Hello, Stanislav Seman-Tkac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

few suggestions to your last changes (bulk edit - Category Slovak nobility):

• Please, always try to provide references to reliable sources. E.g. Ferdinand Ďurčanský may come from the noble family (Ďurčanskovci), but I lack any references.
• Take into account that Czechoslovakia abolished noble titles immediately after her formation. It means, that e.g. tagging János Esterházy as a Slovak nobleman is very problematic. No doubts, he was a Hungarian nobleman (a nobleman from the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and an ethnic Magyar). From the Czechoslovak point of view, he was not a nobleman at all, because his title was (most likely) abolished
• The term is not well defined. It seems that you define Slovak nobility as a nobility originating from the territory of present-day Slovakia. It is true, that this interpretation of the term is also used in literature (= for simplicity), but unclear definition will result to many disputes and reverts. Especially if you tag ethnic non-Slovaks as Slovak noblemen.

I believe that writing an article "Slovak nobility" (including clear definitions, historic context, etc) will be more constructive. Good sources are e.g. works of Branislav Varsik, especially "Otázky vzniku a vývinu slovenského zemianstva" (Questions about the origin and the development of Slovak nobility), numerous works of Ján Lukačka, Richard Marsina... You can check genealogic resources like "Najstaršie rody na Slovensku" (The oldest families in Slovakia), online http://forumhistoriae.sk/documents/10180/71901/najstarsie_rody.pdf, etc. Ditinili (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ditinili,

talk thank you very much for your message. I understand your point of view but in case of previous Hungarian Kingdom it is not easy to define nationality of any person.

Meaning of "Slovak nobility" is not to mark anyone as of Slovak (nationality) roots but his/her area of living, origin of family etc. In english are not separat 2 meanings of Hungarian (to be) because "genere hungarica" doesnt mean automatically that person is of Hungarian, Slovak, Croatian, Czech, Polish, Armenian, Bulgarian etc origin. "hungarian nobility" describes that person/family etc was active in area of previous Hungarian kingdom and it is not the same as ethnicity. In general I am working profesionally with family trees and resources of families, but I can say (not only I) that nobody can say that his/her roots are "pure" hungarian, german, slovak, armenian...

Thank you very much, Stano

Well, if we define it this way then something like "Category:Noblemen born in Slovakia" or similar is probably more clear. Your opinion?

Maybe, it will still be useful to create an article about Slovak speaking/nobility of the Slovak origin. Are you willing to participate? I can prepare a draft. Ditinili (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Slovak nobility never existed. There was no Kingdom of Slovakia that could have granted noble titles. All thouse nobles were the noblmen/noblewomen of the Kingdom of Hungary, regardless of factual or alleged Slovak ethnicity. The category you could argue for is 'Hungarian nobles born in present day Slovakia', not Slovak nobility, which is nonsense for the reason stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.22.204 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your interpretation, I am aware also of Stano’s interpretation. That’s why I proposed to clarify the terminology and maybe to rename the category. Of course, the term "Slovak nobility" is used also in reliable sources, so we cannot say that it is a priori non sense. E.g. József Demmel (2012): The nobility of the nation of Slovaks…: The Nobility of Slovak Origin in the Kingdom of Hungary: "A few months later, the members of the Slovak nobility openly supported the movement led by Ľudovít Štúr." E.g. this author interprets the term Slovak nobility as "a nobility with Slovak mother tongue". As you can see, we have already 3 different interpretations. Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the term 'Slovak nobility' because it never existed. There were no 'Slovak nobles' as there was no Kingdom of Slovakia to grant noble titles. Czechoslovakia abolished nobility, so clearly, legally Slovak nobility never existed. The best you can argue is 'Hungarian nobles of Slovak ethnicity/ancestry', but even this has to be used sparingly and only to people who did identify themselves as Slovaks (ethnically, or by tongue), not assigned to entire families en bloc. Stano just arbitrarily started assigning people to this category with no proof. Even assigned Sándor Petőfi, who was a commoner, not a nobleman. Many of other assignments affected people whose Slovak ethnic background was never proven or disputed. Anyway, legally there was not Slovak nobility, as e.g. Prussian nobility or Polish nobility.

I can use the term because it is used by reliable sources. For example, the term "History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest" is a total nonsense, because we cannot call it Hungary before the formation of the state or even before the arrival of Hungarians, right? However, if the term is used by reliable sources and it can be properly understood... If fully agree that changes (e.g. adding something to the category) should be properly sourced. Ditinili (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, it is interesting discussion and thanks for that. from my point of view most suitable to determinate nobility in Kingdom of Hungary is to create or change category to e.g."Category:Nobility of Kingdom of Hungary".

As we know, majority of nobelmans had been disputed because of their mother tongue, ethnicity, location etc and it takes more than 200 years. In general (pre 19th century) ethnicity and mother tongue was not that important-most important was CONFESSION. if we can determinate any category as proposed above, we will avoid any disagreements and "tenses" in case of ethnicity, self-declared etnicity (Magyars, Slovaks, Germans, Armenians, Ruthenians etc), location, tongue etc. what do you think about? Nobody said that it was any "Slovak kingdom" or anythink similar. thank you very much in advance. Stano

It matters what do you want to include in the proposed category. There is already "Category:Hungarian nobility" which can be used for these purposes (for me personally, "Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary" is more clear and neutral + could be probably better accepted also by non-Hungarians, but it is necessary to reach a consensus).

I don't see an added value in tagging nobles born specifically in the territory of the present-day Slovakia. Similar way, we can tag nobles, poets, mathematicians from Trenčín or Turiec County, but I don't see any special benefits. On the other hand, tagging "Slovak nobles", "Nobles of Slovaks" (call it whatever) could be beneficial, e.g. we may link it with the article with the same (or similar) name. Ditinili (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as you wrote: ..."Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary" is more clear and neutral + could be probably better accepted also by non-Hungarians... . and of course consensus is needed, fully agree

In the Kingdom of Hungary everybody was a Hungarian nobleman or noblewoman, regardless of language or ancestry, since their families received nobility from the monarchs of Hungary. It has nothing to do with "better accepting by non-Hungarians". History is not about rewriting just to not offend people who don't like the past. That's nonsense. "Slovak nobility" would imply that there had been a separate Slovak monarch granting separate Slovak noble titles, which clearly was not the case. "Slovak nobles" is nonsense. Nobility is not ethnicity related. Its related to the state that granted such titles. I hope you see, what's the point here. The best you can carve out is "Members of the Hungarian nobility of Slovak ethnicity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.22.204 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wrote that he is a Turiec nobleman (lt: Turoczensis nobilis), he surely did not mean that there is the King of Turiec, who granted him a separate Turiec noble title, but he referenced to autonomous administration of the county. Similarly, if somebody wrote that he is a Slovak nobleman (sk: e.g. slovenský zeman), he surely did not want to say anything about Slovak Kingdom, but about his Slovak ethnicity.

I understand your arguments, but they seem to be a little bit artificial. I have never ever seen anybody misguided about some Slovak Kingdom. All these terms were regularly used in contemporary documents and it was not a problem. So I don't see any reason why it should be problem now. Especially, if they are used also by reliable sources. Ditinili (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that nobility is not an ethnic thing. Nobility is also not a profession, but a legal standing in a (feudal) country. You can have Slovak, Bohemian or Ruthenian poets, because in that case the 'Slovak', 'Bohemian', etc. part denotes the ethnicity of a poet. But nobility is an institution, not a profession. Any body can become a poet, but nobody can become a nobleman just out of "career choice". You were either born a nobleman or made one by the respective monarch who had the right to make you a nobleman. If the monarch was a Hungarian king then anybody whom he elevated to nobility became a Hungarian nobleman, regardless of ethnicity (Saxon, Greek, Croatian or whatever). "Hungarian" in "Hungarian nobility" is not to denote the ethnicity, but the country where the standing of your family as nobles was valid. Because there was no Slovakia before the 20th century, there was also no Slovak nobility. There was also no Sorbian nobility, although some people of Sorbian ancestry were nobleman, like the Schirach_(noble_family), they were German nobles. I think that's pretty easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.22.204 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any dispute about the fact that the ethnic Slovak noblility was a part of Natio Hungarica. The questions are: Did this category of people existed? Yes. Can it be and is it a subject of separate research? Yes. Are these people described as Slovak nobility in reliable and up to date sources? Yes, this term is used in scholar sources. Thus, you should adress your objections to historians like Branislav Varsik, Richard Marsina, but also Jozsef Demmel and many others. They all use this term (the example is above) in the proper context and they are also able to define it. They obviously do not share your view that it is something incorrect or your interpretation (which by the way ignores the fact that being Slovak nobleman as a subgroub of Natio Hungarica was a self-identifying feature for a group of people). Ditinili (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#1) No, Slovak nobles never existed. Because there never was a Kingdom of Slovakia. #2) 1 + 1 = 2. Which one do you not understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.27.90 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is your personal opinion. However, there are prominent scholars who use different terminology than you (see my previous comment). You can disagree with the terminology, but it cannot change the fact that it is used. At least for pragmatic reasons, because if you write an article or a book about these people and you have to reference them 5-500x in the text then "Slovak nobility" is much shorter than "Members of the Hungarian nobility of Slovak ethnicity" or "Slovak speaking noblemen of the Kingdom of Hungary". What these authors do? They properly explain the historic context and happily continue with the short version. Ditinili (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fully agree with Ditinili (talk). This is reality and authorities in history (german, hungarian, slovak etc.) are working in this way. It is not about their personal opinion but about real resources

Provide sources before you assign people to the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.22.204 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]