Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Well even with the lengthy discussions here, the consensus is quite clear here to delete JForget  00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * This is not an article, its a weak attempt to describe the "problem" Samofi is having in his mind. His personal thoughts are interesting but not wikipedia grade material. It is notable that the creator edited many articles before conforming to his personal views. The "problem" is clearly his and there is no such encyclopeadic topic, as he is trying to invent here. Hobartimus (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I used Slovak-Hungarian book. Name was too long but its about problem of identity in Slovak and Hungarian history. You can see this book, watch link below. Its witten by Slovak and Magyar professors, I used source from Austrian professor in Vienna University. So its against rules of wikipedia delete this article. Its important topic. So we can change name of article or improve article, but not delete. What is you next PERSONAL problem with this? I have here problem only with you and Nmate, for your Magyar nationalism and falsification of history. (Samofi (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Here the names of articles about topic in Magyar and English language:
 * A szlovák származású elit Magyarország iránt érzett hazafisága a Habsburg-ellenes felkelések idején Ottlyk György köznemes példáján (KÓNYA)
 * Értelmiségi minták és a Hungarus-tudat (SOÓS)
 * A nemzetfogalom változatai a 19. századi magyar irodalomban (VARGA)
 * A lojalitás az etnicizmus és nemzetiség kontextusában és a szlovák politika 1848 – 1849-ben (SKVARNA)
 * Regionális magyar identitás a XIX. század végén – Felső-Magyarország, Felföld, Felvidék Mikszáth műveiben (KISS)


 * The Slovakian-born elite felt toward Hungarian patriotism of the anti-Habsburg uprising the example of zeman George Ottlyk
 * Intellectuals and the samples of hungarus-consciousness
 * The versions of the nation in Hungarian literature of 19th century
 * Loyalty in the context of nationality and etnicity in Slovak politics 1848 - 1849
 * Hungarian regional identity in the nineteenth century - of Upper Hungary, Upper Land, Highlands in the Mikszáth works

--Samofi (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Does read like some kind of school esay.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Article is based on Slovak-Hungarian book (http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html) Article is important for global understandig of identity in Hungarian Kingdom. Its not personal thoughts I used slovak, hungarian, german and english matherials to be neutral. Sources are written by scholars. Main matherial - http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html has english abstracts to each chapter so its possible to verify. Its slovak-hungarian article, so neutral. SZARKA is Magyar Professor from Hungarian academy of science, Sutaj is Slovak Professor. Here is online version of book: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf Horbatimus has problems with Slovaks probably he is chauvinist. Maybe its written like essay, but lot of articles starts like stubs or with form as essay and they are improved to encyclopedic version like article about Slovak-Hungarian relations, passage about Malinova Hedviga. NOT DELETE and improve the article. I can later improve this article but Iam busy now. Its big historical issue, its lot of books written about this, but its hot topic for Hungarian nationalists. Write something more constructive for deleteing this article. (Samofi (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

NOT DELETE This is very important article for Slovak-Hungarian history in the case of understanding nationality in Hungarian Kingdom. (Tobar888 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)) — Tobar888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note This is the first and so far only of the above sockpuppet Tobar888. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There seems to be an odd series of inter-related edits of this AfD between User:Samofi, User:Tobar888 and User:78.128.181.9. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge of the wp:SPI procedures should look into it. » scoops  “  対談  „ 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tobar888 seems to be a single-purpose account-- B@xter9 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You told seems. Each editor starts with clean shield. So let Tobar888 to be, and watch his activity in future. --Samofi (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There might possibly be reliable sources for an article on the notable internal conflicts of the multi-ethnic kingdom, but this is not that article. I tried reading the abstracts in that series of essays, but I find the English just awkward enough to make them a pain to follow. Since I can't actually read the other sources, I can't judge their reliability. The larger problem is the article itself. First: the title is not appropriate, though that is not grounds for deletion in itself. More importantly, the article content doesn't make sense. The language is difficult to follow and the tone is not encyclopedic. It comes across as an essay disagreeing with historical labels. I was leaning towards voting to userfy, but there's nothing in the article text worth saving. Whatever notability the material may have isn't presented in this article. Perhaps Samofi can enlist the help of another editor with better English skills to try recreating an article with the appropriate title and content. » scoops  “  対談  „ 03:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked another user for help and I agree that the name of article can be changed and that article is not encyclopedic and my english is not proper. But lot of articles started as essays or stubs and they were improved to encyclopedic form, so its not question about deletion but about improving of this article. I have not read here critics that this article is against wikipedia´s rules, its only technicaly defective and can be improved. So Not Delete it --Samofi (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Uhh...Looks like a personal reflection. The references are not verifiable ( and most of them is not even reliable . Others, like number [1] is not available online, and somewhy i dont think that Samofi owns a copy of that book. Furthermore, it has a lot of factual errors, like: "Modern scholars reflect difference between terms Hungarian and Magyar." and the whole "famouse persons from Hungarian Kingdom of Slovak origin" (i.e. examples:Lászlo Mednyánszky and Tivadar Csontváry Kosztkas' ancestors were Poles, József Károly Hell, Joseph Petzval and Franz Liszt's were Germans). Suggestion to author: Please study wikipedia's i) manual of style, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:CITE. After this issue should be explained in stub- article Natio Hungarica (Right where it belongs).-- B@xter9 [[Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif|25px]] 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Revrited and used new sources. Last Slovak source is online encyclopedy written by Slovak scholars. So what is next reason for deletion? --Samofi (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is difference between Magyar and Hungarian in modern scholars, Hungarian is used as nation in political sense and Magyar for ethnic, here is book from Aviel Roshwald:
 * Nobody gave me proofs that its personal reflection. I always put source claiming of my true so not delete. Mednyansky and Kosztka were Slovakized Poles, so Slovaks with Polish origin with Hungarian nationality in political sense. Same with Hell and Petzval but german origin. Mednyansky wrote some of his corespondency in slovak and reflected there his Slovakian nationality. Franz list is of german and slovak ancestry, his grandmother was Barbara Slezak of Slovakian origin . And I did not tell deffinitly, they are disputable. With no Hungarian blood. Its stupid to delete this important article. I miss here more neutral Not Hungarian editors. So I hope admins will not delete it, but they will give an opportunity to improve this article. --Samofi (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I read, the less convinced I am about the notability of the topic as written here. People born in the Hungarian empire were called Hungarian, regardless of ethnic heritage. People born in Canada are called Canadian, regardless of ethnic heritage. You can still be an ethnic Slovakian born in Canada, just as you could be an ethnic Slovakian born in Hungary. What is the actual "problem" mentioned in the title? The article doesn't specifically address that. Is the problem just that there is confusion between the Slovakian and Hungarian ethnicities and nationalities? Is that notable in some way?


 * As an aside, I like to think that I'm a neutral, not-Hungarian editor. » scoops  “  対談  „ 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the difference (i.e. the core of the "problem") between this "old" and "new" nationality, (Hungarians still thinks that nationality in the 19th century is same like nationality in 21th century) nor the problem with "new" and "old sources" (like Britannica, mentioned by Samofi), since persons from Hungary with different ethnicity than Hungarian are well represented with modern English sources, even the mentioned ones: Joseph Petzval Hungarian  of German origin , Franz Liszt Hungarian  of German origin, Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry Hungarian painter of Polish origin, Maximilian Hell Hungarian of German origin.-- B@xter9  14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, article should be more general. Its specified for the case of Slovaks but this topic is about Germans, Slovaks, Jews, Romanians. Look to the sources about for example Slovak inventors. For Slovaks are usualy considered only persons whose made their inevntions abroad (for exampel Aurel Stodola, Jozef Murgaš). Almost all ethnic Slovakian inventors or other famouse people (or with mixed descent slovak-german, slovak-polish, slovak-hungarian). Here in Wikipedia is Hungarian lobby who tries to have "patent" for the history of Hungarian Kingdom. I agree that I have written as essay, but its necessary explanantion of this phenomene. German, English-writing, Slovak, Romanian, Czech, Serbian, Slovenian, Croation scholars and important Hungarians scholars see difference in understand of nationality in Hungarian Kingdom. Hungarian and German scholars use word "Hungarus" for people whose declare thier political nationality as "Hungarian" but they were with different ethnic origin (Kingdom was multiethnic, in 18th century there was only 30% of Hungarians). Slovaks use word Uhor, Czechs - Uher, Yugoslavians - Ugar. English-writing scholars use terms Magyar in ethnical way and Hungarian in political way (see work of Roshwald). I made article [Natio Hungarica] to reflect problem of nationality but nothing changed, Hungarians still thinks that nationality in the 19th century is same like nationality in 21th century. They use old sources (such Britannica) and dont respect evolution in historical understanding of context. Thanx for example from Canada or USA, for example community of Polish-Americans, their delclare Amarican nationality, they use english language in professional life (coz english is scholar language), but at home they speak polish, they eat polish foods, they are part of polish cultural heritage. In examples of Stefan Jedlik or Ladislau Mednansky, parents were Slovaks (in Mednansky family there was croat and polish ancestors in forepast history) but after collapse of Latin language as scholar language in Hungarian Kingdom it was use as scholar language the Magyar language, so it was natural that in public or in professional life they used Magyar language, but for example in short time in Brno had Jedlik lectures in "slovakized-czech " language (students there could not understand Magyar language :) ). Its necessary to understand different nationality of Hungarian Kingdom and present understanding of Hungarian nationality. Its not good for Hungarians because majority of Hungarian inventors were Jews (declared Hungarian nationality because of Magyarization laws - if they wanted to be active in professional live they had to be "Hungarians". It was change from German to Hungarian) and there was lot of ethnic Slovaks. So Iam against deleteing article and killing of this topic. --Samofi (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So is your problem that, for example, the Franz Liszt article says, "Franz Liszt [...] (October 22, 1811 – July 31, 1886) was a Hungarian composer, virtuoso pianist and teacher" and that Hungarian points to Hungarian people? While I can see that --if reliable sources indicate-- might need remedy (perhaps by pointing to Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary, or not wiki-linking at all, after a discussion), this article (and AfD) reads more and more like your personal attempt to educate people as to an issue best addressed by the broader ethnic nationalism article. Liszt's ethnicity is dealt with later in his article. Compare Liszt with Henry Ford. Ford was born in the US, and is described as American. His Irish heritage is also noted, but that doesn't change his nationality. If you disagree with how ethnicities/nationalities are wiki-linked in general, you should bring it up some place like the wp:VILLAGEPUMP rather than writing an essay in the main space. » [[User:Scoops|

scoops ]] “ 5x5 „ 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Linking is one from the problems, small. In sources I have used its discussion about the problem of understandig of nationality in global and in Hungarian Kingdom on the examples of Slovaks. Slovaks were autochthons in Hungarian Kingdom (difference with ethnical origin of people in USA and Canada). Slavic tribes (proto Slovaks) came to this area in 5th century, Turko-Ugric tribes (proto Magyars) in 9th century. I agree that in older times was nationality only in the case of upper Nobility but this understandig of nationality had continuity later. In 18-19th century, in the time of natioanl revival in Europe lot of Slovaks considered as Hungarians (politicaly, state=nationality). But in Slovak langauge and in the other languages of nations in Hungarian Kingdom (except Magyars) it was 2 meanings of Hungarian nationality. In the case of Slovaks: They could considered as Uhor (Hungarian) in political sence and Magyar (Hungarian) in ethnical sence. They could be Uhor (Hungarian) and Slovák (Slovak) in same time - multiple national identity, see this interesting article and book:. In Magyar language this word means same (Magyar - Magyar), like in English. Next problem is that Hungarian editors in Wikipedia doesnt accept Slovak sources, its few books about Liszt´s Slovak origin, one in franche language:. His grandmuther was Slovak, he was member of Slavic congresses, his family lived part of his life in Slovak ethnic area (Malacky), he was able to speak Slovak. I agree with his German origin, majority of his life he was more German than Hungarian, but he belongs to Slovaks, to Germans and to Hungarians. Hungarians make monopol for people from Kingdom. He was cosmopolitan. Persons from this time belongs to multiethnical Kingdom not to Magyars in present sense. So if will deleted this article, it can be new article "Problem of nationality in Hungarian Kingdom" (general) or it can be noticed in the article about Hungarian people and in the article about Hungarian Kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that this discussion doesn't belong here, as this is a deletion discussion, not a "how to define one's nationality" discussion. I'll be brief.
 * You may not be aware that this is a common problem, ranging from people with shared origins to cities (one of the most referenced example could be Gdansk), and I can assure you there is no One True Answer. National self-definition is a new thing resulted from the nation state system, before that there was no "Hungarian", "Slovakian", "Romanian" etc, so this whole nationality labeling is quite bad idea before the 17-18th century.
 * Other than that if there are reliable sources of a person's own nationality self-definition then it should be noted, but in most of the cases there isn't any; in these cases all relevant nationalities should be listed, most probably in order of relevance. I do not object to label Hungarian AND Slovakian origins.
 * But this has nothing to do with this article in question, which is (in my opinion) beyond repair. -grin &#9998; 09:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, in the case of Bernolak. He was Hungarian patriot but creator of Slovak language and ethnic Slovak. He created Slovak, because he wanted to make differenton between Czech and Slovak nations. It was good for Hungarian Kingdom and it was good for Slovaks, they could start to create nationality in moderns sense. But all history of Slovaks in Hungary it was fight between political nationality connected with loyality to Hungarian Kingdom (Hungarian patriotism) and Slovak ethnicity as a part of Hungarian political nation. Weaknes of slovak national consciousness was perverted by Magyar elites to create ethnic Magyar state. It was the stone of the accident. --Samofi (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is begining to look like someones soapbox about some kind of unfairness they percive.13:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from the obvious national pride behind creating such an article (and I can relate to that, since [we] Hungarians suppressed smaller nations just the same way as we have been suppressed by larger ones) the current article is biased and skewed: if we would accept the need to such essays it should cover generally all nationality around the Carpathian basin and not just slovak one. And I feel somehow that the "rebranded" people listed in the article (as far as I know they assumed themselves as Hungarian, even if originated from multinational families) could be one of the main aspect of the creation of this article. ;-) (This pretty much remind me of Miklos Zrinyi who has been renamed from time to time...) --grin &#9998; 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

'''Hungarian users are not neutral. They take it emocianaly.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  --Samofi (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to stop acting uncivilised. Try for a minute considering that your fellow editors may try to be objective before you reject them. And you should notice the fact that I expressly included my nationality to help other readers to decide. (And remember: even emotionally handicapped have one vote to cast.) -grin &#9998; 08:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry to you, but some Hungarian editors attacked me to my personal page and speak aboslutely stupid things without references. Such Stubes99 and Horbatimus. --Samofi (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, every nation have its share of uncivilised or emotionally overreacting editors. In my experience most sane editors here are quite tolerant to the other (supposedly "competing") nations... Slovakians, Romanians, Serbians, Croatians, Hungarians,... just to name a few who share history and life. --grin &#9998; 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I share history with Hungarians and other nations in Hungarian Kingdom. I dont want Slovakize history, I dont remove conection of Hungrians with personalities from Hungarian Kingdom. But its here lot of disputable persons, very mixed, with not clear understanding of nationality in present meaning. Its nothing here about regional identity in Hungarian Kingdom, or about dualism of national identity - political/ethnical. From the begin of Hungary it was there Magyars, "Slavs of Hungary" (Slovaks), Serbians, Germans, Valachians - according to Saint Stephan´s speech about multilingual state. And it was to the end of existention of Hungarian Kingdom. It could be persons, whose declared political nationality of Hungary, they could have different origin (ancestors) but they could have different ethnicity too based on the cultural background of area of the major population. I found lot of sources about Petzval, he was Hungarian patriot - but to his Hungarian land. He was of german/moravian ancestry, but lived in Slovak (in that time 57% Slovaks in Spis) ethnic area and his Moravian ancestros could easily assmilated to Slovaks. Same with Kosztka, he was in Slovak elementary school, in town it was German and Hungarian school too. So why Slovak school? Why he went study better Hungarian to Alfold? Slovak people make bad that they want some persons only for themselves, Hungarians make bad that he dont want share multiethnical persons. Its problem of interpretation of nationality in history and in present. --Samofi (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All you have done is reinforce the idea that this page is nothing but nationalist soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How I have done? Coz I react to Hungarian nationalists? See discussion of article. Or coz I put there relevant sources about importance of this article? Its not soapbox, its true. It would not be so many books from Hungarian, German, Slovak, English scholars. --Samofi (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop shouting, in response to your question. One how do you know he's a hungarian nationalist? Two You make a blanket assumption about Hungarians, essentialy accusing them of beging emotional cripples. A clear example of nationalist agenda itself. Moreover your sources do not it appears back up most of what the articel says, its your own synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yuvp3uoXGScJ:www.ulib.sk/sk/stredisko-unesco/pamat-sveta/pamat-slovenska/zlata-nit-slovenskej-literatury/starsia-slovenska-literatura-800-1780/johannes-de-thurocz-chronica-hungarorum.html+slovak+nationality+in+hungarian+kingdom&cd=10&hl=sk&ct=clnk&client=opera Book about problematics of article on the example of Johannes de Thurocz. --Samofi (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What prblom is this discusing, it does not (as far as I can see) say anything about there being probloms with ethinc Slovaks. In fact the book in question does seem (according to the review) differnetiate between Slovaks and other ethnic groups. So again this looks like synthasis to me. Also not all of the 'Slovaks' mentioned in the artciel appear to be ethnicly slovak, they were just born in Slovakia (as such you may in fact be gulity of the same crime you are attempting to draw attnetion to). For example Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry appears to have been of Polish extraction, not Slovak.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He was in slovak elementary school, in town was german and hungarian. he went to present hungary to teach hungarian. his polish ancestors were slovakized and later he was magyarized. --Samofi (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not really even coherent, much less notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above, that´s essay, not article. Some parts can be included in Kingdom of Hungary or Magyarization articles nevertheless. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

http://folk.uio.no/stveb1/Chapter_7_Content_id.pdf This is about topic. --Samofi (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This source does appear to be discugng the idea of Slovak identity, but does not seem to be saying that there was an issue with Slovaks being ignored. Indead (in a sence contradicting your title) it seems to say there was not historical Slovak national identity, but that there was a cultural one (unless that is what your page is about).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, If would be article membered to theses chapters: 1. Slovak vs. Slavic identity 2. Slovak vs. Hungarian identity 3. Creation of Slovak nationality 3.1 Czech-Slovak language dualism All 4 according to this:

??? --Samofi (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Next article about topic: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/633/article.pdf?sequence=2 --Samofi (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about national songs, and the only issue with Slovak identiy it seems to talk about is Czec, not Hungarian. I am begining to think that your have not read these sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read but I took from articles small parts what belongs to topic. --Samofi (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To Samofi: I've checked some of the sources you cited, but most of them are either deadlinks, irrelevant (what does a German article dealing with the usage of German in the KoH have to do AT ALL with Slovaks?), or very vague in their nature (citing >300 pages long books without the exact page numbers you've gotten the text from is NOT proper sourcing). The latter gives a suspicion of citing some books which *might* contain relevant arguments to support your claims, but probably didn't make sure it actually does. And Wikipedia's not a place for original research, as other might've pointed it out to you. Besides you seem to be missing the point the articles you've cited try to make: sure, KoH wasn't a nation-state (until the beginning of the 19th century, that is), but it didn't pretend that. And besides there wasn't a single nation-state in Europe at the time. Even the concept of nation-state has been born in the French revolution I think. Actually there were 2 concepts even for the term "nation" at the time: the French "model" stated that you're French as long as you speak French, act like French and say that you're French. The other was the German concept, which stated that you're German as long as you live within the borders of a German state (or Germany later), and that's it. I think at the beginning the second concept was prevalent in Hungary as well, until they were overwhelmed with the scholars of the French concept (Kossuth & co. I think). As we know, one thing led to another. But before the whole concept of the nation-state was born, Hungary/KoH was a feudal state. It means that only people who had an estate (feudal tenure) had any rights whatsoever, regardless of nationality. Therefore the only way to determine one's nationality is the "regular" way: to look up what one said about himself, his writings etc. and certainly not by ASSUMING (you know, the process in which you make an ASS of U & ME) this from the place he was born, lived in etc. As that leads to myths and not facts. One last note: if you really want to add some RELEVANT information about the topic, why don't you try expanding the "Natio Hungarica" article instead with RELEVANT and trustworthy information? Everybody would be definitely more interested in hearing the truth about history (especially its own) instead of some mythical fabrications. CoolKoon (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I hate to say it, this article seems to be a personal essay of sorts describing why is it "likely" that many notable historical persons of various origin are supposed to have Slovak origin. There's even the name of Franz Liszt, who was obviously an ethnic German (yet he claimed all the time to be Hungarian). Sure, there are many sites where such writings are more than welcome (even the Slovak Wikipedia might be...), but I doubt the English Wikipedia is among them.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.