Talk:Privilegium pro Slavis

= First document of Slovaks or Slavs? ==

Hi, could you please specify if the document is about the Slavic people general, or specific for Slovak people? In the last case this is document is of great signifcance since it is hounders of years older than the first documents about the Slovak people (not general Slavic).

Thanks! bacsa81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.127.225.249 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The document is about local Slovaks from Žilina and it is not related to the Slavs in general. Notice that the words Slovak and Slav are equivalent and the word Slovak simply means Slav. Slovaks (like Slovenians) preserved their original general name, while other Slavs adopted usually the name of the strongest Slavic tribe in their region.Ditinili (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, after checking Latin the translation is clear Slavs not Slovaks. The privilegs cover Czech Poles and Slovaks as well. Bacsa81 (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Latin terms "Sclavi" and similiar can mean Slovak or Slav. Vice versa, west Slavic term "Slovak" in west Slavic languages can mean ethnic Slovak or Slav. E.g. if you read Latin chronicle where it is written "Boemi et Sclavi" then it is problematic to translate it as "Czech and Slavs" because Czechs "are" Slavs. Here, the author means ethnic Slovaks. Similarly, if you read olde Polish chronicle where it is written that "Slowaci" (Slovaks) are ancestors of Poles, you cannot translate it as "ethnic Slovaks" but you should translate it as "Slavs". In this case, it is archaism, modern Poles distinguish. "Slovak" literally means "Slav" and both terms are used in narrower and wider context (also in Latin).
 * In this case, the King did not grant privilege to some abstract Slavs but to the local, autochtonous residents who complained to newcomers - German "guests". Since these people who lived in Žilina before the arrival of Germans were not Poles, Czechs or Russians, Crotians but Slovaks, it is meaningless to translate it as Slav in general.Ditinili (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Kirschbaum isn't OR, so why would you say that in your edit summary? Also, how can a writer not writing in English be an authority on English usage? The term Slavis is generic. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I mean your comment "privilege for the Slavs" is better as a *translation*". I referenced two scientific articles that explain why it is not a better, but literally wrong translation. It is OK to cite non-English sources - per WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." You cannot compare a book which contains a general overview of Slovak history (a compilation written by Kirschbaum) with the scientific article focused on the concrete topic written by a prominent medievalist (i.e. Richard Marsina). Both articles have EN summaries. It is meaningless to translate the term "Slavis" from the title, because this name was introduced only in 1930s. Only a real content of the bill can be translated.--Ditinili (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)