Talk:Dunajská Streda

Recent changes

Your contributions were valuable partially but distorted with Slovak nationalist POV so I reverted them. It would be more reasonable to change things step by step and trying to reach an agreement.

What are talking about???? I have checked the changes, they are all perferctly OK. The only thing that was left out seems to be the 1910 census, which however ignores the Jews, which are important for the town. Juro 17:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Presporok/Pozsony is OK for me. Or even better the Pressburg/Presporok/Pozsony.
• What about the same with Csallóköz/Zity ostrov?
• The Jews of Dunaszerdahely was REALLY Hungarian speaking like Vámbéry. Deny this is an attempt to falsify the real ethnic composition of the town because Jewish is not an independent nationality but rather a religion in this region.

While this is probable, I have never seen the census results of 1930 saying "xy Hungarian speaking Jews", that's your personal speculation (if not, provide the source and we can readd it)

• Is there any evidence that suggests that the majority was NOT Hungarian in the Middle Ages? The oldest local toponymy is Hungarian... Zello 18:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You say there weren't any Magyars in the Csallóköz before the 13th century. It is certainly a big mistake because the oldest strata of Hungarian toponymy, the names of the tribes (for example Megyer, Kürt, Keszi etc) is present in the region. These are the oldest kind of Magyar place names from the 10th century and they show that Hungarians occupied the region immediately after their arriving. Zello 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There were some Magyars - military troops and maybe some nobles - there, but that does not mean that they formed the majority already, and above all it does not mean that there was (or was not) one single Magyar specifically on the territory of Dunajská Streda. These are very complicated things and this is certainly not the right article to solve them. Unless there are special reasons for this special town, which I do not know (I do not live in that town), there is absolutely no reason to assume a substantial Magyar population before around the 15/16th century (just like e.g. in the case of Bratislava which was part of Hungary but the first Magyars appeared only in the 12th/13th century there). And as for the toponyms, there are even purely Slovak or German towns that were mentioned under their Hungarian language text for the first time, because it is concidence and because they are usually mentioned in a document where the (Hungarian) king or the highest (Hungarian) nobles award something or so. And again even if there was a Hungarian settlement somewhere on the island, that does not mean that the whole island (which after all is no true geographical or political territory) suddenly had a Magyar majority population. The Magyars just slowly moved in and came in greater amounts in the 15th/16th century etc.. Juro 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is totally absurd: why would soldiers and nobles lived in little, poor, insignificant villages in the middle of the swamp (as the Csallóköz was)? Look up this villages (Kér, Kürt and so on)! They were fishermen and peasants of course as local folk stories and dialect clearly show. You speak about a situation that was true somewhere in Orava or Turiec but not in the lowland of the Danube which was the core of the territory inhabited by Magyars. Almost every village name is Hungarian with a clear order of populating the firstly impassable, wet territory (ie. typical names from the 10th, then 12-13, then 14-15th century). There are signs of other nationalities of course - Kuns and pechenegs! As for Dunaszerdahely: a document from 1341 describes the territory of the town - names of the ploughlands, roads, manors are all Hungarian. You can argue about that there weren't any Hungarians in Győr and Veszprém counties too, or probably nowhere... But I think you only try to applicate the sitution of the northern Slavic Highlands of the very different Csallóköz because of the modern border. Zello 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Did the Hungarian have to conquer that territory in the 10th century? - they had (do you need soldiers for that? - you do.). Did I say "maybe" (to show good will)? - I did. Do you have written names for the villages before the 12th century? - you don't. Did I say that that there were Hungarians from approx. that time onwards there? - I did. Are the village names representing this "last" state - they are. Is that surprising? - it is not. Are there Slavic founds form the territory up to the Middle Ages and even Great Moravian settlements? - they are. Is that the basic state we have to go on from ?- it is. Do you have sources on Slovak names on the "island" and in northern Hungary - you don't, you only have Hungarian sources (like all Hungarians). Is 1341 "late Middle Ages" - it is. Does the text express this state of knowledge? - it does. Does the state of late medieval names in the surrounding region enable to make conclusions for this particular town? - it does not. Juro 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tribal place names are never later than the 11th century you should know this because it is a generally accepted scientific fact. So the names are not late medieval, they are from every era of the Middle Ages since 900. Why there are only modern Slovak names in the region not old ones as in Orava or Trencin? Because there wasn't any significant Slovak population there before 1918 (maybe there were some in 900 but disappeared). Of course the border can be somewhere near Zalaegerszeg (as Czechoslovakian politicians proposed) and then we would be arguing about the ethnic composition of Transdanubia now. You should accept the clear fact that the political border was not the same as the ethnic border and not rewrite history. Zello 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You are unable to distinguish political propaganda and speculations from facts and in addition you do not even realise that (now I see what Hungarian children at schools). What politicians required or not is completely irrelevant. I do not know what exactly you mean by "tribal place names" with respect to this particular town. And ad : the political border was not the same as the ethnic border and not rewrite history - and?? It is you who is claiming this, not me. I am recalling what you have written: The town "has always had a Hungarian majority" - always??? Since the creation of the world?? Since 896 (Arpad said: Ignore Transdanubia, go and populate Dunajská Streda)??? This is what you call serious information?? You have provided no evidence that there was a Magyar majority (actually more exactly one single Magyar)ON THE TERRITORY OF DUNAJSKÁ STREDA before the 13th/14th century, because there is no such evidence (and here I am assuming that your 1341 comments are correct). In fact, one of 100 possibilities I could think of, is that that a group of Magyars came 1220 and founded Dunajská Streda as a new settlement, that would correspond to the standard development in that area. It is also possible that Pechenegs or others formed the majority in the town over decades, everything is possible. Juro 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: And do me a favour, keep your primitive statements about anything concerning the neigbouring countries (from names to politics) for your (poor) pupils. You have absolutely no idea what medieval non-sense you are saying. Juro 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This debate goes nowhere here. We can continue later (I bet we'll have opportunities), but now I would like to calm down a bit and you need too. Zello 00:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And as for Jews, the 1930 census was a modern census (the first such census in Slovakia ever), equivalent to any present-day European census. These are ethnic Jews (in Slovak Židia), religious Jews (in Slovak židia) were a different question. In fact, there are even ethnic Jews under the "Hungarians", because Jews used to register themselves as Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks etc., i.e. as "classical" nationalities, which is quite understable to some extent. Juro 03:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit interesting that these Jews never confessed themselves Jews before 1930 only Hungarians (or some probably Germans in 1880 and 1890). What was their language then? Because nobody said he speaks Jiddish in censuses between 1880 and 1910, only other tongues (mostly Hungarian)! It was only a technique of the Czechoslovak state to produce "better" numbers. And it is misleading to hidden the fact they spoke mostly Hungarian. Zello 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a typical 19th century chauvinist and fascist statement. Incredible. If they say they are Jews, then it is a problem. But if they "say" (actually are reinterpreted by the census clerks) that they are Hungarians, although they are Jews, then it is OK. "Very interesting". And maybe you will be surprised to hear that there are other languages in the world then Englisha and Hungarian. Many of the Jews spoke German, Slovak, Jiddish etc. (I do not know about the situation in the town, you obviously too), but before 1918 they declared themselves Hungarians as a result of Magyarisation (everybody else is "nothing") or because they were completely ignored as a category (like in the 1910 census). The "technique" of the Czechoslovak state was to let the people give the nationality they want. I do not wonder that you do not like that. Juro 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, before 1918 they had the opportunity to say that they speak Hungarian, Slovak, German or "other local languages" as Yiddish. But they always said they speak Hungarian except in 1930. Jews were not Magyarised but choose voluntarily the Hungarian nation. There is a whole library about this topic - how they became more Hungarian then Hungarians by blood. You would insult most Hungarian Jew with your statement. But I don't speak about national identity here, only language. And the Jews of Dunaszerdahely spoke Hungarian or 2000 Hungarian speaking people simply disappreared after 1910 (and reappered in 1941 census, I bet). Zello 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1930 census asked about nationality, religion and language. The numbers in the article are from the first group, the author, just like me, probably does not have the numbers for the other two groups. Probably, I would have to go to the library of the Academy of Sciences for that. I have not said they are not Hungarian speaking, I have not said they are Hungarian speaking, I only asked you for a source for what you have written ("Hungarian speaking"), and since you do not have such a source, we will stick to facts and not to personal speculations. Those interested in speculations can read books and not an encyclopaedia. Besides, what you write above about Magyarisation and the Jews having schosen "voluntarily" the Hungarian nation and then "suddenly" "non-voluntarily" remembering that they are Jews is fascism and shows that you have absolutely no idea what Magyarisation was (also) about. I am really upset now, but as I mentioned above, I am not surprised. Juro 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You probably know a lot about Magyarisation against Slovaks but you obviously don't know too much about other aspects of the era and the history of other nationalities. You see only one side of the story and deny the other. Of course I don't have more confidence in a Czechoslovakian clerk in 1930 than you in a Hungarian in 1910. But instead of more arguing it would be better to look up the number about their language somewhere. Zello 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The question in the 1910 census was "what is the language you use most frequently?". The only allowed language was Hungarian at that time. Everybody working in any office, for example, had to use Hungarian, as a result, he was registered as "Hungarian" by the census clerk. Secondly, Jews as a category were completely ignored in that census (of course, since they could hardly "speak Jewish" most frequently). So far for the "excellent" 1910 census compared to the standard procedure 1930 census. I would understand if you would take any other census, but arguing exactly with this census is out of place. And as for looking up the number, as I mentioned above, the problem is that Dunajská Streda is not worth that effort....And as for Magyarisation, I know a lot about it, even English and German texts know a lot about it, everybody knows a lot about it, contemporary Hungarian texts know a lot about it, only modern Hungarian texts do not know about it (at least those I have read). It is really high time that someone writes a long English article about it and puts it on the internet. Of course there were SOME Jews that chose voluntarily to consider themselves "Hungarians", but as the subsequent censi show much more Jews considered themselves Jews (what a "surprise"). There is always a "SOME" group. Juro 01:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Never denied Magyarisation. I said you don't want to see (or you underestimate) the other side of story. Zello 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Name

Everywhere in the wikipedia there are Hungarian names particularly in the historical sections because they were commonly used always in the Koh and official after 1844. It is anacronistic to delete them (see the Danzig precedent). Their use is more justified in the case of a region which has been inhabited by Magyars since the 10th century util now. Of course there were a few Slavic settlement in the Csallóköz as everywhere from the Alps to Transylvania but they assimilated to the Hungarians because they were few. Where their number was greater they remained Slavic as in the Highlands. According to your logic we should use MODERN Slovak names for the towns of the medieval Transdanubia too because of the Great Moravians (but after the fall of them...). There isn't any difference only a modern border - this is very anacronistic. Zello 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about an ISLAND name OUTSIDE THE MAIN article !!! Do you realise that???!! That is a geographical feature. Even in the MAIN article on Žitný ostrov in the Britannica, Columbia or any other English encyclopaedia, the Hungarian name is not even mentioned. And who knows what the exact name of that island was at that time...In addition the Hungarian name IS MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ARTICLE and you wanted that the name was mentioned for a SECOND TIME at the first place, as if (like always) there was no other language in the world besides Hungarian.Juro 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Great Moravians called the region Zitny ostrov? If you don't have Csallóköz is older and less anacronistic. Zello 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you understand what I have written above, or not? Should I use a 0 and 1 code? This is not an article about the historical names of an island. We do not have such articles in this encyclopedia and we will not change names in every sentence according to what some people think was the correct name in the particular decade. And maybe you did not realise that we are not talking about the Great Moravian period...Juro 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to pass by this talk page and see the conflict here. Firstly - my POV is neither Hungarian nor Slovak. I've visited and enjoyed being in both countries :) In this case, I don't think the Hungarian name belongs for "Žitný ostrov", since we're talking about a current theme. Also, Hungarian isn't an official language in Slovakia, so there is no official policy in Wikipedia governing the use of the Hungarian name (in Basque Country articles, for example, we would give both the Spanish and Basque names everytime because both languages are official). I don't see why the Hungarian name should be mentioned, really. Zello - mentioning Csallóköz in brackets would be just like mentioning "Giula" in brackets next to every link to Gyula just because there is a sizeable Romanian minority in Gyula. Another example is Miercurea Ciuc in Romania. As much as I would like to see the creation of a Szekler Autonomous Region with Hungarian as co-official language, at the current moment, links to the city are simply made in the form Miercurea Ciuc not Miercurea Ciuc/Csikszereda. Ronline ✉ 13:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wait a sec. The town is apparently a Hungarian minority centre. Does it have a Hungarian majority? Does Žitný ostrov have a Hungarian majority? If yes, then it may be acceptable to write "(Csallóköz in Hungarian)" in the introduction where the name Žitný ostrov is first mentioned. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Both. And as for Giula I would agree to use it in brackets because I like place names in minority languages. They have a lot of connected history, human feelings and so on. If you were speaking about the Romanian quarter of Gyula or Romanian people in Gyula I would agree to use it in the first place because of the topic. But I'm really fed up with this article now. Zello 14:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Juro. Obviously we generally don't agree in this big place name-debate but both of us can do more valuable contributions that these quarrels. Zello 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think it would be better to upload a picture about some place of interest in the town. Personally I'd prefer the Makovecz town hall because it really became a symbol of Dunaszerdahely in tha past years but I'd accept other choices. For me a map seems quite irrelevant, altough I think it would be great to keep the coat-of-arms somehow. Nonetheless I haven't got a clue about this copyright problem so I don't dare to do anything. Juro? HunTomy? Zello 10:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are asking about the copyright of coats of arms of towns, strictly spoken their particular picture (design) is normally copyrighted, only the verbal description is "public domain". As for other pictures, according to EU law the copyright expires 70 (?I hope the number is not different for pictures) years after the author's death, but this is a US site, so ...I do not know either. Juro 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably we can use the town homepage as a source. There is a long guide here in wikipedia about pictures and copy right problems but I was tired to read through. I hoped you will know :) Zello 07:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up it's absurdly difficult. Probably some wiki-expert will do. Zello 13:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunajská Streda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111223415/http://www.statistics.sk/mosmis/eng/run.html to http://www.statistics.sk/mosmis/eng/run.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)