Talk:Ľudovít Štúr

Wikify

Lots of good info but definitely needs a Wikify. 69.17.67.11 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A proper wikification would make this a B quality article.--Wizardman 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms

You people who are edit-warring about usage need to discuss some of the issues.

It sure seems to me that it would be desirable for someone to find various places mentioned here on a map.

It also seems reasonable that people reading contemporary accounts of the events ought to be able to connect up people and places mentioned in them with what is said in this article.

In many cases, that is best accomplished by using formulations such as "Pressburg, now known as Bratislava" and the like. That has the additional advantage of increasing chances that someone searching for information will find the relevant information, no matter which of variant terms is being used.

The accusations of "incivility" in edit summaries by Tulkolahten are nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to be falsely accused for "false accusations of incivility" in the cases where it is an obvious incivility. If you say about some edit that it is a historical falsification then it is incivility. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not incivility for the editor whose edit summary explained that it was fixing anachronisms to do so. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is incivil is to fail to give that editor due respect, and to discuss the issues here, rather than reverting them with those false accusations of incivility. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious, I just wrote please remain civil. That enough for me I am going to take this to the administrators table. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NCGN, articles in Wikipedia use geographic names as they appear in the title of the article about the place in question (for example Trnava). All historical alternative names can be found in the linked main article (Trnava) and do not need to be repeated here. If anyone believes that a certain name is consistently used in modern English to refer to a place in a historical context, please follow the guidelines outlined in WP:NCGN at the respective talk pages. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hungarian one. Articles follow usage in modern English sources. Tankred (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Falsification

I'm wondering if the above dispute started because of two different understandings of the word falsification.

falsify - To alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead (Oxford dictionary)

falsify - To make false by mutilation or addition (eg, the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft) (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

In the usual English meaning, accusing someone of "falsification" is accusing them of deliberately making something wrong.

But the editor who used the word "falsification" might have meant that the information was wrong without meaning the other editor made it wrong on purpose.

This is just a theory, based on reading the above discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's especially true with the fact that edit summaries are often cryptic in the first place, then when you throw in the limited room available to tack on something after the automatically generated text from the "undo" button.

Assuming good faith should lead to an assumption that the comment in User:Rembaoud's edit summary related to the resulting anachronism, and was not an incivil comment.

But it appears that some people are more interested in trying to get the upper hand in a dispute by making accusations of wrongdoing, than in discussing the issues involved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a need for more assumption of good faith in both directions.

As I said above, there are a couple of ways the word falsification might be understood. But based on a discussion I saw on another page, I believe that Tulkolahten, with his linguistic background, understood the word to mean deliberate lying and therefore a real insult.

This business seems to be a misunderstanding based on language differences. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hradec Kralove

Recent edits changes Hradec Kralove to Königgrätz. But the Hradec Kralove is the proper name, was the proper name and will be proper name. Königgrätz is German name, there is no reason to change the name to its German equivalent as German language has no formal nor informal status in Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It was a german town untill 1947.. Nothing to talk about. Nor Slovak, nor Czech was not official language at that times, just "widely spoken". --Rembaoud (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read some history books. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)