Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polish king[edit]

What about that "consent of the then Polish king"? How he expressed that, who was he and how was he entitled to express consent to such things? (btw, a hint: Sejm) Halibutt 08:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

What you see in in the article now is all my source says. I see absolutely no reason for deleting that part of the text. And actually I do not understand your question - why should a king in the 18th century have no right to give an official consent to something? And, by the way, as for "only economy" - such a pawn of territory was a frequent economic arrangement at that time. In this case it was the economic use that was pawned and the starosta and guards ( that does not mean whole administration and whole defence ! ) was the collateral. Juro 21:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in 17th and 18th century the power of Polish kings was close to none and his consent or lack of thereof was a secondary matter. What really mattered was the decisions of the Sejm - check the article on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for more details. That's why I found this statement highly doubtful and that's why I have no idea why to mention the Polish king: he might've known about the matter, just like millions of other inhabitants of Poland and Lithuania. So what?
Also, in Polish historiography the area is commonly described as a Polish fief. It might've been pawned for debts, but in reality the political system introduced there did not differ from the system of the rest of Poland. The towns (like any other town in Poland or Lithuania) had their own defence, mostly organised of local merchants. And the starosta was not the one who gained most profits from the area - it was the Crown. Starosta was simply the highest member of local administration, and had the same rights as in other Polish or Lithuanian cities. The only difference was that there was a huge problem with banditism in the area and the Crown sponsored local standing army of guards (much like in Podolia or Ukraine).
So, all in all, the area adopted Polish administration system, Polish military defence, Polish overlordship and Polish tax system. It remained historically, politically and culturally a part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Hungary and was internationally considered part of it, to be returned after the debt is repaid. Halibutt 09:01, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I will remove the dispute warning, because "the factual accuracy" is certainly not disputed. Except for parts of the modern history, I have used sources of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Hungarian and German sources. Nothing of what the article says is wrong. If you have problems with some interpretations, I have no problem if you add sentences saying that "But Polish historiography says XY", provided that you use serious Polish material and do not delete facts. I have no emitional link to Spis or anything associated with it. Juro 21:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the {{disputed}} tag. Currently the factual accuracy is disputed between me and you. If you want to remove the tag - please provide more info on the following:
  1. The consent of the Polish king, as well as its importance and validity
  2. those Polish noble insurrections - could you be more specific?
  3. Explain the idea of a region that is subject to administration, jurisdiction, taxation and military of another state, yet it is only the economic use of the territories that is subject to pawn to Poland. How does it differ from being a typical fief? Note that I'm not disputing the very fact that Spis was a part of the Crown of Hungary, just like Pomerania or Opole were a part of the Crown of Poland, eventhough both these areas were lost by Poland relatively early.

-- Thanks in advance, Halibutt 00:12, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm the whole modern history part if definetely NPOVed. I changed few obvious mistakes. Pelbiscite was agreed by both gvt - Polish and Czechoslovakian, but it was withdrawed after Czechoslovakian pressure. The Polish taking of the Spisz was after local organisations issued calls for incorporation into the Poland. Population: the census quoted IIRC was for whole area, including territories which were not disputed by Poland. I've ever heard about battle under Kiezmark, I know however that Polishunits were withdrawed after Ententa demanded it. There are questions of murders of plebiscite workers (e.g. was Wisniowiecki slain, or he drowned while escpaing? ) Gorals which formed majority in disputed territory LINGUISTICALLY were Polish, but many of them indeed considered themselves Slovaks. Not to mention that plebiscite region was (against all wishes of allied commision) virtually occupied by Czech forces. Czechs also wanted to annex Zakopane and Polish Podhale to Czechoslovakia. It wasn't that it was just eveil Polish expansionists you know... In short, this modern section is WILDLY POV and come times even counterfactual. Szopen 12:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aa far as I remember, I have used a book from the Slovak Academy of Sciencies for that part, so the real problem might be that you know Polish sources only ...But that does not matter...Juro 01:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. You have used Slovakian sources only, I used Polish sources only :) I've read an artcile about Spisz problem, which pointed that controversies are large mainly because nobody really cared aboput the region (as contrary to what the article claims, it were local leaders which puyshed hard Warsaw to start noticing the Spisz). Just one example: death of Wisniowiecki: Polish side claims that he was killed by Czechs and then his body thrown into the river, and for "proof" the section results are shown. Czecho-Slovak side claims that he incited the quarrel and then he was escaping, and during escape he drowned in river, and for the "proof" THE SECTION RESULTS ARE SHOWN. Wunderbar, nicht war? Szopen 07:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the world of history ...The more you go into details, the more complicated it gets - and finally you almost always find out that you cannot make any unambiguous judgement... Ancient history is more interesting, because all the details are not known...:) Juro 03:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juro, taking aside the NPOV wording which I do not want to touch right now, I DO dispute the claims about Slovakians. First, they were Gorals, speaking mostly Polish dialect and all Polish sources I touched call them just flatly Polish. Second, sigh, just see the whole our discussion above. It was local population activists who wanted to join Poland, not Warsaw. In Warsaw initially no one realy cared about that.

Székely population in Szepes county[edit]

The present article contains significant misinformation regarding the early history of Szepes county, since the residents of the ten lance bearer districts were in fact Székely border guards, as attested by contemporary documents and original place names. Árpád 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong, dear fascist vandal. Juro 03:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel free to include any exact proof that they were indeed Slovak. The administrative unit "sedes" (=szék in Hungarian) was highly characteristic of the organization of Székely territories. Among other things, the names of old settlements like Eőr, Strázsa, etc. give exact proof that they were settled by the Hungarian kings in an uninhabited forest area to guard the borders of the kingdom (called "Gyepű" at the time). Árpád 05:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to all new Slovak texts they were Slovak, according to all old texts they were not. And you can be sure that I do not care about the nationality of some border guards. Juro 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order to create a NPOV article, all mainstream theories should be mentioned, in my opinion (the devil is in the details). History is always a synthesis of small facets that cannot be overlooked if the criteria of objective scientific research are observed. Árpád 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article[edit]

I have copyedited the article to conform to standard English. Also I have sought to remove POVs where I found them. I have removed the description of the Czechoslovak-Polish border dispute (1918-1947) to a separate article, as it unbalanced the present article. Lastly I have taken out information about contemporary Spiš to a new article Spiš region, Slovakia so as to prevent confusion.Smerus 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we do such serious steps without asking anybody? There is already an article on the Czechoslovak-Polish border dispute (you have to find it) and as for the separation of the region we do not proceed like that for the other regions, so this is inacceptable. Juro 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Juro -

Please accept that this is the English version Wikipedia. The changes I have made are not 'serious steps' - they are simply made for the convenience of readers, who can expect to have a clear account of issues without being involved in partisan battles. No informatrion has been deleted - i have only taken out obvious POVs and corrected the English.

If there is an exisiting article on the border dispute, why was it not referred to in the article on Spis? If it does exist, that is another reason not to include details on it in this article.

The reson for separating 'Spis region Slovakia' from 'Spis' is to make clear that the old county had a history of its own as an administrative entity, whereas, as other contributors have made clear, the term 'Spis' now signifies something more 'heuristic'. I don't feel too stroingly about this separation however and if others feel like you then it could and sholud be remerged. Perhaps stating at the head of the article the differences bewteen historic Spis county and present Spis region.

This article has beenn signposted for a cleanup for over a year. No one has yet done it; somebody had to; that somebody was me. If you find I have been factually misleading, you are welcome to correct me of course. Otherwise, let's discuss how to make things as clear as possible.

All best regards, Smerus 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what this has to do with being an English wikipedia. This is a matter of elementary cooperative behaviour: You should have asked others (you did not) and you have created chaos (because we have another article in the first case, and because "and what about the other county articles now?" in the second case). In any smaller wikipedia the admins would have done something, but here everybody just changes whatever he likes, incredible. Juro 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Juro,

As you will see, it has now been proposed that the two articles on Czechoslovak-Polish border disputes be merged. This seems to me sensible, and I support the proposal.

With best regards Smerus 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on thinking it over, you were correct in objecting to the separation of 'Spis region' from 'Spis' so I have now reincorporated it as 'Spis today' and made a redirect.Smerus 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16th to 19th Century[edit]

This part definitely needs expansion - all assistance welcomed Smerus 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know :). Juro 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spis region and Szepes county[edit]

Spis region and Szepes county aren't the same! Nor geographically, nor historically. --VinceB 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS FOR PAGE MOVE, per discussion below. It appears the consensus is to create a second article to split off informtion about the historical county. In that case, whatever material is split from the current article will be at a new location, without its GFDL history, and there doesn't seem to be an elegant way to split the page history. Thus, a note should be made in the initial edit summary (and maybe at the top of the new talk page) that the earlier history can be found here. If you need admin assistance with anything relating to the split, please feel free to ask me. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Spiš → Szepes – {the counties, before Trianon in the Kingdom of Hungary were named Hungarian, so this should be not in the Slovak name, but the Hungarian according to history and the practice in Wikipedia in this question 2: Szepes county and Spis region in Slovakia aren't the same, nor historically, nor politically. Geographically partly. This is unpunctual and mixes two types of administration (a county and a region). I suggest creating a new article for Spiš also, where Szepes would be a see also in the history part) --VinceB 09:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]


Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~


This article is about the region of Spiš, which is located in Slovakia. It is overlapping a great deal with the former Spiš county of the Kingdom of Hungary. That county had several official names in the past and its Latin name, not the Hungarian one had been used for most of the history in official documents. Other frequently used forms of the name were its German, Slovak, and Polish versions because of the demographic structure of the population. VinceB, you have already moved this article once to the Hungarian name without any discussion. Your edit was reverted by Olessi. This is the English Wikipedia, so, please, use the English geographic names, not the Hungarian ones. To reiterate, Spiš is the official name of the region and I do not see any reason why to rename an article using a Hungarian version of the name. Tankred 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, feel free to create a separate article about the former Spiš county. A similar case is Normandy as a region and the Duchy of Normandy as a former duchy. But refrain from destroying this article about the region of Spiš. This article is a result of collaboration of many people and you even have not contributed to it. Tankred 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disputed territory?[edit]

Why this article is listed as "disputed territory"? Who dispute what here? PANONIAN (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia correctly, the issue was solved in 1958. I'll remove the category. Markussep 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, the category Category:Polish historical regions should be removed. This article is about Spiš in contemporary Slovakia, which is not either geographically or in any other reasonable sense a 'Polish historical region'. The category might be appropriate for the article Szepes county, but not for this one. --Smerus 10:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro of the article says that the region is partly in Poland, so IMO it can stay in that category. I don't think the presently Polish part of Spiš stopped being Spiš or Spisz. Markussep 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've moved it to Szepesség because this is a historical regio.Nmate (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. The article was split into an article about the region (located at Spiš) and one about the historical county (located at Szepes (county)). No need to move this to a Hungarian name. Markussep Talk 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adherence to WIkipedia Language Policy[edit]

For all involved, the policy of wikipedia is to use native names unless an academically prevalent name exists. This has everything to do with the english wikipedia. Apparently non-native speakers are getting involved.

  • An english title exists for this topic.
  • English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.
  • The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names

This website is incorrectly named as it stands, as there are english alternatives. As a rule of thumb, you should ask, would an english speaker type Spiš into the search bar? Probably not. For the sake of easy access to information, I suggest that the creator of this website change the name. If someone can provide clear academic evidence that this is not the case, this would be required in order to adhere to wikipedia standards.

Academic Evidence of English Name

Valdis O. Lumans Central European History , Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 266-296 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545962

  • Czechoslovakia during the War: III—Slovakia and Ruthenia

J. R. Bulletin of International News , Vol. 21, No. 25 (Dec. 9, 1944), pp. 1047-1054 Published by: Royal Institute of International Affairs Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25643728

  • Education in Slovakia

Anton Štefánek The Slavonic Review , Vol. 2, No. 5 (Dec., 1923), pp. 308-327 Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201732

  • Mining and German Settlement in Slovakia, an Historical Summary

Helmut Schröcke GeoJournal , Vol. 32, No. 2, In Commemoration of Georgius Agricola, 1494–1555 (February 1994), pp. 127-135 Published by: Springer Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41146718

  • Beiträge zur bairischen und ostfränkischen Dialektologie: Ergebnisse der Zweiten Bayerisch-Österreichischen Dialektologentagung Wien, 27. bis 30. September 1983 by Peter Wiesinger

Review by: Herbert Penzl Language , Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 216-217 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/415630

  • Czechoslovakia Before Munich: The German Minority Problems and British Appeasement Policy. by J. W. Bruegel; Czechoslovakia: The Party and the People. by Andrew Oxley; Alex Pravada; Andrew Ritchie

Review by: Frank Dinka Political Science Quarterly , Vol. 89, No. 1 (Mar., 1974), pp. 217-220 Published by: The Academy of Political Science Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2148142

  • An Informal History of the German Language: With Chapters on Dutch and Afrikaans, Frisian and Yiddish by W. B. Lockwood

Review by: W. E. Collinson The Modern Language Review , Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 150-151 Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3724155

Agentxp22 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are way more English language sources for "Spiš" then for thiz "Zips" [1]. "Spiš" is also the name used by EU in English [2]. Even some of the sources you list above use "Spiš (Zips)" [3]. Others are way old (1923?) or are specifically about the German minority so it's not surprising they would use the German name.VolunteerMarek 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. You are right Volunteer Marek. As a comprise, I suggest that the alternate english forms are in the article as well as the foreign terms like hungarian and german. Agentxp22 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no problem with that. In fact I believe the naming policy on alternative names very much suggests it (unless they changed it since the last time I took a look at it).VolunteerMarek 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]