsony is used till now, as well as Pressburg. I have absolutelly no problem in mentioning these acronyms in article, my problem is that in history section Bratislava is refered as wither "city" or "Pozsony" exclusively making the feeling that Bratislava during all it´s history was Hungarian city with only hungarian history. If we want to use name Pozsony, instead of modern name in historical section because in those times the modern name didn´t exist than we have to use also German and Slovak acronyms as well. Or refer to Bratislava only as "city". That´s my opinion. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am really dismayed by the way the Pressburg-Poszony issue is treated. In the section Names the content and tone are about right, and I have no objections whatsoever. But the tone of the first paragraph is (purposedly?) undermining the identity of Bratislava and is also incorrect factually; it is introducing Bratislava as a city that has some name now but in fact is something else. Poszony and Pressburg are stressed (bold) TWICE in the intro paragraph, while the current name is bold once only. In an article about a city that is since 90 years called Bratislava this I feel is inapropritate, and really it really looks like someone wants to stress Poszony-Pressburg over Bratislava. Note that the same piece of information (that Bratislava was known under different names) is given THREE times (two times in the intor paragraph and then again in the section about names). I suggest to change the very first sentence and do not mention the Poszony/Bratislava issue there at all. I live in Germany, and you only hear Bratislava. I work with English texts a lot- and you see Bratislava everywhere. Generally, the way this is treated looks like someone unhappy about what happened in 1918 is meddling with this issue excessively. This is also indicated by the word "historically" in the first sentence, which I think for such kind of nationalists implies "genuinely", as they would like to create the impression, that Bratislava is in fact Poszony or Pressburg...I cut it ou here, sorry, but I hate to see this kind of nationalistic clashes. And sorry for not registering, I'm too busy for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I just add another small comment: is the information that Bratislava was or is also known under Poszony/Pressburg really so important that it is the first piece of information about Bratislava? Is it more important that Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia, ...? Well well, I do not think so. And, In the pre-1919 period Bratislava was known under at least 5 variations of the same name: Possonium (Latin), Pressburg (D), Poszony (HU), Presporok (SK), and he Jiddish version which I am not able to type here. The importance of these versions varied with time and by ethnic group. and the last comment: Try Bratislava and Poszony and Pressburg in google in English. Bratislava: 11,900,000 hits in English texts; Poszony: 1190 hits, many of which refer to historical Poszony, not today's city, or names of people; and Pressuburg: 96,900 a higher number, but still much less than 1% of Bratislava and look at the references: none of them actually refers to today's city, there are many referring to the treaty of Pressburg, as town in Germany, or encyclopedia from the year 1911 etc....certainly this Poszony/Pressuburg issue is not the most important information about Bratislava deserving such prominence in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.217.35 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that you would misspell the names so consistently. For example "certainly this Poszony/Pressuburg issue is" and "Pressuburg: 96,900 a higher number," to top it off you do a google search on your own bad spelling. Also if you are familiar with English texts as you say, you then know that there is no such hierarchy as the first things in an article are the most important. For example many articles about persons list birth dates example Barack Obama, is "born August 4, 1961" more important than being president? Of course not, it's silly. The same case here. Hobartimus (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

you're right, thanks for pointing this out, I was negligent about the spelling. Pressburg was OK, but Pozsony I consistently misspelled. But still, the argument holds. Bratislava has more than 100 times more hits than any of the other two, and the results for the other two are systematically flawed by historical references and other uses of the words. As for the initial sentence: I think it is setting a wrong tone and perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.115.227 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Prešporok
Why is the old Slovak name not mentioned in the lead? As Bratislava has been a trilingual city for ages I think it is supposed to be there with the other two names.
Poszony/Pressburg/Posonium
If Latin was official in any period of time, Latin name should be used as it is the most neutral and it is also the proper way to call the town if you want to be historically exact.

It is not true, that Latin was not used at the time, see

Many lesser nobles wrote political pamphlets in imitation of the French: they read and supported weekly newspapers, first in Latin and German (since 1707) and later in the Hungarian language.

(http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html)

This also shows, that Hungarian was secondary from the point of view of the whole Monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Or, if the English historiography uses Pressburg the most, that is the name that is supposed to be used on ENWiki. Just like Prague is not once mentioned by its German or Czech name nor is Vienna mentioned by its German name in their respective History sections and/or History articles.

To support the latter option here is a quote from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Pressburg is picturesquely situated on the left bank of the Danube[...] Pressburg was the capital of Hungary from 1541 until 1784.

wlad (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in all your writings that supports that Presporok should be added. "Pressburg was the capital of Hungary from 1541 until 1784." does not support adding Presporok in any way. In 1911 the time of your quote, Hungarian was the official language determined by the laws of Hungary so official documents reflected that.

Can you point to any point in history, where the city was officially called Presporok, at any point in time? Hobartimus (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are two separate points. One is the case for the addition of Presporok, the other one deals with the nomenclature throughout the whole article (and is subdivided into two parts).

Since when do official names matter? "Again: Pozsony/Pressburg was used by the people. Latin was only used in administration, science and politics, not in "real life"." (Baxter9) - if that's the logic used in the article as it is now, a significant portion of its population is ignored in the lead, which should be corrected regardless of whether the name was official or not.

Anyway, as the official name is Slovak nowadays, previous Slovak version should be mentioned in the lead as well by default. wlad (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"a significant portion of its population is ignored in the lead," Would you mind telling us how much is "significant portion" according to your sources. As far as I know there is no usage of it today by anyone anywhere. Can you give a few historical examples where Presporok is used (you modified the sentence to read "historically known as Presporok"). There is also a practical value here. People who only know the city by name X can quickly recognize that this is the article that they are looking for. Are there any people who only know the city as Presporok? Hobartimus (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovaks were the third largest ethnic group in the city according to the 1910 census, you want to deny that? Even sources from 1857 mention Pressburg as having a significant Slovak population (see http://www.archive.org/details/ethnographiedero01czoe , although this does not mention exact numbers.) You want to deny that? The absence of the Slovak name in the lead creates an impression, that there was no slovak name before the 'invention' of Bratislava. It is worth mentioning.

By the way - "Are there any people who only know the city as Presporok?" - isn't this just an off topic thing to ask about a sentence that begins with "historically known"?wlad (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's two different things. First the historical name since the city went under a complete renaming. See the Istanbul article, the point is not to show the names in different languages, but to identify the city over time, "yes this is the city you were looking for". Listing additional information such as the language where the historical name is from is not the purpose of the section. Anyway I didn't want to deny anything I simply asked what is the number % wise that you consider "significant" to get a general reference point for later discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was around 15% according to 1910 census, but it can be argued that the pre-1867 number was somewhat higher (and mind you that Hungarians were at round 40% and second behind the Germans). Either way, there was no other significant minority present, so Slovak name should be mentioned. I do agree that the languages can be deleted, but all three names must be mentioned, preferably Pozsony and Presporok in parentheses, as they are only complementary to the accustomed English name. wlad (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)