Talk:Banská Bystrica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Names

Regarding the names, here is a liink to a Slovak web reference: http://vkmk.sk.neutrino.vasadomena.sk/storage/PoznajSvojeMestoBB.pdf (Page 2). Also, another question: Does Bystrica refer to one concrete river or just "rapid river" in general? (The name also exists in the Transylvanian town "Beszterce/Bistrita" Árpád 09:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bystrý (bystrij) means quick in Slavic languages. Bystrica or Bystrice [Czech Bystřice] (literally approx. "quick thing (river)" ) is a very frequent toponym in this region and nowadays the word is no longer perceived to imply more than river or creek. Juro 10:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

12/14/07

Perhaps add more famous people from the older periods, perhaps remove the pic from that section and arrange the names in 2-3 columns if the list gets quite long. ♠♠♠ To make it more user-friendly (tourists) always give the Slovak names of all the places, institutions, streets, plus the corresponding full English translations (in whichever order, but try to keep it consistent − what's first and what's in parentheses), i.e., rather than saying "a museum of..." etc. ♠♠♠ I'm not sure about those "palaces" (unless they're called that in Slovak and the text gives a formal translation) − are there any there, where are their pics, aren't they more like mansions or something? Carca220nne (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your excellent copyediting! I really enjoy reading your articles and hoped you would help me with this one. I have just changed some of your translations of institutions to their more awkward yet official translations. I will also arrange the famous people in 2 columns as you have suggested. As to mansions, I am not sure if this term is suitable to describe a large multi-storey private house on a medieval square (i.e. adjacent to other similar houses). Should I use the word "townhouse" instead? It is more something like palazzo in Italy. Tankred (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad if you found any of it useful. ♠♠♠ Indeed, I'd also opt for their own translations (I didn't check except with the SNP Museum, so I left that one as it was; I'd probably clarify the college of nursing in parentheses). ♠♠♠ I'm often at a loss with what to call various non-palatial "palaces," too. A townhouse is too mundane for what you describe and I don't think an undetached structure meets people's usual understanding of a palace. I'd say that a mansion doesn't raise the same expectations as much (and implies something fanciful), nor does the Italian palazzo you suggest, a meaningful option. Except in the original name, I'd use palace for an undetached residence only when it's decidedly "horizontal," say height:width preferably more than 1:5. Carca220nne (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Comparisons with Bratislava make little sense (does the Bratislava entry compare it to Banská Bystrica, why not if it's important or meaningful), or with anything else; if at all, Banská Bystrica needs to be put in its own context = compared with something above/at the top as well as with something below/bottom; but why: each user will need a comparison with something else (Rimini, Rovaniemi...). ♠♠♠ GDP from 2001 seems quite dated (so does real estate); if retained, the reader needs to know whether it's at exchange rate parity or PPP/PPS, and what year euros. I wonder whether newer data may actually exist (see unemployment − you'll edit the refs). ♠♠♠ Hill is not particularly common in names (sounds like a mound − see the pics in Wki), which is OK, but change it everywhere then. ♠♠♠ Keep the leading world producer of copper if there's evidence that it was the single top company, say a leading... otherwise. ♠♠♠ I thought I noticed a typo somewhere (maybe not), an orphaned preposition, or an article, or something, but can't find it now. ♠♠♠ I'd add the Slovak names to the museums, too, that helps tourists find them. Carca220nne (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much again! I compared Banska Bystrica to Bratislava or the country's average to give numbers some meaning. Otherwise, readers would have little idea if the numbers are low or high. I cannot find any more recent figures for GDP per capita, but I will try to find the operationalization of the cited figure. I will remove the outdated real estate paragraph because it probably is not so important anyway. I will also replace the word hill with the mountain. And I will add the Slovak names wherever they are still missing. Thank you for this comprehensive review. Tankred (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy again. ♠♠♠ Bratislava is not a benchmark for anyone expect perhaps for someone in Bratislava (do you live among people for whom it is a point of reference for Slovakia? no one around me for whom it might possibly be and this is English=world-wide Wki). The target audience knows nothing more about Bratislava than about Banská Bystrica. Use the country's average, EU, Central European, world... average for comparisons if you want to compare, or compare it both to Bratislava and to a low-GDP city location in Slovakia (both ends, not just a higher one, are necessary for effective context). Users will always have to do their homework and compare it with what they need to on their own anyways. Agreed: comparisons are good, it's the benchmark here (Bratislava) and its singularity that's awkward − how much would it tell us about the cities if we learned that Zurich's per-capita GDP is X by comparison to Bern's Y, that Denver's GDP is A by comparison to D.C.'s B, not to mention much less known countries. The capital of a country is no singular benchmark for comparisons, it's merely a political center. ♠♠♠ Eurostat should have GDPs for at least 2004, I'd think, but probably not for Banská Bystrica; consider using their Banská Bystrica regional data instead with a brief comment like you did meaningfully with other not-quite-localized or up-to-date data. Carca220nne (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The regional data are biased by extremely poor districts in the south and east. I could not find any recent city-level or district-level data for GDP per capita, but I am not giving up. You are right about Bratislava, I will use the country's average instead. Tankred (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the updated November unemployment rate + ref, but also left the original reference to the Stat. Office where it was. I'd delete the new reference to upsvar.sk and retain only the reference to the Statistical Office once the same is available at their site (seems to be having problems at the moment). Carca220nne (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pics

On the odd chance, Tankred, consider whether these pics might be of any use as additions or more visual alternatives here or with your Urpín: Banska Bystrica Urpin.jpg‎; Banska Bystrica SNP Square.jpg; Banska Bystrica Benicky House.jpg Carca220nne (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I am going to use them in both articles. Tankred (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination -- on hold

This is a great article and nice job on it so far. But there are some (minor) things that should be adressed before I pass it as a Good article:

1. References: Some references would be nice here: "The city flourished as a regional mining center." in #History; "one of eight considerably autonomous" in #Government; "More than one fifth of the budget was used for investment." in #Economy

   Done. Tankred (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Prose: Some minor adjustments here and there: add "the" before "City Castle," "Matej Bel University," and "Academy of Arts" perhaps incorporate some of the text in (parenthesis) into sentences (like in "...but new industries developed (timber, paper, textiles)."); in #Places of interest, spell out what "SNP" stands for.. Slovak National Uprising where it is first mentioned. A quick copyedit by a native English editor would help out as well.

   It would introduce non-native errors to use "the" before "City Castle" (obviously a name, not a description - "a/the city castle") and "Matej Bel University": they are names like Buckingham Palace, Urquhart Castle; and like Harvard University (named after John Harvard), Pepperdine University (named after George Pepperdine). "The" is not used before such names of castles and universities. ilmari (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

   Done. SNP spelled out. Parentheses fixed. The article has been copyedited by User:Carca220nne. Tankred (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

3. NPOV: You should remove words like "remarkable" in order to make it compliant with WP:NPOV.

   Done. Tankred (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

4. [Sub]sections: The sections #Climate as well as some in #Culture are too short. Can they be expanded to not be so stubby? If not, then merge them into a larger section. Also, I think that while it is an important topic, #City Castle should better be merged into the #Places of interest section, as it fits into the section better. I think that #Famous people can either be merged into culture, with text and not bullet points, or spinned off into something like List of famous people from Banská Bystrica.

   For Climate, I'll try to look for more. For religion, I don't know what more to add, but I can merge the information from that one to places of interest. For City castle, I don't know why it was a section on its own, so I'll place it under places of interest. And finally for famous people, I think the second option is bit better. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, that's good. I started the List of famous people from Banská Bystrica page from material from the article. —dima/talk/ 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

   I am afraid it is not possible to significantly expand the climate and culture sections because Banska Bystrica is such a small city and it is hard to find good information sources. As the main author, I doubt there is anything really notable that can be added to these sections. But the shortest sub-section of Culture has been merged with a larger section and I have expanded the other problematic sub-section (Folklore). Tankred (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Images: Please fix Image:Zamky.Sk Banska Bystrica.jpg so it can be seen on the image description page that the image is under the "attribution licence" (include translation of the conditions under which it is allowed to be used on the des. page from zamky.sk) Can some images be found to be included in sections like #Economy and #Transport?

   (I'll jump in) I guess you meant to do an edit like this (if you're wondering I'm just not good at those licences). MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   On WikiCommons, they are picky with the image information (author, source), so I gave it a better description page. —dima/talk/ 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

   Images added to the transport and economy sections as requested. Tankred (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Won't hold these against you if not addressed:

1. Slovak names: I would suggest to remove the Slovak names for each attraction, etc. Better just keep them for neccessary stuff, like primátor for mayor, etc. I too sometimes use them in the articles I write, but let's add too much.

   Keep the Slovak names, they are practical for tourists. ilmari (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

   That isn't much of a reason; remember, this is encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

   I support ilmari's opinion here. The Slovak names of the most notable objects add some information value here with little cost. I would rather retain them if there are no strong objections. Tankred (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikilinks: I see that Radvaň shows up quite oftain.. can a small stub be written? Also, wikilink European Union, and make burghers link to bourgeoisie.

   Linked European Union, but I'm reluctant to link "burghers". MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

   Done. I have linked burghers to Bourgeoisie. Tankred (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, this is a great article. I hope that these objections will be addressed so that it can pass to be a Good article. I will also try assisting with work on article. —dima/talk/ 02:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, much better now. Thanks for your great work towards improving the article. I will pass it as a GA now. Keep up the good work! —dima/talk/ 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Newly arisen etymology issues

I am glad that we were able to come up with wording that is as neutral as it gets. However, I really don't see the point of mentioning all the various names under Etymology. Only the roots should be explained to make the section brief and more compact. Moreover - there is no way all the various names can be recorded here, as there are literally thousands of them, every person who refered to the town used their own slightly modified one.

I therefore move for removal of the name table and exclusion of the various names from the etymology section. Only the etymology itself should be explained there. wlad (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No replies yet. I will wait a month from this comment, if no discussion is engaged by then, i will reword the section as stated. wlad (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why do you want to remove the name table from the article? And exactly what would you like to remove from that section?--B@xter⁹ 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The various names are caused by no spell-check being a reality in that time, so there are literally thousands of interpretations of them. I therefore cannot justify why only these ones should be present in the table which is why I want it to be removed. I also do not consider it being that much significant to be present in the article.

I would like the section to be about what its title says - etymology. Therefore the development of the name should be removed and only the paragraphs explaining the origin of the name and the translations should be kept. Similarly to Szekesfehervar.wlad (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show me your suggestion here. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 14:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology Demo

The Slovak name (Banská Bystrica) name includes two distinct roots: the adjective Banská (from Slovak baňa - "mine") and the name of the local river Bystrica (from slavic bystrica - "a swift stream"). Its names in Hungarian: Besztercebánya and Polish: Bańska Bystrzyca are of the same etymological origin.

The old German name Neusohl ("New Zvolen") (first recorded in 1300) and later its Latin version (Neosolium) reflected the fact that some early settlers came from the nearby town of Zvolen (in the time known in German as Altsohl, literally "Old Zvolen").

It should look like this--B@xter⁹ 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please demonstrate wlad (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It should follow cited materials. There are no citations in this draft, but they are in the article. The Polish name is not necessary because Polish was never used in BB. "Bystrica" means a swift stream in the "Slovak" language. I don't know what word is used in other "Slavic" languages, but those languages were not used in BB. Modrajedobra (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources could be easily found to support this snippet. I just wanted it to be about etymology of the name only, just as the section title says. Pure, simple, both easy to read and informative. But if you want to keep all the current information, ok, no biggie.

The 'slavic' would be imho corect as it is hard to really talk about Slovak at that time and the word is in various forms present in other slavic languages as well, which suggests its common slavic root.  wlad 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's ok. The rest of information can be put into a separate article linked from Banská Bystrica. Especially the table of different names in different years. I support your short version if it cites sources and if the rest can be found in another linked article. But mentioning of the Polish name doesn't make sense to me. Modrajedobra (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mining adjective

Nmate and Baxter9, please, stop the disruptive reversions. The sources clearly state, that the town's name was used only as Beztherze (or whatever the correct spelling is) in hungarian as well, despite the few mentions of Besterchebana. If you have any other sources claiming otherwise, please list them. wlad (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the table from the main article because it breaks the layout of the article. If you want to save it, you should create an article about the etymology and put the table there. It can be linked from the main article (like Slovakia linking to Geography of Slovakia). The etymology section in the main article shouldn't be too long. Modrajedobra (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Placenames of the world

The source Placenames of the world should be removed. I am all for the slavic thing, but the etymology in the book is WRONG by parsecs...(!!!) Someone should write the author an unpleasant email about it... And they say Wikipedia is unreliable.  wlad 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with it?--B@xter⁹ 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It claims that the name Neusohl comes from the German name of the river and that Banska and -banya mean "bath, refering to a summer and winter resort here". Utter nonsense, isn't it? :)  wlad 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I also found "bath, refering to a summer and winter resort here" information very interesting. :) I will remove this reference.--B@xter⁹ 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Already removed.--B@xter⁹ 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken the liberty of removing it earlier, thought it wouldn't be too controversial, as it is obviously a bunch o'bull anyway :)  wlad 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, of course! :)--B@xter⁹ 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Source

This source[1] does not even mention the name of the town. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This source[2] does not even mention the etymology about name "bánya".--Omen1229 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section should be about the origin of the name of this town in the relevant languages (Slovak, Hungarian, etc.). For this section, the particular origins of general words that appear in the name are irrelevant. Giving the general etholology of the Hungarian word "bánya" is like giving the etymology of the words "saint" and "Peter" in the article about Saint Petersburg. I do not see the point of this. Please, provide sources that connect these information, i.e., the name of this town in Hungarian and the origin of the Hungarian word "bánya". Without this, the addition looks like a synthesis or original research, and should be deleted. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the point of your post. You wrote in the article "bánya" means "mine" and I wrote "bánya" (from "baňa") means "mine". In etymology section is aslo: Banská (from Slovak "baňa" – "mine"), "Bystrica" (from Slavic "bystrica" – "swift stream"), "Beszterce" (from Slavic "bystrica"), so I do not understand why you have problem with "bánya" (from "baňa") means "mine". Then according to you should only be: "bánya" (from "baňa"). Nevertheless, this source[3] does not even mention the etymology about name "bánya".--Omen1229 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Then, please, read my comment again, since I clearly stated my point. The etymology section is about the name of the town, not about the etymology of general words. The origin of the word "bánya" is clearly irrelevant. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Do you know the definition Etymology and Dictionary?--Omen1229 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, note the difference between these concepts: (a) etymology of a particular geographical name; (b) etymology of a general noun. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And? Please write more details.--Omen1229 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is getting ridiculous. Dear Omen 1229, You were furious at page of Matthias Bel when I wanted to use sources about "Bel" meaning. I admit that I was wrong because the general meaning of the word (as "bel" is a Finno-Ugric word) can not be accepted as proper explanation. I realized that the source must be related with the specific name. That was the reason why I did not force to put my OR back. I also did not force to feature Csaba Csorba's opinion, because that is a Hungarian POV, however you were not keen to delete the Slovak POVs in the article.....Here you try to defend my previous -obviously wrong- opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

strange synthesis between Ban. Bystrica and Bel. This is debate about Ban. Bystrica. Nevertheless, do you have any evidence that I was "furious"? As you right wrote - it was OR. What do you think the term "however you were not keen to delete the Slovak POVs in the article" I wanted to create a strange etymological section? > "his surname "Bél" as a family name first occurred in Transylvania (1550, 1640) and its meaning "domestic person/domestic servant" (belső cseléd)"[4] Are you serious? In fact first member (in the sources) of the Bel family was mayor of Očová Šimon Bel (Simon Beel dictus) in 1465. Waste of time trying to find a connection between Ban. Bystrica and Bel article/debate. --Omen1229 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is irelevant to prove the magyar name of Banská Bystrica ,because the magyar name become from slovak base ,same how the polish name "Bańska Bystrzyca". We can liken the hungarian example: Miskolc is german "Mischau" , Eger is german "Erlau" etc. Ofc. you really dont think ,that this towns were germans. --BogatRadvan (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User BogatRadvan nobody wants to prove the "magyar" name of the town. The sources are inappropriate. If we state that the name of Banská Bystrica is based on the Slovak word "ban" we will need to use proper sources about it. Source like this[5] "the Hungarian word "bánya" comes from "bana"" is incorrect because there is no a single word about Banská Bystrica. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If we left that source above in the article I would have to put my OR back at page of Matthias Bel ("Bel is a Finno-Ugric word"). Fakirbakir (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BogatRadvan, for your comment; but please, try to proofread your contributions, since I can hardly understand what you are trying to say. It is questionable whether the Hungarian name of this town came from the Slovak name, especially, since the first appearance of the town name in the 13th century used the form "Byzterchebana". That is a fact [6]. Trying to prove that the Slovak name was the original, based on the theory that the *general* Hungarian word "bánya" likely had a Slav origin, sounds like an original research. Thus, it has no place on Wikipedia, unless you can come up with a reliable, verifiable source which directly claims this. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Fakirbakir is right, his addition to the Matthias Bel article used the same logic. Therefore, either both of these claims must stay, or neither of them. Based on the WP:NOR policy of Wikipedia, they both must go (unless they are directly supported by sources). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In brief, this source[7] does not even mention the etymology about name "bánya".--Omen1229 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Koertefa. User Omen1229, I have to repeat my previous comment. 1, I admit that general meaning of the word can not be accepted (e.g. "bel" has Finno-Ugric origin) and my previous opinion was wrong. 2, I am aware of that Csorba's source is a Hungarian POV, however it would be perfect at Matthias's etymology section because it is related with the specific name. Bel's article contains Slovak POVs ("ethnic Slovak") and I think we should delete all POVs or demonstrate Hungarian POVs as well because of "balance"...... Fakirbakir (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

1.Fakirbakir, do not try to manipulate this discussion, I know your POV - "The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society." [8], you are tolerated on WP still, so be careful with your dubious POV. Your etymological synthesis about name of Bel is pointless here: "bél" has Finno-Ugric origin > And what do you think about surnames Biely(check this word in Slovak dictionary), Bil, Biel, Beel... from Očová? Or what do you think about writing in Očová church from 1696 - "Matthias Biel alias Funtik"? Or what do you think about this [9]? Or what do you think about Bel? Yes, it is your OR with no connection between Ban. Bystrica and Bel article/debate.

2.so again - you wanted to create a strange etymological section, but problem was not etymology... > "his surname "Bél" as a family name first occurred in Transylvania (1550, 1640) and its meaning "domestic person/domestic servant" (belső cseléd)"[10] In fact first member (in the sources) of the Bel family was mayor of Očová Šimon Bel (Simon Beel dictus) in 1465.

Bel's article contains Slovak POVs ("ethnic Slovak") and I think we should delete all POVs or demonstrate Hungarian POVs as well because of "balance" > Admins, no problem with this statement? What "Slovak POV" do you mean? German source (Sohn eines slowakischen Fleischenhauers)[11]? Hungarian source (the Slovak scholar Matej Bel-Funtik) [12]? --Omen1229 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I do not want to discuss Slovak and Hungarian POVs here about Matthias. I mentioned it because Matthias's page bore the same problem. However at page of Matthias my opinion was wrong, because I thought the general meaning of a word ( "bel" is a Finno-Ugric word) could have been used. I realized it. I hope you recognized that I did not do edit warring there an I was able to use the talk page. Here we have the same problem. The source what I mentioned above does not contain a word about the town (Cited:"Hungarian word "banya" comes from "bana""). That is simply OR. An anonymous user wrote it at talk page of Matthias: "We could discuss the inclusion your statement as long as a possible Hungarian origin suggested by the name would be affirmed by a reliable author, but in this case it is just original research, I hope you can agree with that". It means we need reliable sources in connection with Banska Bystrica. Yeah, I did have a statement when I was verdant here and actually I was accused of this at ANI but I do not see the connection between this debate and a statement from 2010. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see reliable sources. The etymology part now suggests that the Hungarian name of the town is simply a "mirror translation" of the !previous! Slavic, Slovak name. Which was the first one? I agree the Beszterce part comes form Slavic, but the "bánya" part is dubious. Bánya may come from Slavic languages but it is does not matter in this context. We have lots of settlement with the name ".....bánya" and nobody thinks that they all were populated previously with Slavic peoples. Even if Besztercebanya was situated in Slav mass the Hungarians could have been the first who started to call the settlement "Besztercebanya". Fakirbakir (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Since, so far no reliable sources were identified that directly connects these (the etimology of the name of the town and the etymology of the general Hungarian word "bánya"), the article was restored to its original, stable version for now. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So again - this source[13] does not even mention the etymology about name "bánya". But you can write again another synthesis about "the etymology of the general Hungarian word" in Poland and western Ukraine - it will be "interesting reading".--Omen1229 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you please read that source again? It states: "Nevének utótagja ércbányáival kapcsolatos.". Which means: the second part/suffix of the (town)name is connected to its (metal)mines. So it explicitly states this. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have refined that sentence to precisely state what the source claims. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree with Fakirbakir?[14] Travelguide is about Bystrica (Travelguide as source??) - in this source it is some form of dictionary translate interpretation. Nevertheless, according to Lexicon of Pallas: Maga a bánya szó szláv eredetű --Omen1229 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a travel guide is indeed not the best source and nobody argues against the claim the *general* Hungarian word "bánya" likely had a Slavic origin. On the other hand, this theory has nothing to do with the etymology of the name of this *particular* town. Or do you claim that all towns which have Hungarian names ending with "bánya" (like Tatabánya, Rudabánya, Telkibánya, etc.) have Slavic origin? Thus, as I wrote earlier several times, it is an improper synthesis to talk about the etymology of the general Hungarian word "bánya" here, since it suggests a particular POV (i.e., that the Hungarian name of the town is simply a translation of the Slovak name). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

establishment

Who established the town?

According to Lexicon of Pallas[15] and the Hungarian Catholic Lexicon[16] the territories around the town belonged to king in the 13th century and the settlement was established by Thuringian settlers. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This [17] is probably not the best source (since it mentions this only as a side remark), but it also claims that the town is from the 13th century and that it was originally peopled by German settlers. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You have chaos in these matters. You do not understand the archeology and earlist mention - nova villa Bystrice - the town privileges in 1255.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source which claims that the town was founded earlier than this (the statement that there was an earlier settlement in the region does not prove this, since it was probably destroyed). The safest is if we stick to the facts and mention that the first written mentioning of the city was in 1255 when King Béla IV of Hungary chartered the settlement and made it one of the Free Royal Towns of the Kingdom of Hungary ([18] - page 30). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

POV

I would like to ask somebody to translate a Slovak source from the references section.[19] I need a proper citation to prove that it was a permanent settlement from the 9th century to the 13th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a simple website, i.e., it is a self-published source, and hence it's reliability can be debated... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Said who? Maybe Stube99 :-D Please do not write your false personal views here. Its official site of Central Slovak Museum and the source wrote archeologist Dr. Martin Kvietok from Charles University in Prague. He wrote: "Slavs settled in the fertile terraces Hron and their existence in Banska Bystrica is confirmed by findings in the courtyard of the house on SNP Square nr. 3 on the right bank terrace Hron from the 9th century. There was probably oldest Slavic settlement on the place where the medieval town was founded." The sentence about permanent settlement from the 9th century to the 13th century is clear: "Tam sa dá predpokladať najstaršia slovanská predlokačná osada, na mieste ktorej vzniklo stredoveké mesto." --Omen1229 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Google translator: "There can be assumed predlokačná oldest Slavic settlement on the site where the medieval city was founded" How does it mean it? There was an old Slavic settlement where the medieval city was founded. So, there was an old Slavic settlement however the medieval city founded later (by Thuringians)? Or it is an old settlement founded by Slavs and the "medieval city" means 9th century? It is confusing...Fakirbakir (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 is right, we should accept that source (even though it is self-published, and hence it's scientific reliability can be debated as it did not have peer-review, etc.). Even the Hungarian Catholic Lexicon claims [20] that there was mining activity in the region before the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin. So there was an earlier settlement, but it was abandoned or destroyed, etc. Even the settlement of the Germans was destroyed during the Mongol Invasion of the Kingdom of Hungary (around 1243-44) [21]. These solve the contradiction between the sources, i.e., (a) that we have a source that talks about a Slavic settlement in the region in the 9th century and (b) we also have several sources which state that the town was founded in 13th century, during the reign of Béla IV of Hungary, for example, here are some (besides the Hungarian Catholic Lexicon): [22][23][24]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I refined the text in the article because we did not get any reassurance for "Slavic settlement continuity". We have a source about a 9th century Slavic settlement and its obscure statement in connection with establishment, however I am still unable to piece together the whole "continual populated story". Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Omen 1229 reverted me and recommended to wait for discussion at talkpage in his edit summary, however after his suggestion, he did not contribute a word here in order to find the solution. The first part of the problematic sentence "it started as a permanent settlement" was possibly a POV. There is no source to validate the statement. Though we have a Slovak source but it did not support continuity. First I thought the removal of "permanent" word was going to be the solution, however the sentence just got worse. The "It started as a settlement" form was also incorrect because it could start as a Slavic settlement but it was inhabited before the Slavs (e.g. ancient hillfort) so I needed to rephrase the sentence again. We have a couple of sources about German town establishment. Even the Slovak source talks about an "old Slavic settlement" and a "medieval town establishment". These are two different stories and there are no words about continuity. We know well Germans played important roles in the life of the town but even the German town was destroyed by Mongols. Therefore it is also against the permanently inhabited town story. So that sentence in the lead was absolutely incorrect. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Fakirbakir. For example, the settlement was destroyed during the Mongol Invasion (according to the Hungarian Catholic Lexicon [25]), therefore, we should not speak about continuity from the 9th century. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir stop with your synthesis and do not vandalize the article. The present city was built upon a Slavic settlement, founded in the 9th century. According to official site of Central Slovak Museum and the archeologist Dr. Martin Kvietok: Slavic settlement, which was the place of origin for the medieval town.[26] Please do not mix the archeology and earlist mention - nova villa Bystrice - the town privileges in 1255. Archeologist Alexander T. Ruttkay - the Science Conference 2005 "The past and present of Banska Bystrica": my translaton of the article - "The benefits of archaeological research on the issue of genesis cities are finding that most of the "colonization" cities precedes pre-location phase - older settlement of 9th-12th century. Medieval cities therefore generally were not created on "green field", new residents often colonize older settlement..." In modern sources is nothing about "A tatárok 1243-44: elpusztították"[27] and definitely not in 1243-1244. And then in this "Hungarian Catholic Lexicon" is nothing about Mongols in Buda and Budapest article.[28][29] In Britannica: "When it first appears in history Pest was essentially a German settlement, and a chronicler of the 13th century describes it as "Villa Teutonica ditissima." Christianity was introduced early in the 11th century. In 1241 Pest was destroyed by the Tatars, after whose departure in 1244 it was created a royal free city by Bela IV., and repeopled with colonists" So please write me more details based on reliable sources about "A tatárok 1243-44: elpusztították" and "A várost thüringiaiak alapították" in Banská Bystrica.--Omen1229 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, concentrate on the arguments and not on the editors. Fakirbakir did not do any vandalism or synthesis, in fact, his version was much better and more neutral. I do not understand your comment: "In modern sources is nothing about "A tatárok 1243-44: elpusztították"". The Hungarian Catholic Lexicon is a modern, peer-reviewed academic source. And what do you mean by "definitely not in 1243-1244"? The Mongol Invasion of the Kingdom of Hungary was in that time (cf. Battle of Mohi). Even if we accept that the Mongol Invasion did not cease the continuity of the town, we still don't know whether the area was *continuously* inhabited from the 9th century. I doubt that it was, since otherwise why do many sources mention that the town was founded by German settlers? Your comment that "Medieval cities therefore generally were not created on "green field", new residents often colonize older settlement" do not contradict this theory, since the German settlers could build their town upon the ruins of the earlier Slav settlement... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Here is a quote that also supports that the settlement was destroyed by the Mongols: "The town was destroyed during the Mongol invasion, that is why King Béla IV. invited Saxons from Thuringia, who founded the flourishing mining town" from the book Ferenc Orbán, Tamás Raj: A zsidó kultúra nyomában a Kárpát-medencében (~Tracing Jewish Culture in the Carpathian Basin), Makkabi Publisher, 2006. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "definitely not in 1243-1244"? > Mongols were not then in Kingdom of Hungary. After the death (December 1941) of Khan Ögedei, Batu decided to return from KoH to Mongolia. They were prepared the new kurultai. So these sources with specific rare viewpoints about Ban. Bystrica are not reliable for theme about Mongols. --Omen1229 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Writing about 1243-1244 instead of 1241–42 might be only a typo. And there were also other sources cited above which talk about the destruction of the town or its establishment by German settlers (and not just Hungarian ones!). So the real question is, as Fakirbakir asked, why the sources talk about German establishment? And do you have at least one source which talks about the town being *continuously* inhabited from the 9th century? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, the question we are asking is: why the sources talk about German establishment. Was the settlement established by Germans or not? If the answer is yes, there was no permanently inhabited settlement because we can not talk about "establishment" when we have an inhabited "lively" town. I agree the site was previously populated by different folks but the last establishment belongs to the Germans. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Replacing both of the Aforementioned Names?

The article currently states "After 1867 the Hungarian name "Besztercebánya" became the official one, replacing both of the aforementioned names". This sentence is quite dubious, since it suggests that the German and the Slovak names of the town were the official ones before 1867. This needs clarification, and naturally: reliable sources (also for the date). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous names

There is a table in the article called "Previous names". It seems as this list would give the previous official names of the town. Is there a source which claims, for example, that the official name of the town in 1773 was Banska Bistryca? Or does the list simply collect names which appeared in different kinds of documents in the past? A clarification is surely needed about this... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)