Jump to content

User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tankred (talk | contribs)
7,836 edits
Active threads
Tankred (talk | contribs)
7,836 edits
Line 583: Line 583:
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Community_ban_of_MarkBA_for_repeated_sockpuppetry]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Community_ban_of_MarkBA_for_repeated_sockpuppetry]]


There is a long record of such "reports" and "counter-reports" in this conflict and it did not resolve any of the substantive issues spoiling relations between us. It was my understanding that we were trying to reach some kind of dispute resolution here and any new supposed incidents would be reported here as well. I trust Elonka's judgment because she is closely following this complex case. Maybe I was wrong and attempts to get the other side blocked by contacting random uninvolved administrators are still a fair game. If this is the case, there have been other users who have recently broken their editing restrictions and/or posted personal attacks. Should I go ahead and report them? Are we going to return to this old game or we want to have a centralized discussion here? [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred|talk]]) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a long record of such "reports" and "counter-reports" in this conflict and they did not resolve any of the substantive issues spoiling relations between us. It was my understanding that we were trying to reach some kind of dispute resolution here and any new supposed incidents would be reported here as well. I trust Elonka's judgment because she is closely following this complex case. Maybe I was wrong and attempts to get the other side blocked by contacting random uninvolved administrators are still a fair game. If this is the case, there have been other users who have recently broken their editing restrictions and/or posted personal attacks. Should I go ahead and report them? Are we going to return to this old game or we want to have a centralized discussion here? [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred|talk]]) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:34, 10 May 2008

Ground rules

This page is an experiment, as part of my (Elonka's) involvement with the ArbCom-designated Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. As I write this, there seems to be a dispute involving Hungarian and Slovakian articles. The dispute is de-centralized, and is taking place in edit summaries, userpages, talkpages, and administrator noticeboards. The dispute seems to involve multiple editors, and some anonymous accounts. Since it is extremely difficult to follow everything that's going on on every page, I have created this central page, and recommend adding a pointer to this page from all the locations of disputes.

I am an uninvolved administrator in this discussion, I have no preference for either side. However, I do insist that:

  • Participants remain civil
  • Edit wars cease
  • Anyplace that an article is reverted, that an explanation either be posted on that article's talkpage, or a pointer be placed on that article's talkpage, which links interested editors to here.

It is my hope that with a centralized point of discussion, that we'll be able to reduce the confusion, and those editors who are genuinely interested in having civil discussions towards determining consensus, will be able to do so.

Please feel free to start any threads here that you want, and invite anyone that you wish.

--Elonka 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator boards and other threads

Active threads

Archived threads

Bratislava topics

The Central Europe history is very complicated. Bratislava was parts of Hungary 1000 years, but now it is Slovakia capital.(treaty of trianon) Slovakia's own history is very little.Slovaks wrote Bratislava's history on the wikipedia (Bratislava/history chapter, History of Bratislava, Bratislava Castle) and these articles are very one-sided. Because these topics the Slovak nationalist's guarded area, putting NPOV-templates out to them would cause a serious scandal. A good solution would be later if these articles would receive totally protected status, and neutral administrators (not Slavs) could rewrite this themes.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all this upheaval at wiki is not about Central Europe's complicated history, but rather about a user not familiar with how Wikipedia works. Despite all the warnings on his/her user talk page, User:Nmate keeps making childish jokes about living persons, saying nasty things about non-Hungarian nations, and attacking other editors. Here are some examples:
  • He/she abused Wikipedia's article to claim that Slovakia's prime minister's "true confession" and "self-criticism looking back on the Fico cabinet's activities" is a 17th-century outlaw.[1] Wikipedia is not a place for political commentaries. Please also note that he/she called an IP a "clone" of an established user and a previous unproblematic version of an article "serious vandalism" in his/her edit summary.
  • He/she makes inappropriate jokes about other editors, calling another user "he Czech lion which defending his Slovak siblings"[2], suggesting that two editors are followers of a neo-Nazi leader Marian Kotleba[3] (this was completely uncalled for and especially disturbing for me as my grand father was in a concentration camp), and calling other people's work "dubious Pan-Slavic propaganda".[4]
  • He/she said: "There is a Hungarian joke that whole Slovakia's only history is possible to send in a short mobile phone's text messsage."[5] Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it has offended many people here.
  • After being warned agianst hate speech, he/she continued in the same tone: "the important historical events should be there and so Slovak historical event is not exist before the 20th century".[6]
Many people have tried to talk to him/her, but it did not work. All the deleted warnings (up to NPA4 if I remember well) may be found in the history of his/her user talk page. I feel a stronger action is needed to show him/her that Wikipedia has some rules that make our work more efficient and pleasant. Tankred (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the first point, he cited a source for the most part. If you don't agree with it, you can modify it. You just removed it, although Prime Minister Fico really talked about Jánosik as a role model which is definitely relevant. Your edit may be criticised just as well.
All other cases happened before a Wikiquette Alerts discussion (26 March) for which he's already been warned, presenting these as new cases is a bit misleading.
Let's not forget how he received some of those warnings. He's a relatively new user, so asking him to read WP:CIV would be OK I think.
Regarding offensive edit summaries someone else has also a thing or two to learn despite being an experienced user. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For "Bratislava" "(...)has been declared on October 28 in Prague, the leaders of Bratislava (where the majority of the population are Germans or Hungarians, see below) want to prevent Bratislava from becoming part of Czecho-Slovakia and declare the town a free town and rename it Wilsonovo mesto (Wilson City) after US-president Woodrow Wilson.", aaaaand: "(...) Legions on January 1 1919 (only the left river bank; the right river bank, not belonging to Bratislava yet, was occupied only on August 14th). It has been chosen as seat of Slovak political organs over Martin and Nitra]]; the government moved to the city on 4–5 February. On March 27, the town's official new name becomes "Bratislava" - instead of "Prešporok" (Slovak) / "Pressburg" (German) / "Pozsony" (Hungarian)." from History of Bratislava#20th_century - so wherever anyone restored "Bratislava" in pre-March 27 1919 context had falsified history, and highly compromised Wikipedia's credibility, and to say something rude and true to talk about: vandalized those particlular Wikipedia pages. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about present day city's history, it's common to use its current name. It's not a falsification of history; it's a matter of convenience. See, for example, London.--Svetovid (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names

(previous discussions and poll can be seen in Archive 2)

Proposed naming convention

This is a proposed naming convention for places in Slovakia. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles)) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:

  • Between 1000 and 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
    • In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
    • In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, the name should be used in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively
    • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence
  • Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
  • For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively
  • For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence.

The following modifications to this naming convention have been suggested, and are open for voting:

A. Add the language for the alternative names, e.g. "Eperjes (Slovak: Prešov)".
B. Change "Between 1000 and 1918" to "Before 1918", and "Before 1000 and after 1918" to "After 1918"
C. Not only biographies of clearly Slovak and Hungarian persons, but also clearly Slovak and Hungarian organisations and events
D. For "others before 1918": use the modern official name (=Slovak) as the primary name ("Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively), unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that a different name is widely used in the given context
E. For "after 1918": use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census. (the "biographies of clearly Hungarian persons" part is dropped)
F. No distinction between clearly Slovak and clearly Hungarian persons/biographies, all contexts before 1918 (or between 1000 and 1918 if modification B is rejected) are treated like "others before 1918"

Poll

Voting has started at 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC), and will continue until 11 May, same time.

Modification A (3-5, 3 ntr):

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Modification B (7-3, 0 ntr):

Support

Yes it does. Markussep Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Tankred (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (I would support it only if it makes clear that Hungarian names should not be used as anachronisms, referring to a place in Slovakia in the times when the Hungarian name did not exist yet.)[reply]
  • --Ruziklan (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral


Modification C (5-4, 2 ntr):

Support

  • Partly support. Right now some battles fought by the Kingdom of Hungary include only Slovak names, so in the case of events I would support this. Squash Racket (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • needs involvement of good faith users(admins) to make a quick decree in case of dispute. Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support NPOV so I support this. A pity that some "Wikipedians" don't... CoolKoon (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nmate (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Tankred (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly. It's vague about whether this applies to organizations with English names, like Slovak ministries; and as I support Modification F, I would prefer the smallest possible bubble if F fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Septentrionalis. Markussep Talk 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose, as per Septentrionalis. --R O A M A T A A | msg  19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral


Modification D (3-8, 1 ntr):

Support

Oppose

  • What is the "others before 1918"? Btw if it is, what I think, than absolutely no, since this would preserve the status quo, the tons of anachronisms and history inventions, therefore putting this debate into a never ending loop. And do your really think, that this would not mean that in reality that you have to fight to manage "Bratislava" deleted and replaced with "Pressburg" in pre 1918 contexts, not speaking about smaller places? Clear no for keeping this[7] and such debates, or preserving the status quo around the articles. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to read the proposal again. "Others before 1918" applies to contexts before 1918 that aren't clearly about Slovak or Hungarian persons. If modification "F" is accepted, the "others before 1918" rule applies to all situations before 1918. Anachronisms are properly dealt with in the last two rules of the original proposal. Markussep Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Markussep Talk 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC). I did a little search in Google Books, comparing the hits for "Prešov" and "Eperjes" in combination with "Hviezdoslav" and "Kossuth" (both lived in Prešov/Eperjes in the 19th century) in English, and it's pretty much undecided.[reply]


Modification E (8-4, 0 ntr):

Support

Oppose

  • Tankred (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (I support inclusion of these names in the lead of a corresponding article, but not in the main body of other articles. These names are not used in English and this change goes against WP:ENGLISH.)[reply]
  • Same as Tankred. --R O A M A T A A | msg  19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Ruziklan (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote, I guess basically everybody misunderstood modification E. Please focus on the text in parentheses.[reply]

Neutral


Modification F (4-7, 1 ntr):

Support

  • Tankred (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Markussep Talk 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC). Although the distinction between Slovak and Hungarian biographies seemed like a good idea to me at first, I now think it creates more problems than it solves. The most used name in English in the given context should be used, regardless of which name the person in question would have used.[reply]
  • R O A M A T A A | msg  19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squash Racket (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a sad thing that the nationality of many famous Hungarian historical persons is questioned by some other nations (like the aforementioned admin's ancestor, whose name is spelled "Peter Pázmaň" despite the fact that he was a strong supporter of the Hungarian language and wrote most of his work in Hungarian as opposed to the then official Latin; "Ladislav Medňanský" etc.), so this will be a source of controversy for a while, I'm sure. CoolKoon (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ----Vargatamas (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nmate (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Rembaoud (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • again: what is "others before 1918"? --Rembaoud (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
    • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence.
    • Modification D would strengthen this last statement to default to Slovak first until proven otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Ruziklan (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBA what's up?/my mess 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (continued)

Previous discussions can be seen in /Archive 2
I’ve come to this “experiment” by chance, but having dealt with this sort of issue before, I’d like to throw in my few halierov.
First, solving naming problems in the intro is easy; solving naming problems in the title is hard. Your convention should explicitly address article naming.
Second, there is a tendency to resolve these issues in a manner that “settles” issues between the contentious parties, but which loses track of the perspective of the reader and of non-specialist editors. Encyclopedias are not written for – and Wikipedia is not (for the most part) written by – subject-matter experts.
  • For the sake of the former, there should at least be an explicit rule that WP:ENGLISH takes precedence where the subject has a traditional rendering of a name in English (in either English-language scholarly usage or popular usage). Hence, “Béla IV”, not “Belo IV”.
  • Where names have formally changed over time, an article should clearly point out the “whens” and “whys” (and perhaps the impacts of the change). This is pertinent to explaining why a redirect got the reader to a “different” article. Certainly no article should become FA without it (where this is relevant) since this is a important part of its history.
  • Arcane rules relying on interpretations such as "clearly Hungarian" and "clearly Slovak" persons (et al) are rather opaque. This is particularly difficult before 1918 given the empire’s efforts to supplant local ethnicities with a more unifying imperial self-identification. It’s also a problem with individuals with multi-ethnic parentage. If these “clearlies” become the rule, then there needs to be a WikiProject (or other resources) identified where editors can go to find such expertise.
Third, in my opinion an historical or biographical article’s usage of place names should give preference to those in contemporary usage for that is the way most reliable sources will employ. E.g., an article on the Kingdom of Hungary or an event or person of that era should reflect the style of “Pressburg (modern Bratislava)” at first mention (as I have just done in Ľudovít Štúr); given the long use of “Pressburg” (or other long-used well-known name – as in the case of Byzantium/Constantiople/Istanbul), a modern source should explicitly mention “Bratislava (formerly Pressburg)”. Fifty years ago, the use of “Pressburg” was still well-understood among the general English-speaking populace, but nowadays it is almost unknown … and we are here to help people to learn.
Hope this helps. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, thanks for your comments. The issue we're trying to solve here is not the names of the articles or the alternative names in the leads of the articls, since that's not problematic, and covered by WP:NCGN. Using the English name is the essence of that. This is about what name(s) to use in other articles, that refer to a place in present Slovakia. You'll see that the Pressburg/Bratislava case is specifically mentioned in the proposal above. Markussep Talk 12:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what really could help here is The Encyclopædia of Geography by Hugh Murray. However its a bit hard to find, since it was printed in 1838 (eighteen-thirty-eight) so just a few copies left... --Rembaoud (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I support the "original" proposal, these ABCD things are just doing confusions. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"confusion" is not the purpose of the modifications, I like to think of them as "refinements" of the proposal. Note that ABCDEF are the results of the discussions above. Markussep Talk 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred raises some very valid points. In particular, as per the Constitution, "Slovak is the state language on the territory of the Slovak Republic", regardless of the fact that some regions are Hungarian-speaking. Thus, merely because a Slovak citizen happens to be an ethnic Hungarian (Pál Csáky for instance) does not mean the way we refer to cities he is associated with should change. Mention the Hungarian name in articles on the cities themselves, by all means, but there's no need to clutter up biographies in this way. Biruitorul (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reassure you: this proposal is not about cluttering articles with irrelevant names. Let's take Pál Csáky as an example: he was born in 1956 in Šahy. According to the proposal as it stands now (without modifications), and assuming he's clearly Hungarian, that means that the Hungarian names of places in Slovakia mentioned in this article should be added. If modification E is accepted, this only goes for places with a significant (for instance >20%) Hungarian population, like Šahy (Ipolyság). Markussep Talk 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Hungarian names are irrelevant - they're in daily use in southern Slovakia. However, despite the fact that Hungarian can be used at the local level, Slovak names alone are official everywhere, and we reflect this in our titles for the articles. To me, Šahy is Šahy is Šahy, and if a Hungarian native wants to call it Ipolyság, a German, Eipelschlag, a Russian, Шаги, or a Martian, Klaatu Bara Nixto, that's his prerogative. However, at least until such time as Slovakia's language law or English-language usage changes, I see no need for a biography of a contemporary Slovak citizen (born decades after Austria-Hungary dissolved) to tell readers what he calls his hometown, a fact easily accessible to interested parties by clicking the link that says Šahy.
By the way, Csáky heads an ethnic Hungarian political party, so I'm pretty sure he's "clearly Hungarian". Biruitorul (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question (and not to sidetrack the discussion, I hope): can we agree to apply roughly whatever solution emerges for Transylvania, or must we then go through another discussion substituting "Romania(n)" for "Slovakia(n)"? I'd add a small proviso - Hungary controlled Northern Transylvania in 1940-44, so I'd use Hungarian names for that period. Vojvodina would be a little different, since Hungarian explicitly has official status there. Biruitorul (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, this experimental page is explicitly set up, to deal with a very specific dispute as the name of this page also says this is related to Hungarian-Slovakian disputes. If you intend to participate here to influence handling of other issues, please don't this would open a can of worms, as Austrian ,German and various other users might want to follow suit each with their own set of specific articles and problems in mind. This would make this experimental dispute resolution almost certainly fail. Hobartimus (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been learning that there were some other "experiments" on other ethnic disputes here and there, but called different names. Sometimes it was something like a WikiProject "collaboration", sometimes it was a "cooperation board". I've compiled a list of the ones that I've found so far at WP:WORKGROUP#See also, and (in my free time, heh) would like to take a look at the successes and failures of each, and try to come up with a guideline for new projects which incorporates the best practices of the older ones. If anyone knows of any other of these projects, please definitely add them to the list. And if anyone feels that there's a need for one that doesn't exist yet, by all means make one! Some of those projects were editor-made, not admin-made. You are more than welcome to be bold and start something new.  :) --Elonka 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the issues surrounding Hungarians in Slovakia are basically the same as those surrounding Hungarians in Transylvania, I'd say "absolutely not" is a bit strong. And neither the Hungarians of Germany nor those of Austria (.05% of the population) exist in such important numbers, cover such appreciable areas, are as politically organised, etc, as those of Slovakia and Transylvania (again, Vojvodina excepted, but that's different). So if consensus is to stick to Slovakia only, so be it, but that seems rather counterproductive, as the situations are not dissimilar. Biruitorul (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biruitorul, welcome to the discussion.  :) I've given some thought to this question, in my role as moderator, especially because earlier we chased away from other nationalities that were trying to bring an old dispute here. However, this is different, so my decision is that if someone wants to bring up issues that are not strictly "Hungarian-Slovakian" but do relate to Hungarians or Slovakians in similar situations, they are welcome to do so. If the discussion starts straying too far afield from the scope of this experiment, we can easily move the discussion to its own "experiment" page elsewhere. Which might actually be an excellent way of seeding new such projects!  :) --Elonka 07:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I agree with that principle: let's stay on the Hungary-Slovakia topic here, but keep in mind the results could quite easily inform a new initiative on Transylvania and to some extent Vojvodina: what we discuss on this page will surely be found relevant by editors more interested in Romanian and Serbian issues. Biruitorul (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed guideline is such a total clutter with an obvious POV (excuse my French) that I'm not going to say anything detailed at this time. Especially points 1, 2 and also quite 3 aren't very well thought; e.g. point 2 cannot be taken literally. Modifications C, D, E and F are written in a quite vague language. I'm afraid that if this will enter in force, greater scope of POV edits will be allowed by that and possibly we will open a can of worms. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(serious question) How about writing up your own set of guidelines? --Elonka 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't have time right now. 2. I don't feel like to start a new game about such topic. 3. My own words above are still valid; let me for example explain what is wrong with point 2: implying a Hungarian name all the way between 1000 and 1918 isn't correct, as although they ruled the whole country, Hungarian started to be an official language only from the 18th/19th century, so implying them in the 11th century is quite incorrect. As sometimes written documents are scarce at that time, it's better to use default than to create a messy mishmash. In any case, so long as the situation is explained, it's never wrong to use default (in this case, Slovak) names all the time, contrary to some claims of "history falsification". MarkBA what's up?/my mess 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are some modifications above that you agree with, and some that you disagree with, please add your name accordingly. You are also free to suggest your own modifications, and/or write a completely new guideline. --Elonka 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with MarkBA. 1.Hungarians not ruled the country only but they are native population of the country also.2.Official languages of the country were the Latin and the German, but the Slovak was not at all between 1000 and 1918 3.Many settlements were not Slovak' names before the 20. century.4.There were settlements like their Slovak names changed three times in the 20. century. For example Tornaľa, Šafárikovo, and Tornaľa again or Parkan', Štúrovo, and maybe its name will be Parkan' again.Nmate (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole debate seems to be artificially skewed in favour of particular Hungarian editors. The Hungarian language and names were unimportant in writing, among the nobility and among other than Hungarian people, before the 18th century, so I don't see any need to include them specifically in other than subject's article. Maybe they should be included in parentheses when the name is first time mentioned.
And the accusation of canvassing was ridiculous. German and other editors should have a say in this indeed.
It's a common habit to use contemporary names even if we talk about the location in the past when the name wasn't used. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia for everyone. Therefore, using rules that will please a small number of editors but would go against a widespread practice would be a very unwise decision.--Svetovid (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Britannica is wrong for using Hungarian names, but the guideline WP:NCGN (self-admittedly influenced by Tankred) is right... Squash Racket (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCGN was created by a high number of respected editors after several years of deliberation. It is applied everywhere in Wikipedia and people in other "hot" regions (such as Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Italy, etc.) are perfectly fine with it. If you want to change it, please go ahead and propose your changes at the convention's talk page. Anyone can do it. If you do not want to change Wikipedia's rules and want to edit Britannica instead, you should perhaps contact its editorial board. For us, Britannica is just one of many sources. It does not determine our policies here. Tankred (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the countries you mentioned have lost 2/3 of their territory after 1000 years or not.
I also find it funny you talking about "several years of deliberation" and the next moment belittling the 250-year-old Britannica that the very independent and accepted WP:NCGN uses as a means to resolve disputes. Squash Racket (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is also user conduct related. No amounts of guidelines have any effect on a certain type of user or he might even try to abuse the guideline to violate basic policy or simply circumvent it using IP sockpuppets, this is why some things need to done regarding user conduct as well. Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see any need to include them specifically in other than subject's article."--Svetovid (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need some of comments made in this summary voting diff? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that comments should be in the discussion section and voting should only contain the votes? Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am fine with comments aimed at the matter of debate, but not with commenting on editors. That is why I have used formulation "some of comments". I am similarly concerned with the comment made just below as well. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to continue my debate here, I've expected that for my statements a bombardment would follow. Nice, really nice. To repeat, I oppose the guideline as whole because it's totally flawed with many, many mistakes. If it will pass, its effect will equal that one like to the Munich Agreement or of the Vienna Awards. And everyone knows why this guideline even appeared, just don't want to admit it: 1. to shut us up and 2. to give them a legal weapon which otherwise would not be available. Wake up from your dreams. Sorry, but I'm not interested in editing an encyclopedia where a group dictates you must do like this and this, otherwise you'll be jailed. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for drama, and dramatization. Also, be civil. And try to avoid favourite far right expressions and turns, like "they shut us up", destroy our country/culture, "wake up", etc. They are revealing you.-Rembaoud (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to make comments driven by emotions? I know that naming, in our region, is a sensitive issue, but we should refrain from negative statements. Personally, my view is that there is no point in "ócsárolni" (sorry, its in Hungarian, I cannot translate it, it means something like that "belittle") the other party. Our only purpose is to reach a consensus on naming. If we are not able to reach our purpose, third party readers will realise that the text of several articles will be changing day by day (minute to minute), reflecting regularly only the mainstream (or even extremist) views of one of the parties who are involved in ridiculous disputes followed by petty personal attacks. It would be disappointing and boring for them and shameful for us. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Borsoka, I couldn't agree more. Please everyone, remember this is about creating an encyclopedia. Let's focus on the audience of Wikipedia, and what they would expect to find in it. Markussep Talk 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my comments and questions with respect to comments in the poll:
A. CoolKoon doesn't understand the point of the proposal. Does this refer to the proposal as a whole, or to modification A? The point of "A" is to make it clear to readers that the two names refer to the same place in different languages.
C. Battles of the Kingdom of Hungary wouldn't qualify as clearly Hungarian events, since other nationalities (within the KoH) would be involved in them. I rather meant Slovak or Hungarian cultural organisations etc. "C" doesn't influence Slovak ministries, because they didn't exist before 1918. I don't see the relation between modification C and the NPOV policy, maybe CoolKoon can explain that.
D. Whether Slovak names were used officially before 1918 is not the issue here. They were used by the Slovak speaking population of the places. The main issue is which names would be expected by the English language reader. Since the places are widely known in English under their modern Slovak names, it would be very strange not to mention the Slovak names at least once (if modern names are different from contemporary ones, this should be mentioned).
E. Relevant alternative names can always be mentioned in the lead of the articles, according to WP:NCGN. I'm not sure whether everyone realises that "E" actually reduces the number of articles in which the Hungarian names should be mentioned. Markussep Talk 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I oppose the whole guideline per my objections above. Either rewrite it so it will conform to established guidelines and to the pleasure of both sides, or (almost 0% of chance) stop it. I guess some forgot this is an encyclopaedia, not some xyz website with who-knows-what. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that this proposed guideline violates any established guideline, could you point out which one(s)? Some of the objections against this guideline you wrote above are vague ("not well thought", "cannot be taken literally" and "quite vague language") and if you want the discussion to go forward, it would help if you indicated what exactly is wrong with it.
The main point of this guideline is to end pointless revert wars about names of towns. Most of us here agree that both Hungarian and Slovak were relevant languages in pre-1918 Slovakia. Both languages were spoken by a significant part of the population, and the Hungarian placenames were widely used internationally in the past. And the main reason for me to include both languages: you're very likely to find Hungarian (or both Hungarian and Slovak) placenames in modern English books about (people or events in) pre-1918 Slovakia, and since the places are currently better known under their Slovak names, it would be awkward not to mention those. Markussep Talk 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NC (WP:NCGN). I won't explain why because it's clear. In detail, "not well thought" = slapped here because of someone's request and quite hastily done, e.g. point 2. If I would go more in detail I'd open a can of worms; "cannot be taken literally" = see my post above, the main problem is the changing political situation, in other words, political correctness, e.g. point 1 and its subs; and finally, "quite vague language" = parts, e.g. modification C or F, aren't clearly written. But the main problem is, that it is biased in many parts, like points above. Relevant, why not, but how to get the right balance? This one doesn't quite get it. But after my experiences here I know pretty well that any five-or-more tag team can push its own opinion without difficulties, so this one will be turned down as well (again, excuse my French). MarkBA what's up?/my mess 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better explain it because it's not clear to me at all how it violates WP:NCGN. I don't understand what you mean with "someone's request", "quite hastily done" and vague references to cans of worms, political correctness and bias. If that was meant to clarify your concerns, it failed. Facts and arguments please. Markussep Talk 18:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It violates general guidelines, specially point 3 in my view and on top of that it goes against common sense. Hastily done = done without imagining possible consequences. Biased is mainly in that sense because it is very pro-Hungarian, and as such biased. If you want to gain neutrality, you'll have either to fine-tune it (e.g. points 1 & 2) or completely rewrite. By the way, if you want to propose such guidelines here, go and propose such for Burgenland, Zakarpattia Oblast, Transylvania and former Yugoslavia as well, or it could be viewed as unfair. My concern about tag-teaming still isn't resolved. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the point of discussion is whether "Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context" (quote from WP:NCGN rule nr. 3) applies here. I think it does. If you think merely mentioning a Hungarian placename in a pre-1918 context is very pro-Hungarian, then I can imagine that you have difficulty with this proposal in all its versions. Markussep Talk 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood the purpose of this comment. Repeating, the main point isn't about any existing guideline, but about this one. Mentioning, why not, but not in excessive measures this guideline would allow (btw, when we're discussing Hungarian, then why not German or Latin? Why not Polish?). If you'd like to gain at least neutral position from me, you'd have to trim it down or rewrite it. There's no other way, because in its present form it is unacceptable, for example, point 2 is flawed per my comments above. Do you finally understand what do I mean? Or should I stop trying? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. You stated that this proposed guideline violates WP:NCGN, I quoted WP:NCGN to show that yours is not the only possible interpretation. If you think mentioning a Hungarian name (and German, or Latin, etc.) once in an article referring to that place is acceptable, the proposal including modifications D and F actually represents your point of view. Markussep Talk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak about your intelligence when it's off-topic. Back to the topic: "others" is a bit vague term. It speaks about usage outside Slovak/Hungarian biographies, but what exactly is meant? Sometimes there could be a fine line. By the way, I think articles don't need name clutter when it's already shown at the main articles (in this case, of a city/town), and if I recall correctly each or almost each has them in some form. That's also one of the my reasons for opposing (shower of arrows). I hope it's clearer why I object to the current form. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose our little discussion is finished, because you object to the very essence of this proposal. Since it's only you that's against it (as far as I know), I suggest you write your own modification or proposal, or reconsider your opinion. Markussep Talk 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but first, I don't have time to write guidelines and second, under current conditions it's almost impossible to do so for me. If I'd like to suggest a modification, at this time it would be only for point 1: from 1000 to 1918 is a serious mistake at least, as until 19th century Latin was officially used; it has nothing to do with ethnicity. That needs an adjustment. Probably the only point which doesn't need much to fine-tune is 4; by the way, if accepted, the original proposal w/out modifications is the lesser evil than the one with any of them. Points 2 and 3 would need some adjustment. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the proposal doesn't use numbers, it's a bit confusing what you mean with "point 4" etc. I think you mean the first-order bullets, right (so point 4 is the Bratislava/Pressburg case)? The official language is not so relevant for our purpose: we use the names that are used in English. As I wrote yesterday, Hungarian names are widely used in English when referring to places in pre-1918 Slovakia. You know we should describe English usage, not prescribe it. I still have to see the first use of a Latin name as the primary one (except early Middle Ages and archaeological sites). Since you apparently don't have the time to write an alternative, I suggest you pick the "lesser evil" options. And if you have a valuable modification or adjustment for any of the "points", don't hesitate to discuss it here. As you may have noticed, the discussion here is relatively open and pragmatic. Markussep Talk 11:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpretation modification E?

How would this part look with modification E passing through?

Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively

Like this?

Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. If the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively

So this would only mean the biographies part would be dropped? Just asking whether I should change my vote or not. Squash Racket (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. And significant means over 20% of the population by contemporary census (as Tankred wrote that minorities over 20% enjoy some extra rights under Slovak law). Markussep Talk 09:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what to do now? I think everybody misunderstood that point. Should we change our votes one by one? (Well, the definition also could have been a little bit clearer). Squash Racket (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you interpret it, before I explained it today? I'm surprised it could be interpreted otherwise. Markussep Talk 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census shouldn't have been mentioned as this part won't change in the proposal.
The main part of that modification (dropping biographies) is at the end mentioned in parentheses. See all the votes (both sides) for that point and decide for yourself if it was possibly misleading or not. Squash Racket (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I wrote "E" was how the "after 1918" rule would be if "E" were accepted, and I added the biographies part in parentheses for extra clarification. It wasn't exactly hidden away, people really should have read it a bit more carefully. The only things that could possibly be misleading is that I added the 20% criterion for significance, and the option for other minority languages, that should/could have been in the original proposal as well. I expect that Septentrionalis knew what "E" meant when he voted, maybe Rembaoud was the first to make a mistake, and many followed apparently. I was surprised when I saw the votes for E (see my comment here), but noone replied on that then. Feel free to notify others about this possibly common misinterpretation, they may wish to recast their votes. Markussep Talk 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these votes have been added in 10 days and the whole thing is soon over...
Feel free to notify others? Nobody would accuse me of votestacking? It's not likely that all voters would show up in the next two days anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is not considered disruptive if it improves the quality of a discussion (see the guideline WP:CANVAS). In this case, I think it's allowable to inform voters of a possible misinterpretation, as long as you don't exclusively inform people who supported "E" in the poll. You can point them to the subsection I just created. Markussep Talk 13:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to avoid confusion

You can find the ongoing poll and the discussion about it above the section "Preferences". Just to avoid confusion. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences

My impression from the poll and our discussion is that we have reached a kind of a stalemate. Some editors strongly object to the proposal as a whole and there are also people strongly objecting to each of the proposed changes. What we lack is some middle ground acceptable to everyone. Perhaps we should start from scratch and try to find some simple rules by consensus (or at least acceptable to an overwhelming majority of both Slovaks and Hungarians). But I am not sure how exactly the preferences of the involved editors look like. Is there any middle ground? If you are interested, you can write down what you see as the ideal state, what you find acceptable, and what you find unacceptable at this point. Please do not use this space to persuade other editors or to react to their comments; we can do it later if needed. Let us just briefly indicate our own preferences at this point. Maybe there is some reasonable intersection we can build upon. Tankred (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that noone, except maybe MarkBA, opposes the core of the proposal: mentioning several names for places in Slovakia in pre-1918 contexts. That way the modern Slovak name is always mentioned, and the (contemporary) Hungarian name as well. I agree with you that the current official names should not be deleted, as has been done until recently, and I hope our proposal will put an end to that. Markussep Talk 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred

  • Ideal: My ideal would be a commitment of all editors to apply the existing rules as described by WP:NCGN.
  • Acceptable: Personally, I would not mind having Hungarian geographic names mentioned along with the official ones if they are proven to be widely used in the given historical context by modern English sources. I would accept any name to be consistently used through an article if this name is proven to be widely accepted in modern English sources. If the current official name has this status, I would not mind having a Hungarian name mentioned at the first occurrence of the place in the text if the Hungarian name is also frequently used in the given context by English sources. Similarly, if the Hungarian name has the status of being widely accepted in English, the official name should be mentioned at the first occurrence. A comprehensive list of sources we can use to see which name is more accepted in English can be found at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name.
  • Unacceptable: I have a problem with people deleting current official names altogether. Official names are used in English. I have also a problem with people inserting Hungarian names without showing any evidence that the name is frequently used in modern English sources in the given context. I have a problem with inconsistencies, namely (1) two different names used in the same article to refer to the same place, and (2) different names used to refer to the same place in the same historical context across articles. Tankred (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN is bad, otherwise it would not been challenged all the time. Your ideal/acceptable is the "status quo" ("My ideal would be a commitment of all editors to apply the existing rules as described by WP:NCGN" - Tankred)- it would maintain the current situation, therefore it is pretty funny, when you demand/wish/ask for a moving to the "middle ground", when you declare the only acceptable conclusion for you is your corner faaar faaar awaaay from the "middle ground" :)

Modern sources in historical contexts? That is misleading. Contemporary sources wich are contemporary with the article's subject is the right solution. For example The Encyclopædia of Geography by Hugh Murray --Rembaoud (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with disruptive editors

Hiya, as part of my ongoing research into this on Wikipedia, I was looking at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and I didn't like it much, especially its section on "how to deal with them". So I just rewrote it, effectively tripling it in size. Could you all take a look at it, let me know what you think? This is the set of steps not so much for ethnic content disputes, but for dealing with an editor who isn't an out and out vandal, but is inserting unacceptable information, and reverting anyone who tries to change it: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors. I paid particular attention to adding steps for cases where admins are requested, but aren't responding in a timely manner.

Based on your own experiences, is this now adequate? Do you think it's helpful? Did you learn anything new? Or if it's going to "break", where do you think the weak points still are? Thanks, Elonka 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nice and helpful expansion. But I am afraid two weak points of the procedure are ANI and RfC. We have asked for RfC several times (even repeatedly for the same article) and there was no or only very little and totally random feedback. ANI has been used frequently during Hungarian-Slovak disputes, but generally to no avail. Both reports and defenses have mostly consisted of quote mining and ad hominem attacks and counterattacks. That can obscure even a really serious incident to the point that no administrators are unwilling to take any action in what appears to be a rather messy case. Sometimes, a thread is archived even without any reaction at all. Moreover, there is a tendency to support a new disruptive (or just unsocialized) user if a report against him/her is filed by someone who has enemies here. Conflicts in the past have often spill-overs across seemingly unrelated pages. As far as I can tell, all these problems are more general and not specific to the Hungarian-Slovak edit warring. Finally, it would perhaps help if WP:Verifiability and WP:Cite were emphasized in the welcome template and in Help:Contents/Getting started. Many new users are not familiar with the rules and they do not know they should use reliable published sources. It would also help to reduce the number of policy pages because no new user wants to read dozens of confusing policies, guidelines, and essays. After they actually read the policy pages, some editors think they can use any website as a source. So they go to Google and try to find the keywords supporting their point. I think the policies should favor more explicitly peer-reviewed academic journals, books, and well-known official websites. Tankred (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've been particularly interested in cases where ANI reports are not getting responses. I've been trying to compile a list of all the previous ANI threads up at the top of this page, have I got them all? Or did I miss any? --Elonka 07:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted somewhere, that for some particular users, none of the citations would be good enough, exept theirs. Or being so lame, like that forum (comment) was on the List of Slovaks, I deleted. While it is easy to recognize a forum, it is more hard to get along in the literatue, and actually find out wich sources, books are really biased and wich are just not liked by some user(s). Thats the hardest job, however google search for book+critics are usually giving a helping hand. An on the other hand, when talking about Central-Europe, you should be aware also about the political situation, for example that an anti-hungarian coalition formed in Slovakia after the recent elections, where the Smer social democrats (!) and the far and even the most far right (!) parties joined toghether. You should be aware of Robert Fico and Ján Slota and their agendas, like that ones on Janko's page, and that there's a growing Anti-Hungarian sentiment in Slovakia, wich encourages ultra-extremists to attack or even kill innocents. And you should be aware of other events[8] as well, wich are getting constantly firmly or quietly deleted[9] from here, under a "discrete pandering wink", aka "the not restoring such deleted infos" [10]. Also --Rembaoud (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources, are those which have been recommended by other sources.  :) --Elonka 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, political climate has unfortunately partly moved to nationalistic in Slovakia recently, but at the same time substantial part of society voices against it. Thus the society becomes more polarized than before. But what point you try to make by explaining political situation in Slovakia? How is it relevant here? --Ruziklan (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same society elected them. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? (Note that not everyone voted for them...) --Ruziklan (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that "substantial part", what you claim that exists. And I forgot to point out the media's "regulation" and constant strafing by the government. And their wish and attempts, including the recenty accepted media law, to turn them in a pretty dictatoric way into "more patriotic" (=less or no critization of the government, and initally propagating whatever stupidity, like "proto-Slovaks" or making Juraj Janosik a hero, they invent). If you do not see, why were these all mentoined or "pointed out", than you have understanded very few of this "experiment page"'s purpose and goals. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite, I think I understand the purpose and goal of this page very clearly. That is why I am constantly asking what have your explanations to do with e.g. section we are now - "Dealing with disruptive editors" and the purpose of the experiment overall. In my view proven disruptive editors are currently dealt with accordingly and this has nothing to do with their political views, rather with their way of editing and their contributions to the good of Wikipedia. Moreover there are multiple fruitful discussions running on the page with positive results. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was, are and will be Lenin people who will agree with whatever current government will be, and try to spread their views on history, people or whatever, for example in Wikipedia. This is called activism, this is how a party or an ideology gains new supporters. No salary, no job, just doing it in free time as a volunteer job. Far right are the most active and agressive in it, and we have a far right government here. It is almost essential to know what are their current topics and "agenda" to identify them and their spreaders. With this knowledge, we can cut these "propaganda" out and monitor those users to prevent further additions, therefore making those articles affected more neutral, and Wikipedia a better place. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rembaoud, I think this is not the proper place to discuss the internal political situation in Slovakia. Nevertheless, I also have the feeling that "Prince Pribina", "Great Moravians with healthier teeth than modern people", "Principality of Nitra located on the territory of Slovakia" have become part of the self-definition of several Slovakians, but this does not mean that they cannot be true. However, I believe that if reliable sources prove that Pribina was never styled prince, medieval people's teeth were generally healthier than ours and the "Principality of Nitra" never existed, their self-definition will gradually change. Or, it is also possible that reliable sources will unanimously prove that Pribina was actually the Prince of Nitra and non-believers in Hungary will have to accept the existence of the "Principality of the (proto-)Slovaks". I think if non-fanatics of both side were in the position to realise that their knowledge of the "facts" of history may easily be challanged by reliable sources, they would begin to think independently. Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka, if you want to challenge published peer-reviewed anthropological research about the teeth in Great Moravian graveyards, you are welcome to write and publish your own work. But Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for it. Please provide evidence (meaning a reference to a source of the same quality as the one used in the article) for your claim that this published anthropological research is somehow flawed or stop questioning the well-sourced information. If it is you and your interpretation of medieval chronicles against a large body of academic literature, this discussion will never end. You have mentioned "reliable sources". Please name them, so we can talk about something substantial instead of abstract thoughts about how "fanatics" interpret history. Tankred (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tankred, if you read my remark above carefully, it clearly (in bold) states that even the theory that "Great Moravian people with healthier teeth than modern people" may be true. Actually, I accept the concept that their teeth were healthier. Sorry, I do not want to offend your feelings and I do not want to delete or change the sentence from the article Great Moravia. I think this is a remarkable part of the article and it will probably induce not only me but other readers to mediate on the other facts described in the article. Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I must have misunderstood your words. By the way, thank you for expanding the Alternative theories section. I am happy that section is no longer a stub. There is also another very recent issue regarding whether Great Moravia "disappeared without a trace". Since you seem to be familiar with the Hungarian historiography, I will greatly appreciate your opinion at Talk:Great Moravia#New_addition. If this is really a dominant view of the Hungarian historiography, I am sure you (or some other Hungarian editor) will be able to find more reliable sources than the website added by Squash Racket. Since Great Moravia is a Good Article, it would be nice to maintain a high level of quality of the cited sources (meaning books and peer-reviewed academic journals, and in English whenever possible). Tankred (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that academic sources usually do not deny the continuity of the Slavic population in the territory of present-day Slovakia (or in the parts of it). Borsoka (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Magyar Tudomány" is the official journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, I think reliable enough for Featured Articles (not just GA) until there are not enough English language academic sources. The article is full of Slovak/Czech sources that you never seem to question for some reason. Squash Racket (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that too, I am just trying to help identifying those "fanatics" by pointing out their favorite topics. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources claiming something else than what is in the article, you can add the info and the references as an alternative. This doesn't mean you have to delete the ones that are in the article (if those statements are also properly sourced). This way several points of view can be presented. Squash Racket (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report card

I have started a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, where I am explaining my experiment here, and asking for input from other admins. It is my concern that the experiment may be getting too "radical" for the wiki-culture, and I don't want to be overstepping my authority.

If anyone here as part of the experiment would like to offer feedback on how I'm doing, and whether or not you would like to see this experiment continue, or whether you think that it should be shut down, you are welcome to post in that thread. I do recommend that you identify yourself as a non-admin participant who is offering an opinion.

This is your opportunity to give me (and this experiment) an initial "grade". Has the experiment been helpful? Has it made things worse? Should it continue? All feedback is encouraged. Thanks, Elonka 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I do have some feedback and thoughts. In short, you're doing alright and are to be richly commended for your initiative and innovation! Frankly, as a matter of human – and wiki – nature, it does do some good to knock heads together, especially hot-heads. The use of blocks is not supposed to be punitive but to get the attention of such hot-heads as to their activities being disruptive and thereby unacceptable on Wikipedia. The normal blocking process is to warn, block, ignore-until-disruptive-again. That passive approach often fails because there's rarely anywhere (or anyone) for them to go to to learn how to work productively. Yeah, you can direct them to policies and guidelines ad nauseum (which are often changing and in many cases unclear to non-native English speakers), but a working example serves as a much better teacher. That's why the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has been a such a blessing in minimizing (though far from eliminating) disruption on articles in a contentious subject.
IMO what has been key to its relative success has been its ability to coopt parties from the various sides into a working agreement which the "leaders" among each contending POV help to instill among their compatriots, current and newbie. Often, an issue arises because one side doesn't feel its view is being addressed or respectfully addressed; getting them to work through it with others of differing POVs, while frustrating, is a practical self-tutorial on compromise and collegiality. Once they've worked through to a modus vivendi, they become reluctant to continue fighting "the never-ending battle" and have something of their own to defend so that they can concentrate on more productive editorial work.
The issues here are nowhere near as contentious as with Sri Lanka, so I think this effort will work out fine. Your bringing in some editors experienced with what works and doesn't work in resolving these matters should speed it up. All-in-all, I think it's a good initiative toward reducing disruption in areas of serious contention. "Knocking heads" is good as long as it brings the parties to the discussion and negotiating table – it assumes good faith, but recognizes the value of a bucket of cold water. Where it would become problematic would be if the admin(s) doing such knocking also involve themselves in forcing the path of the negotiations or subsequently in enforcing the measures against any recalitrant parties. The latter should be dealt with by uninvolved admins. (After all, disruption is disruption.) Askari Mark (Talk) 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not admin, either. Formerly, I was thinking that we (editors) were ridicoulos, now I think it started to work, thank for you (and also for editors). Although, I think edit wars will be renewed in the future (because sensitive issues are discussed), but I really hope that they will be driven by less emotion. We have accepted that we (all) have to play the game with rules based on consensus and following consensual rules is not so hard (besides, it is also challanging intelectually). And their modification may also be suggested (instead of breaking them), if it looks reasonable. Thanks! :) Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous dispute resolution

I've been trying to compile a list of all the previous administrator board threads, and the list just keeps on going and going. Today I even learned that there was an attempt at filing an ArbCom case a few weeks ago.

To save time, could folks please tell me if there's much more of this? Were there RfCs? Attempts at mediation? Which articles were they on? Thanks, Elonka 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed two RfCs that I can recall now. Squash Racket (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitra

Can someone please provide a summary of the disputes at these articles? I understand that one side feels that the Principality of Nitra, and its Prince Pribina, was a historical fact, and the other side feels that the Principality is "alleged" or "supposed", but what's the core issue here? Why is there so much doubt about the existence of the Principality, that people are willing to edit-war about it? How does it tie in to the Hungarian/Slovakian disputes? --Elonka 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the alleged "Principality of Nitra" is the medieval equivalent to Slovakia. The mainstream Slovakian view is that the (proto-)Slovaks lived on nearly the same territories where modern Slovakia is located and they established a flourishing medieval state (e.g, they suppose 30 cities in the "Principality" while the Moravians only had 15 towns); the "Principality of Nitra" was united with Moravia in 833 forming Great Moravia, but the "Principality" remained an autonomous territory within the empire, moreover, it reserved its autonomous status within the Kingdom of Hungary till 1108. I think, from Hungarian point of view, the existence of the "Principality" is only a question of fact: it does not harm the self-reputation of any Hungarian. However, some aspects of the "Principality of Nitra" may be provocative or ridiculous for men-of-the-street in Hungary. E.g., the theory of a "Slovakian Empire in the Middle Ages" would possibly result in laughing in Hungary, while the statement that King Stephen I of Hungary defeated Koppány, the leader of the pagan Magyars, not only with the help of his wife's German retinue but also with the assistance of (proto-)Slovaks would be provocative. My feeling is that the edit-war about the issue is only question of wording: for Slovakian editors the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" is an unquestionable fact. They have been learning from childhood that huge number of written sources and other evidences prove that a flourishing state of the (proto-)Slovaks existed in the 9th century; therefore, any question regarding the existence of written sources may hurt their convinction. If you read the debate among Slovakian editors on the talk page of Nitra, you will probably understand that it is a sensitive issue. Borsoka (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am no historian, I think a few points should be rectified from a viewpoint of Slovak man-of-the-street.
As far as I remember my school years we never learned about Principality of Nitra as state of Slovaks, rather as state of (some) Slavs.
Further I remember nothing like "nearly the same territories where modern Slovakia is located" regarding Nitra principality and therefore I doubt it is mainstream Slovakian view. But may be.
Lastly, I see there are some historians (and more politicians) desperately trying now to show significance of Slovaks in the past and use that as a ground for their current day claims. However it is wrong to present them as the exclusive Slovak view and by showing their contradiction with facts to cast doubt also to other opinions (edits here) of Slovaks, even if this could be purely coincidental and inadvertent.
That is something that bothers me personally the most in recent disputes (or often just edit wars). --Ruziklan (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is very significant, thank you for your comments, and the insight into the school system, it would be useful to know when was this type of teaching in effect and if, or how the practice changed to the present day Fico-Slota government. Hobartimus (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. My comments were based on remarks made by Slovakian editors on talk pages connected to the History of Slovakia. E.g., for them King Stephen's refuge from Koppány to the Slavs is a "basic fact", while it is a surprise for a Hungarian. As to the territory of the "Principality of Nitra", I refer to the map in the article Great Moravia demonstrating a huge territory marked with red as the territory of the principality. If it contradicts to the mainstream view in Slovakia, it should be clearly adressed on the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something about Nitra that is making it high profile in current events? Was it referred to in a popular speech or book or magazine article? I'm still trying to understand why the name of a 9th century entity would even be coming up among "men on the street"? Is it because of the Hedvig Malina incident, or something else? --Elonka 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some high profile politicians connected to Slovak government (to say it very lightly) have recently come with statements about old Slav or even old Slovak history that are not very well grounded in historic studies (again to put it lightly). There are quite wide efforts to move similar claims to schoolbooks etc. As I have remarked above not everyone in Slovakia is happy about these efforts and it is currently a matter of debate. It is not directly related to Hedviga Malinová issue, but both issues have some nationalism behind. The fact is that nationalism got some momentum in Slovakia since Slovak National Party became a coalition party about two years ago, while Party of the Hungarian Coalition was in the previous two coalitions (i.e for 8 years...)
On the other hand, as Borsoka has remarked above, principality of Nitra and prince Pribina are taken as historic facts by standard history in Slovakia since long time ago and manifold references to both may be found in all kinds of history publications, both scientific as well as popular. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruziklan described it almost perfectly. Slovakia wants to build her own identity since becoming independent. Some try to do it in a modern, normal, European way, as it should, while others want it in a 19th century style nation state building way, like creating 1000-1500 years of history using some "different/alternative interpretations" and/or "minor ministerpretations" at large, or sometimes simply by claiming or inventing something. This aim is often ridiculed at Hungary by for example what Nmate wrote (Slovakia's full history can be sent in a short text message). While obviously Slovakia has a bit longer history, than a text message, it is obviously not as long as our beloved Janko & Anna and their comrades wants. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worthwhile to actually document some of the claims, in a neutral way. For example, if many politicians are repeating a claim (even if the claim is not true), we can still include the claim on Wikipedia, as long as we're careful and neutral about how we phrase it. For example, if all of the politicians were claiming that the moon was made of green cheese, we could say, "In 2008, some politicians such as (names) have been stating (quotes). Some of these statements have been repeated in (sources). However, mainstream historians such as (names) in (academic sources) say (different quotes)." The key is whether something is a "significant" view. If there's a significant view about something (even if it's wrong), it's okay to include it on Wikipedia, as long as (1) we include the sources; and (2) the views are provided in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE. Note that "significant" has to be defined carefully and with good judgment. For example, if one guy puts something in a self-published book but no one repeats it, that's not very much weight. However, if a major politician said something repeatedly as the major thrust of his speeches, that might qualify. --Elonka 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uploading pictures from newspapers

How (under what licence) can I upload any picture from a newspaper? I got confused in the labirynth of this, and when I eventually clicked on one of them, it disappeaser and I had to choose one from a list wich had many new things, the description did not... --Rembaoud (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, image licensing on Wikipedia is a nightmare. The basic rule of thumb is, that unless you personally own the picture, meaning you took the photo yourself, you probably can't upload it. There are a few exceptions to this, but they basically boil down to: (1) If you know who owns the copyright, and they give written permission to upload the photo under a free license; or (2) Some images are considered so rare, or impossible to get a free copy of, that they can be used under what's called "Fair Use". In the case of a newspaper photo, this would probably have to mean that it was either of something that happened very long ago, or was of an event that was very newsworthy, and a photo was essential to adequately describe it. But trust me, there are teams of admins who do nothing but scan for "bad license" pictures, and delete them, aggressively. Photos are uploaded to Wikipedia in the thousands, and they are deleted in the thousands.
Bottom line: Which photo? I'll take a look and let you know if there's a possible fair use exception. But the answer will probably be no. --Elonka 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pictures about Daniel Tupy on the net, for example: [11]. If I find a "normal" one, and I'd like to upload it (or for whatever else I'd like to illustrate), under wich licence (and how)? --Rembaoud (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need a photo that is under a free license, meaning it's in the Public Domain, or can be used under GFDL or CC-by-SA. You might want to check Flickr, because often there are photos there which are free to use. Or, contact the photographer and ask if they're willing to give permission for the photo to be used. You may also wish to contact Tupy's family directly. --Elonka 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks --Rembaoud (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

While reading articles connected to the history of Slovakia (i.e., Great Moravia, History of Slovakia, I realised that they usually contain(ed) a sentence that make a comparisons. E.g., statements similar to the following:

  • "there were 30 towns in the Principality of Nitra; note that there were only 11 towns in the Principality of Moravia";
  • "the diocese of Saint Method was the first archbishopric established in Slav region; note that the archbishopric of Prague was only funded much later".

Is it possible to complete such statements in a way like that "there were 30 towns in the Principality of Nitra; note that there were only 11 towns in the Principality of Moravia, there were only ... towns in ...., but there were ... towns in ...";", or "the diocese of Saint Method was the first archbishopric established in Slav region; note that the archbishopric of Kiev, Gniesno, Prague, Moscow, Cracow, Zagrab were only funded much later, and also note that archbishoprics for Latin, German and Eastern territories were established much earlier."? Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fico

Some stuff had been eventually [12] deleted from the page, after a short "debate" if we can call that[13] that. I would be really intrested where should the parts about Fico's relationship with the Slovak media should be moved from Robert Fico article. Someone please revert Ruziklan and put fact tags at the end of those sentences, asap I'll change them into english sources. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some to read in english:[14], [15], [16], [17], --Rembaoud (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rembaoud, you are welcome to edit the article and add information which comes from sources. A "revert" would be if you just put the information back without sources. However, if you add the information back with sources, that's not a revert, that's "improving the article". Please proceed. --Elonka 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Renewed edit warring

Controversial edits made by Nmate while we are still discussing some of these issues:[18][19] Without any explanation, he replaced "Slavic" by "Hungarian highland" and replaced the Slovak name of a town in north-eastern Slovakia by its Hungarian version. Is this undiscussed change meant to be an invitation to another round of edit warring? Or just an abuse of the fact that none of the editors under editing restrictions will dare to revert him? Anyway, this undiscussed and unsourced change is unacceptable for me and I do not see any reason why Nmate should be allowed to behave like this. If I revert him, I will get blocked for violating my editing restrictions. If I leave the article in Nmate's unacceptable version, the result will reward him for making undiscussed provocative edits. So, what is going to happen to that change?

This is not the first time something like that happened. I think we all should be bound by some rule or at least an agreement that we will not introduce any significant and potentially controversial changes before discussing them with other editors either here or at the talk page of a corresponding article. Without such an agreement, incidents like this one will always lead to more edit warring. Tankred (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Tankred's claims Nmate added the German, not the Hungarian version of the Slovak city's name. Hungarian highland (I think rather Upper Hungary) is a widely used name for the northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary (and he also left the modern phrase "present-day Slovakia" in parentheses). He also contacted MarkBA after being reverted two minutes later. I don't say that his edit was perfect, but it was definitely misrepresented here.
Some civility issues also with User:Tankred: here he gives me advice on where to go and what to do instead of editing Wikipedia (and he also knows very well that I proposed changes at the mentioned talk page without sufficient results). I don't know if that comment is in accordance with civility guidelines of the Digwuren case.
In this edit he reverted a Ukrainian/American editor's edit despite being on no-revert restrictions (and that was neither his userspace, nor blatant vandalism). Squash Racket (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you say it is all right to delete selected geographic names from articles about Slovakia while we are still discussing which names should be used? I also see a big difference between the words "Slavic" (as an identity of a people) and the "Hungarian highland" (as a place - by the way factually questionable because that part of Slovakia was just freshly acquired by the Hungarian kings and I do not know any reliable English source calling it "Hungarian highland"). But the main point is that an editor is making substantial and controversial changes without proposing them at a talk page first and without adding any supporting citations. I have also proposed a solution that would prevent this kind of behavior in the future. But if no one is interested in it, please propose another solution because this situation is unacceptable. There are only few active editors interested in Slovakia-related topics. Since most of them are somehow "restricted" now, edits of Slovakia-related articles are not subject of the usual "edit-review-change" process, in which a stable version of an article emerges from edits of several people. If there is something unreasonable and unsourced, it is usually either reverted or changed (and then perhaps changed again to something in the middle - a stable state). But now, anyone can do anything (except for a really blatant vandalism) to Slovakia-related articles and their edits will stay there regardless of quality. I see it as a major problem. If you are unhappy about my proposal, I wonder what solution you would recommend to resolve this problem. Tankred (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't say that his edit was perfect" became "So you say it is all right..." in your words (why am I not surprised?). What I said is that you were reporting others while disrespecting the rules yourself.
If I understand you correctly: you are under editing restrictions after a history of disruptive edits (just like Nmate BTW), and now you want to drag everybody (including for example Ruziklan and Markussep) under the same restrictions. That would be a nice, fair proposal?
Perhaps you should try using the talk page of the relevant article and discuss problems patiently instead of revert warring. Squash Racket (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Tankred has a right to feel frustrated here. Squash Racket, your comments could also be a bit more civil. Personally, I think that you are both very intelligent editors, well-read, and capable of some excellent editing. Sometimes I wish that you could drive to each other's town and meet for a beer or something, as I think that you would find that you had a lot in common. For example, you both love editing Wikipedia!  :) --Elonka 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Slovak

History of Slovak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a debate about its content on its talkpage, with the "usual editwar" in the article's history. Take a look at this article too. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the following templates to that article: {{histinfo}}, {{misleading}}, {{Disputed}}, {{POV}}, {{Refimprove}}. However, no one (including you) has pointed to any specific piece of information in that article that should be tagged by these five templates. I have requested explanation on the talk page of that article on January 17 (!), but to no avail. These tags serve some purpose. An article cannot be improved if you do not say what exactly you want to be improved. If you say an article is disputed, what exactly in it you want to dispute and based on what sources? The same for the "misleading" and "POV" tags. Please explain or revert yourself. Tags with no justification make no sense. Tankred (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all but the {{POV}} tag. See also WP:POINT. --Elonka 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

# (cur) (last) 13:56, 3 May 2008 Rembaoud (Talk | contribs) (12,719 bytes) (oh, there was several other templates on this, wich Tankred deleted at sight. I put them back, since a dispute is ongoing on the talkpage about all of them) (undo) --Rembaoud (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKoon added these [20] templates between 22:24-22:42, January 17, and made a rather sentimental expression about the addong of them on the talkpage at 22:29[21]. Tankred asked for expression at the talkpage at 23:52[22], then deleted the templates from the article as "lack of any discussion" [23] at 23:53 (!!!!). CoolKoon replied at 00:15 btw[24], but Takred did not replied back, so the discussion practically ended. I did not want to label or point out this act, so I simply put them back. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petržalka

The dispute at this article seems to boil down to whether the alternate names, "(Hungarian (Pozsony)ligetfalu, German Engerau)" should be included in the lead, or further down in the article. According to my reading of WP:NCGN, the names should be included in the lead. Does anyone have other opinions on this? --Elonka 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. There seem to be only two notable alternative names and there is no separate Etymology section anyway:

Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.

Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this was also discussed at /Archive 3#Petržalka. --Elonka 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my review of the previous discussions in the archive, it appears that of all currently active editors, the consensus is to include the alternate names in the lead. This is also in accordance with WP:UE#Include alternatives and WP:NCGN#General guidelines. So the alternate names should be added back in. Anyone that removes them, can have their edit reverted, though whoever is restoring the names should link to the relevant discussions in the edit summary, place a warning on the removing user's talkpage which links to the discussion, and potentially bring it up here at the Experiment page as well. If anyone wants to change this status quo, it will then be their responsibility to participate at talk and to build a new consensus, per WP:CCC.

Caveat: This does not necessarily mean that everyone should go nuts and force controversial changes into every article where you think this applies. See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If an article has already been in edit-wars about this, or there's a pre-existing discussion at talk, move cautiously, bring things up at the talkpage, state what you're intending, link to previous discussions as needed, give it a couple days to see if anyone wants to object. And if someone does object, listen respectfully, and see if you can find a compromise. There may be good reasons why putting in alternate names may be a bad idea on some articles (for example if it's an archaic name, or does not appear in reliable sources). Or, on some particular article, the editors there may have worked out some previous compromise, so be careful about respecting a "special case" consensus. But in cases where there are no objections, I'd say go ahead and proceed. --Elonka 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Ruziklan' last changes [25] because He hushed up essence of the sentences so.Nmate (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your additions were too long compared to other points. Secondly, in 1945 point, action of Slovak soldiers in flats of Hungarians did not take place in Petržalka, but in Bratislava. Thirdly, details of murdered soldiers are not important, they were Hungarians and that is enough. Fourthly, reliability of your source is questionable. Fifthly, details of Daniel Tupý affair are at respective page. And finally, deleted sentence was unsourced assessment not relevant to Petržalka. With what do you not agree? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You compromised the integrity of sourced text, please never do that again. Thank you. Hobartimus (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No answer to my points, just revert of part of my edit. Thank you. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just rewrite sourced text with your own words and change it's meaning while leaving the source there to support the "new" text. Actually rather than "reverting part of your edit" I did check the source and made sure that it corresponds to the text of the article. Did you actually check the source before editing or not? Hobartimus (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could I if it is in the language I do not speak? Yes, I have been on that page and have not understood it, naturally. That is why I have questioned it. Actually I would like to know what was wrong in my edit because in my view it has captured the essence of previous version as regards Petržalka, having in the mind also the expected length of text. What is so important for Petržalka history in the statement that Hungarians were allowed half an hour for packing in Bratislava? Further your edit does not respect the formatting as did not the Nmate's... but I am not going to edit it anymore, do whatever you want. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional claims need exceptional sources, is that right? I do not consider http://www.transindex.ro/ a reliable source. If those things happened as described by Hobartimus and Nmate, I am sure they will be able to find a reliable published source (such as a book on history of Bratislava). Until then, I believe the claim should be removed. I have also a problem with the length of Nmate's addition, which is disproportionately too long. The addition is about what happened in Bratislava, not what happened in Petrzalka. If included in an article about Petrzalka, Nmate's text should be shortened. Tankred (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is becoming ridiculous. Nmate again states in the edit summary that he does not agree with my rewrite, but he does not say what was wrong in my shortening rewrite and fails to notice that current version is not mine, rather the result of Hobartimus' and Tankred's editing. I repeatedly state that I am not going to edit this, however as far as I understand the way this experiment is lead, discussing in edit summaries is not enough. I have given my points on both experiment talk and Petržalka talk in length. Why does not Nmate do it similarly?
And is new source any better? --Ruziklan (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the timeline here let's pick part of the text, "inhuman circumstances" that comes from the source word for word. First it's added by Nmate, then deleted by Ruziklan, then readded by me after I check the source and find it there [26], then deleted by Tankred again [27] (reverting my addition), over sourced information. Tankred is also on a "no revert" restriction yet he chose to undo the actions of others by re-deleting parts of the text. Before moving forward it would be good to know if the restrictions still apply to him or he can freely violate them and avoid blocking by simply asking for a "review" of his edits. [28]. Preventing deletion of sourced information is important to the success of the project, if restrictions don't work someone will have to revert these abusive deletions. Hobartimus (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we are at citing word for word, I ask what is the quality of source? (Actually sources now, in time of my edit there was only one.) I have repeatedly questioned its reliability and no one has addressed this point. Where does the exact information come from? --Ruziklan (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You never made a serious argument (or any argument) as to why you think the source is unreliable. There is nothing to respond to. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. Hobartimus (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally for me it is unreliable because it is neither in laguage I could check, there are no sources cited there, it is not peer reviewed journal... tell me why should I consider it reliable and be satisfied with citing word by word? Dunabogdány is a village in Hungary, I suppose [29] is its website, how could this be reliable source in area of history of Petržalka more than 60 years old? Transindex is a Hungarian daily newspaper published in Romania, i.e. may be good source for current news in Romania from Hungarian point of view, but hardly history of Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a few sources are named "Forrás: MTI, MTI-Sajtóadatbank" very clearly at the bottom. I'm still not sure if you want to attack the strong editorial team [30] or claim that this newspaper is obscure citing the low number of google hits [31] which is under a million or claim that only journals written by academics should be allowed as a general rule and all lesser sources are unacceptable starting with Slovak language blogs [32] currently present in an article inserted by Slovak user user:Svetovid and easily retained there for months. Or you might want to check a short history describing the beginnings of Transindex at [33] or the article in the Hungarian wiki [34] or use any number of your own ways to look into Transindex. However I'm not sure what you want to achive here by these attacks on the source, if you believe that none of the events described ever happened it would be easier to bring a peer-reviewed, academic, English language, easily accessible source that says that and then everyone could just easily verify the facts for themselves without any problems. Hobartimus (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the blogpost you mention lists errors and inconsistencies in the reportages about Hedviga Malinová case by people from Slovak Television, i.e. institution with supposedly strong editorial team and fact-checking. We are on daily basis witnessing a lot of factual errors and wrong interpretations or tendentional claims in newspapers or in TV worldwide and by the way, the blog you mention as a whole concentrates on uncovering errors made by and quality assessment of opinion-forming media in Slovakia. This, by the way, makes your point about strong editorial team in newspaper rather weak.
I do not challenge Svetovid's source, I challenge Nmate's source, so please, stay on-topic. Or are we going to discuss reliability of all sources? WP:RS gives guideline and here are then examples - where exactly does fall your source in it?
You know I cannot check anything in Hungarian.
I want to achieve providing reliable and well-balanced information to reader. While I do not question that something really bad happened in 1945 to Hungarians living in Bratislava, I question the extent of information relevant to Petržalka and the accuracy of description of events. Right now we are discussing the latter. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to propose new a policy of sourcing in which Slovak sources - even blogs - are always reliable while non-Slovak sources ,newspapers are always non-reliable and they can always be attacked based on absolutely no evidence or even before the attacker actually checks what the source really is. However until such policy is accepted there should be no double standard that includes Slovak blogs while excluding far superior sources of other origin. I was surprised to find myself reverted by a user supposedly on "no revert" restriction and a few things need to be clarified in case such future abuse happens that includes removal of sourced text, that is my main concern here. Hobartimus (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention on proposing the new policy, even less something you have imagined, the current is adequate. Have I said anywhere blogs are reliable sources? No. Have I said all Slovak sources are reliable? No.
I hope Elonka would bring her uninvolved view here as regards all things happening, including Nmate's undisturbed editing without involving in talk in the meantime, Tankred's edit explained in talk and the reliability of sources in History section of Petržalka article. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually the blogpost you mention lists errors and inconsistencies in the reportages" It seems to me that by saying this as fact, you were implying that the blog was a reliable, trustworthy source, since the only source for the "errors" listed in this case was the blogger. And we still have no source not even a blog to the effect that there was no internment camp in Petržalka in 1945. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have I added something from the blog to the article abou Hedviga Malinová? No. My remark did not assess the substance of that article, not even why Svetovid has used that reference, if it was him. I was rather pointing to the amount of contentious material in current media and this specific blogpost have served as an example. It is even known that some of blogpost claims are wrong, but many of them are verifiable in the STV archive and indeed many people verified them. The point is only: We are on daily basis witnessing a lot of factual errors and wrong interpretations or tendentional claims in newspapers or in TV - and that is valid worldwide. As a result using such media for encyclopedic purposes is not the best way of sourcing articles. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a good point I can agree with. However there are other questions as well such as when there is a choice between "no sources" or "some sources" is it better to go with "no sources" considering that TV or newspaper reportings have a possibility for errors? Hobartimus (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruziklan,regardless of what we may personally feel or blogs may report about newspapers, unless you have a very specific reason to doubt this particular material, the consensus at Wikipedia is that material from reputable newspapers is considered reliable. If you're concerned that this particular material is incorrect, please try to find other sources which support your concerns or contradict the text in the newspaper article. If the majority of sources say something different than the newspaper article, it's much easier to make the case that the newspaper is mistaken.

Nmate, please remember to use the talk page of the article (or here) instead of trying to converse through edit summaries. Shell babelfish 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source for these edits?[35][36] I have never heard anyone calling Petrzalka the "Bronx of Bratislava". I do not think it is appropriate to add it as a "nick name" to the infobox. Nick names in infoboxes should be properly sourced and a particular nick name should be proven to be widely used. Otherwise we could add a thousand one liners from the press there as "nick names". Unless someone can provide overwhelming evidence that "Bronx of Bratislava" is really a nick name of Petrzalka, it should be removed from the infobox. Tankred (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these city nicknames are very much a North American phenomenon, see for instance List of city nicknames in Texas. There may be some cities in Europe that have a (tourist) slogan, like "The City of Light" for Paris, but the status of the nicknames for Bratislava and Petržalka is not so clear to me. Markussep Talk 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I listened this statement that "Bratislava Bronx" or "Pozsonyi Bronx" to the Hungarian radios several times.

[37] [38] [39] Because of its bad crime statistics.Nmate (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference in the Slovak Spectator. It seems to me it's only used jokingly, and in no way officially. If it is (or was) widely used, you could mention it in the text (for instance in the "characteristics" section), but the infobox doesn't seem the right place. Markussep Talk 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.Nmate (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names

Okay, I need some more input here. Nmate (talk · contribs) was inserting Hungarian names in dozens of articles. Then an anon, 78.99.161.255 (talk · contribs), from a Slovakian IP, was following along behind, reverting all the changes. I've blocked the anon, but need some help reviewing the articles. Are any of them controversial changes, meaning that there's dispute on the talkpages or other edit wars? If not, my inclination is to let the names be put back in, per the Petrzalka discussion above, with a link to the discussion. But if there is any controversy on any of these, it's best to bring it up now, and set those articles aside for the moment. I don't want to open up dozens of worm cans at once. --Elonka 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this can be seen as controversial. While Petržalka is just a few kms from Hungary, Nmate was adding Hungarian names to caves and mountain ranges in whole Slovakia. I have checked a few contributions and I do not think they add to mutual understanding and cooperation within experiment framework. Do we really need Hungarian name on every single geographic location in Slovakia? --Ruziklan (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that Nmate was going from personal knowledge on some of them. And some of the articles appear to be very poorly-sourced. I'm trying to think of what a good "speed brake" would be on these. I'm inclined to once again go back to the mantra of "sources" and say that Hungarian (or whichever) names can be added, as long as a source is included which shows that the name is in current and relatively common usage. Would that help do you think? --Elonka 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb this might be good idea in my view. There are always two possibilities: 1. that Hungarian atlas uses them (and this is my personal tip for source for mass editing) 2. that they were official names in times when Hungarian was used in Slovakia area. Nevertheless, most of them are probably not in current and relatively common usage in Slovak or in English language. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCGN, the alternate name should be added if (1) it's used commonly in a significant number (10%) of English-language sources; or (2) it's relevant, such as the name that has been used by the inhabitants. Just having it in a Hungarian atlas probably wouldn't be enough, and just saying, "There was this one Hungarian guy who lived there" wouldn't be enough, as by that logic we would have to add Hungarian names to articles like California. ;) --Elonka 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Hungarian names to the articles because everything Slovakian geographical name exist in Hungarian variant. Their Hungarian name are the origin name and their Slovak names are the loan translations of the Hungarian names. Moreover the Little Carpathians article implies its German name "Kleinen Karpaten" but the Hungarian name "Kis-Kárpátok" was removed by this anonymous user immediately. This is very interesting.
Some geographical article imply historical decriptions but their historical Hungarian names very disturb the Slovaks.Nmate (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.99.161.255 (talk · contribs) was probably MarkBA (talk · contribs). Fits in the list at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nmate, what are you using for sources to prove that an area has a Hungarian name? --Elonka 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe immediately that most features in Slovakia have a name in Hungarian, see for instance these maps from around 1910, and I see the relevance for some of them, but definitely not all. Note that the names should be relevant for the audience of English wikipedia, as Elonka quoted above. Nmates statement Their Hungarian name are the origin name and their Slovak names are the loan translations of the Hungarian names is definitely not true for several of the names, for instance "Kriváň" which is obviously a Slavic word (кривой krivoy means "bent" in Russian). Markussep Talk 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For exaple I use second hand books before 1920 (because this territory belong to Hungary before 1920) or Hungarian historical books or guide books.Nmate (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do a controversial edit of this type, please propose it first here. Personally, I do not see many reasons how the second-hand Hungarian books published 90 years ago can prove that a particular Hungarian name is widely used in modern English sources. You should also read WP:NCGN that describes in detail when and how we put names into the lead. Gerlachovsky stit has a separate Names section, so alternative names are used there. And your claim that the Kozie chrbty mountain has two names[40] is wrong. I do not know any English source using the name Kecske-hát and there are no Hungarian who could possibly use that name living in that region. I think the whole edit war between you and an anonymous user could be easily prevented if you refrained from doing undiscussed controversial edits. We could discuss them in advance and come up with some solution. Tankred (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the usage of the Hungarian names in the Slovak topics, but in this case not.[41]

Because FC Artmedia Petržalka was not an legal successor of Pozsonyi Torna Egyesület.Nmate (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

As a personal note, I have had a death in my family (Croatian side), so I will be out of town traveling to the funeral in Indianapolis, and my wiki-time will be constrained for the next few days. I am bringing my laptop with me, and will try to keep up on some Wikipedia things as I can, but probably won't have time to do as much in-depth analysis as usual.. My apologies for my absence, I'll let you know when I'm 100% back. Please, try to be nice to each other for the next few days. I have been very pleased with how some articles have been growing, and people have been working together to ensure that different viewpoints are incorporated, and linked to reliable sources. I hope you will be able to continue that trend. :) If you need the urgent attention of an administrator, I recommend contacting User:EdJohnston. I have also asked administrator User:Shell Kinney (one of the members of WP:MEDCOM) to keep an eye on the experiment, so you can ask her for help as well. They are both excellent administrators and I completely trust their judgment to do what they think is best. Thanks for understanding, --Elonka 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear about a death in your family. Thank you for notifying us and please do not worry about Wikipedia. I am sure nothing is so pressing here. Tankred (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it looks like I'm slowly a persona non grata here, I am sorry to hear this piece of news as well. Thank you anyway for notifying. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Mednyánszky

Ladislav Mednyánszky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be moved to László Mednyánszky. If you read it, you'll understand why. It is now however struck between his Slovak (Ladislav) and Hungarian (Mednyánszky) spelling. He was ethnic Hungarian, born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Hungary. The full article is struck between a Slovak interpretation of history and placenames and a Hungarian one. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active threads

After Elonka announced her short-term absence, Hobartimus has already made three attempts to ban MarkBA. Since he somehow forgot to put links on this page, here is the list of the currently active threads:

There is a long record of such "reports" and "counter-reports" in this conflict and they did not resolve any of the substantive issues spoiling relations between us. It was my understanding that we were trying to reach some kind of dispute resolution here and any new supposed incidents would be reported here as well. I trust Elonka's judgment because she is closely following this complex case. Maybe I was wrong and attempts to get the other side blocked by contacting random uninvolved administrators are still a fair game. If this is the case, there have been other users who have recently broken their editing restrictions and/or posted personal attacks. Should I go ahead and report them? Are we going to return to this old game or we want to have a centralized discussion here? Tankred (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&oldid=211515645"