Talk:List of rulers of Slovakia

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Question: Who was that Ladislaus Bold and Vazul? As far as I am concerned, 990-1018 Slovakia belonged to Poland. Cautious 00:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you will find out that they were Arpads who - among other things - ruled Slovakia especially during the time when it was part of Poland (1000-1030, older sources: 1000-1018, not 990 - 1018). But all this information is contained in the text. Juro

Remark: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to refrain from using the term "Slovak regional rulers" in the top of the entry? I can not imagine considering the people who lived in the territory of Slovakia to consider or to be considered Slovaks in 12th century. It should be more appropriate to use term like Slavic, or maybe proto-slovak. mato 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it, but note that according to Slovak ethnografers, the ethnogenesis of Slovaks started in the 8th century and was finished in cca. 1000. In other words, the Slavs in Slovakia are definitely Slovaks from cca. 1000 onwards. This is the "careful" version. The modern version of many historians is that the Slavs were Slovaks as early as in 7th (or 8th etc.) century, which is not wrong in the sense that for example the Slovenes define themselves as being existent already at that time, although their predecessors have had the same name as Slovaks. Juro 16:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, who are you refering to? Mr Vnuk? Some sources man, or is just your opinion? mato 16:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is basic history, you should now that, "man". Since this is no article on Slovaks and you seem to have no idea of what I am talking about, I see no point in dicussing this further. At least you have learnt something. Anyway, there is no Slovak source that would say that the Slavs in Slovakia were no Slovaks in the 12th century, and that's the only relevant point here. Juro 19:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr Juro doesn't need to quote anyone, his weird theory about Slovaks in the 16-14th, 11th and even the 8th century is "basic history". I think there should be a minimal standard of seriousness and applying scientific methods when building a database - such articles make the whole project useless. "We were here first" - like in the kindergarten...

What?????! I am trying to ignore your recent permanent primitive contributions (boring holidays, aren't they...?). But this is too much now. Since as a extreme nationalist and chauvinist Hungarian (- I suppose) you have never read and will never read an expert Slovak, Czech, German etc. text on Slovaks or Slovakia (not to mention texts of the Slovak Academy of Slovakia), how can you have the temerity to drop one single of your primitive chauvinist words here?? It is always interesting to see how anonym idiots like you are exactly those who are talking about seriousness here (and your method of working is to repeat other users' words, isn't?). And I am quite sure I know which user you are. Your contribution has a strong resemblance with a lot of primitive statements on talk pages during the last few days and previously during some other days of holidays (regarding Magyar origins from Sumerians etc.)...And from now on, every futher primitive statement on your part will be reacted by personal insults against you on my part, because that is the only way how to deal with deranged persons like you. See a doctor. Juro 23:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the article provoked some tense discussion. I would recommend the main author to cite sources he used by writing this article - until then I have marked the article as needing references or sources. Hamilton1 16:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully the discussion has nothing to do with the content of the article. Source is any bigger book on Slovak history. Juro 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people in the discussion are questioning validity of certain parts of the article - you should name the sources you used by writing the article or remove non-verifiable parts - I'm still going to mark this article Hamilton1 16:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have reading problems. Nobody is questioning any part of this article in this discussion. And unless the other lists contain references (which would be ridiculous), it is also ridiculous to add any reference to this one, because I could write there, as I said, ANY book on Slovak history. Juro 18:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using insults. Users were questioning your sources and the validity of the parts of the article - just read the discussion couple of lines upwards. Ridiculous is your inability to name any source - for examples how it was done look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Croatia or even here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hungarian_rulers. If you have any questions consult the appropriate wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Hamilton1 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. I repeat: cite the part of this discussion questioning anything in the list and add the part of the list it is questioning. I will cite you 30 sources. Are 5 years old or what? Juro 22:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not make sense, since Slovakia was part of Hungary, from 900-1920, so the

Is this an encyclopedia or joke site? I am questioning everything before 1920, even Samo, as it is not fully evidenced, only from cronicles, which can be faked easily (pls cite me a Samo building or at least a tomb). This is not to make Slovak nationalism small, but a fact, sorry. Abdulka (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) per name, this list in its present form is an invention. Slovakia exists as Slovakia since 1993. And for a short time between 1938-1945, wich, since Hitler gave the independence, is also constantly getting deleted or supressed from articles as "non relevant"[1], [2], [3].

2) This list is ok only if it is renamed to "List of rulers of the territory of present day Slovakia" --Rembaoud (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]