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
→‎The Autobahn: Košice edit was not against the convention
Tankred (talk | contribs)
7,836 edits
Line 228: Line 228:
Regarding major cities ([[Pozsony]], [[Kassa]] etc.) I don't think ''any'' research is needed. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding major cities ([[Pozsony]], [[Kassa]] etc.) I don't think ''any'' research is needed. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
: I think for this question of research, we could fall back on [[WP:V]]. In other words, sources are not required unless information is challenged "or likely to be challenged". If someone legitimately feels that a naming situation is obvious, no extra research might be needed. But as soon as a name is challenged, a source should definitely be provided. If there are lots of good faith challenges, then lots of research might be required, but, well, that's Wikipedia. :) Would this address concerns, or am I misunderstanding the disagreement? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
: I think for this question of research, we could fall back on [[WP:V]]. In other words, sources are not required unless information is challenged "or likely to be challenged". If someone legitimately feels that a naming situation is obvious, no extra research might be needed. But as soon as a name is challenged, a source should definitely be provided. If there are lots of good faith challenges, then lots of research might be required, but, well, that's Wikipedia. :) Would this address concerns, or am I misunderstanding the disagreement? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::That sounds reasonable to me. Are there any objections or we can make it part of the consensus? We should also think about where to discuss relevance of names. WP:NCGN recommends the talk page of the article about the place in question. But it would be perhaps more useful for our group to create a special talk page, on which we would centralize discussions about geographic names (of course, with a thread linked from all other relevant talk pages). [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred|talk]]) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the discussed guidelines, an alternative name is used only at the first occasion, not every time a place is mentioned. That is how Markussep also applied the results of our discussion in his exemplary edits. Therefore, Nmate's recent edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Petzval&curid=843038&diff=213432379&oldid=212807777], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Franti%C5%A1ek_Koll%C3%A1r&diff=prev&oldid=213423468], etc.) should be corrected and someone should leave him an explanatory message. Another issue is that [[Bratislava]] should be mentioned at the first reference to ''Pressburg'', right? So, this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%A1n_Koll%C3%A1r&diff=prev&oldid=213427806] is not what we have agreed upon and should be corrected as well. I would prefer someone else doing it in order to assure Nmate that this is not only my personal interpretation. Anyone up to this task? [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred|talk]]) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


== Ladislav Mednyánszky ==
== Ladislav Mednyánszky ==

Revision as of 14:31, 19 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 polls can be seen in Archive 2)


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.
If this proposal means, that Hungarian and German names should be forgotten, I presume that it would not be acceptable for many editors. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]


Your name

  • Ideal:
  • Acceptable:
  • Unacceptable:


Discussion 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]

I think that each of the towns, villages had its official Hungarian name 90 years ago; therefore the previous official name could be mentioned once in each articles. The historical context may help in some cases, e.g., mentioning "Óbuda" or "Altoffen" instead of "Aquincum" in an article describing the Roman province Pannonia would sound funny for me. Similarly, I would prefer "Blatnograd" instead of "Zalavár" in articles referring to Pribina's county in Transdanubia. I suggest that in articles relating to German people in Slovakia (e.g., Zipsers) we should prefer the German name, and similarly articles referring to Hungarian people (not to the Kingdom of Hungary) we could prefer the Hungarian name. Of course, the Slovak name should be mentioned once in the articles. Moreover, articles on the History of Slovakia could prefer the Slovakian name (even without mentioning the Hungarian and German names), but a clear distinction should be made between the "History of the northern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" and the "History of Slovakia". The former articles should clearly mention the Hungarian and German denominations as well. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to prove what is the preferred English usage? Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in other cases, we can look at relevant English sources, meaning major encyclopedias, articles accessible by Google Scholar, books indexed by Google Books, Cambridge histories, etc. Tankred (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the poll

The poll has closed, and two modifications received enough support to be implemented in the proposal. Before we can start implementing the rules, we need to make sure that the proposal as it is now, is widely supported. And of course there must be room for corrections, if the rules don't work out in practice like we want them to. So, how should we continue now? Markussep Talk 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to hear what exactly each of us wants. If you are interested, you can use the thread above. Otherwise, we can blindly propose any changes and a number of editors will always veto them. If they do not say what exactly they want, I have no idea if there is any space for consensus. If people are interested, I would love to learn more about their true preferences in the thread above. And then we can take the intersection as the basis for new rules. After that, we can also negotiate what we are willing to give up. I think it would be better to reach some negotiated consensus that to vote about different things, hoping that our particular ethnic group will prevail here and there. What do you think? Tankred (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a more fact-based approach. It's not very interesting to Wikipedia what we, a couple of editors who happen to be interested in the subject, would like. I think the main issue is what the reader would expect, and that's what's commonly used in English literature about the subject and reference works. I'd propose to do some research on English usage, and modify the rules accordingly, if necessary. Markussep Talk 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of this poll is slightly different. Since MarkBA voted en bloc against all the proposals, the results for B should be 7:4 and for E 8:5. Anyway, I am not sure if we can declare any of the proposed points to be "accepted" because polls are not majority voting, they should show the degree of consensus. In this case, the poll has showed that there is no consensus. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Straw polls: "A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it." Since we do not have any consensus here, we should negotiate one. Tankred (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBA's "vote" (he didn't actually vote IMO) wouldn't change the results. I don't think we need 100% consensus, which would be very difficult to achieve. Markussep Talk 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After much debate, we arrived now to the implementation phase. I think it would be best if this would begin by Markussep editing a few articles according to the rules to see how things work out in practice. Hobartimus (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can do that for a few articles (starting with some of the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Affected articles), and I will announce it here if I run into difficulties. Meanwhile, as proof (or refutation) of what we've assumed here, I would like to see examples of which names are used in English books about the concerned subjects. I don't have access to books on Slovak history, biographies etc. (except what you can find on internet and google books), so maybe you (plural) can help. Markussep Talk 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just "transformed" Ľudovít Štúr and Anton Bernolák, see if I made any mistakes. Markussep Talk 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems, please continue. Hobartimus (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Pavel Jozef Šafárik, Juraj Jánošík and Lajos Kossuth (only a few places). Markussep Talk 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done maybe we could set up a system like with the French communes to check what's done and what's ahead? Nothing that elaborate something a lot simpler would do here just to see where can someone pick up things. Maybe like do all biographies starting with A-G in one go something like that. You propably know a lot more about this stuff though, how to do things like this. Hobartimus (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's a lot easier for French communes because there's a well-defined number of them, and there are lists of them available. Maybe there are good categories or lists to work with, like Category:Slovak people or List of Slovaks and if that doesn't include ethnic Hungarians that lived in what is now Slovakia, part of List of Hungarians. Just copy those lists to a project page and start working ;-) I have to warn you: I only meant these edits as examples, I don't have the time to work through all those biographies. And I'd like some response from the community before we start changing everything. Markussep Talk 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just asking, hope you'll have a little time for a few more, in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that in the poll, there were certain "camps" that were always on opposite sides. One possible way to proceed, is for each "side" to appoint a spokesperson, and then let those two people engage in a one-on-one conversation, to see if they can find a compromise. Off the top of my head, I would suggest Tankred and Squash Racket, though you are free to choose whomever you like. --Elonka 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as editors are not always online, I think everyone will just comment when dropping in. Nevertheless if we decide to continue this way, I think Hobartimus is a better choice, he has dealt more with the naming issues. Squash Racket (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I did some test changes: [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]. In some of them I added several Hungarian names, and in others I added several Slovak names, and of course there's always the Bratislava-anachronism-issue. Some of the questions I still have:
  • In general: what do we think of these edits?
  • I've been in doubt whether to add German names, I suppose Käsmark was also commonly used in English for Kežmarok, and there might be more towns like this (Sillein, Tyrnau).
  • I don't think I added Prešporok for Bratislava anywhere. My impression is that it's far less used in English than Pressburg and Pozsony. As the rules are written now, Prešporok must be added if it's a relevant alternative name. So, is it relevant (in 19th century context)?
  • In the Juraj Jánošík article, it felt a bit silly to add Hungarian names for villages around Čadca. They all have Hungarian names, but I wonder whether they're used in English. Markussep Talk 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer clear and consensual rules to the will of a transient plurality. A poll in Wikipedia is not majority voting; it merely indicates whether there is any consensus or not. Clearly, this poll showed the lack of consensus, but it indicates existence of some plurality. Since most of the editors expressing their opinion in a poll were Hungarian, many of them have never made any significant contribution to Slovakia-related articles (in terms of writing), and some of the most prolific Slovak editors refused to vote on this proposal, I do not think it will be seen as binding by Slovak editors (who often voted against the current plurality). If there are any editors willing to work on the rules that would be seen by all or most of us as consensual and binding, I will be happy to continue in the discussion.
My personal pragmatic view at this moment is: well, if this is a solution accepted by most of us, so be it. But before its implementation, I would like to highlight two problems that should be fixed. First, the alternative names that are not linked should be italicized. As far as I can tell, it is a standard way in geographic articles. Second, I can understand why the German name of Kezmarok and the Hungarian name of Dunajska Streda should be relevant. But I am not convinced that we need to use Hungarian names whenever a random village in Slovakia is mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Slovakia is not a bilingual country and Hungarian names only rarely appear in English sources. If people believe that a particular Hungarian or German name is frequently used in English, they should provide evidence for it. I am ready to go beyond Wikipedia's rules (WP:NCGN) for the sake of peace, but I am not ready to go beyond the common sense. I do not see any reason why a 100% Slovak village in a multinational kingdom with a German ruler and Latin as the official language should be labeled by a Hungarian name. A specific example of what I mean is the Juraj Janosik article. Since we will surely see many cases like this one, I would like to encourage interested editors to show evidence supporting their view that a Hungarian name is used in relevant English sources in the given context. I think it would be a good idea to use the concerned talk page for this purpose prior inclusion of these names. With these two caveats (italics and inclusion of relevant names only) I welcome Markussep's edits and I also thank him for his extremely valuable engagement in this debate. Tankred (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tankred, we voted the changes. It was open for anyone to comment or vote or do whatever. Therefore we did not went beyond any rules, but changed one, so what you "offer" as a "favor for peace" is LOL. You ought to do it if you do not want to get banned. Like MarkBA(hn?) --Rembaoud (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, it wasn't a vote. It was a poll. I realize that it looked like a vote, but it was not a "majority rules" situation, more the poll was used to find out what everyone was thinking. This is another place where Wikipedia has different dispute resolution procedures than you might see in other off-wiki situations. On Wikipedia, we don't vote to see where the majority is, we try to find a compromise or "consensus" position that satisfies everyone. In certain situations where unanimity is not possible (or where speed is preferably over lengthy discussions), a decision might be made which seems to favor a majority, but even then, it is not a "counting the votes" situation, it is one where someone else (usually an uninvolved administrator) reads the entire discussion and then attempts to make a decision which reflects the community "consensus". See WP:POLLS and Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Tankred. I think it's a pity some editors that are/were active in the field didn't participate in the poll, but we can't force them. They could have indicated what they didn't like about the proposal, and I would have created another modification to vote about. Of course we can still discuss modification of the proposal, it's not carved in stone. For now, I'm glad most of the edit-warring has ceased, a big Thank You to Elonka!
About the italics: I've seen that used for foreign words that are not in parentheses. I read WP:ITALICS and WP:NCGN, the latter says it's customary to italicise foreign names. So why not, let's italicise them.
About the relevance of certain alternative names, I think that's a valid question that will keep coming up if we don't address it. Maybe we should pick a few places and research the names used for them in English in pre- and post-1918 context, using the sources mentioned at WP:NCGN. Markussep Talk 08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting ready to archive the poll (though I am offering no opinion on whether or not it defines a consensus). One possible way to proceed here would be to write up whatever you feel is the current consensus, including both the parts that are agreed, and also listing, "There is not yet consensus on the following points" and list those too. Then present that in a separate section, and ask, "Does everyone agree that this is the current state of things?" If anyone disagrees, they can write up their own view of what they think the "state of discussion" is, and then we can go from there. I recommend writing it in a "message in a bottle" format, in other words, write it for the benefit of those who weren't involved in the poll, have come to the discussion recently, and who are curious, "So, what was decided, what are the remaining open questions?" --Elonka 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of discussion

This is a discussion about a naming convention for places in Slovakia, and specifically about the name(s) to use in other articles (e.g. biographies). I classified many of the previously discussed issues below under "consensus" and "no consensus yet". Of course that's my interpretation, and open for discussion (below). If I missed something relevant, please add it. Markussep Talk 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

  • In articles about places in Slovakia, relevant alternative names are mentioned either in the lead or (if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves) in a separate "names" section immediately after the lead
  • Relevant alternative names can be used in articles
  • 1918 is used in the naming convention as turning point
  • Before 1918: the first instance of a name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
  • After 1918: the Slovak name is relevant
  • Minority language (Hungarian, German, Rusyn, ...) names should be added at least once if contemporary census shows more than 20% of the population of the place belongs to that minority
  • For consistency within an article, use one name as the primary name (alternative names are given in parentheses) unless the context changes within an article (e.g. History of Bratislava)
  • For places that changed names (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): don't use the modern name as the primary name in contexts before that name was created/first used

No consensus yet

  • Should (all) relevant alternative names be added or not?
  • After 1918 context does it matter whether the subject of the article is ethnically Slovak, Hungarian or other?
  • After 1918 should the Slovak name be the primary name in articles about Slovaks, and the Hungarian name be the primary name in articles about Hungarians?
  • In pre-1918 context: are Hungarian names always relevant?

Discussion

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:

  • Before 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
  • After 1918: use the Slovak name. Use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census.
  • 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.

Consensus check

Does everyone agree that the above convention reflects the current state of consensus? I'd appreciate if everyone could weigh in with "agree" or disagree" (and if you disagree, please state which part that you disagree about). Please note that I am not asking if you like the convention. Instead, I am asking if you think that it more or less accurately reflects a consensus, from the previous discussions viewable at /Archive 2. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity, but it does require discussion, careful listening to all views, and the weighing of available options. If anyone feels that something was not yet properly discussed, please say so. You are also welcome to say something like, "I don't personally agree with the convention, but I do agree that it seems to reflect current consensus, though of course Consensus may change in the future."

So, do you agree that there is consensus? Or no? --Elonka 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can't say whether this reflects a consensus, I wonder if there are any existing town articles or biographical articles where all the names follow the convention. This question might serve as a reality check for whether the convention is well-defined and makes sense. I was going to suggest Bratislava as a test case, but if that's too controversial, can anyone think of another example? EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although if I happen to forget the terms of the consensus in some edits (yeah, I really DO forget some things) please remind me of them (which Tankred, Svetovid, MarkBA etc. will surely do for me after reverting my edits, right? :P) CoolKoon (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markussep made some edits earlier I think these come pretty close. [12], [13], [14], [15] [16] He wrote and gave the diffs above I'm just copying them here. Hobartimus (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Tankreds comments on the naming convention and my "test edits". He proposes to italicise the alternative names (I don't think we've discussed it earlier, but it's uncontroversial IMO, and it's supported by guidelines), and he asks for evidence of the usage of Hungarian names in English texts. Markussep Talk 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the above changes, which seem consistent my own understanding of the new naming convention. I agree that italicization of the first use of an alternate name seems harmless and unlikely to be controversial, though we should listen to any objections. It seems worthwhile for people to carefully go ahead and start making conformant changes to articles, but keep returning to this page to present examples of the diffs, to see if any problem is perceived. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that most of the editors who are saying "there is consensus" are the more Hungarian-leaning editors, I recommend proceeding cautiously. The only Slovak-side editor who has spoken up is Tankred,[17] so I think that his views should be listened to carefully. As for the others on the Slovakian side, Ruziklan has been absent for awhile, MarkBA is blocked for sockpuppetry, and Svetovid is also on a two-week block. I have offered to lift his block so that he could participate here, but he has not replied. I would be happier about signing off on consensus if we had more Slovak input. Then again, "decisions are made by those who show up." What I'd like to avoid though, is a declaration of "Hungarian consensus" now, and then if Slovaks do come by later, I don't want them told, "Sorry, we've already made a decision." But if no one's objecting to a course of action, then that's a kind of "silent consensus", at least for now. --Elonka 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing completely with the comment by Tankred that you highlighted, where he refers to two problems that need fixing. One was his suggestion for italics, and the other was for omitting the Hungarian names of random Slovak villages and of people like Juraj Janosik that apparently don't have any Hungarian connection. Do we have any idea what reservations the other Slovak editors might have expressed if the had joined the poll? EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a hint of MarkBA's opinion in User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 2#Discussion (continued), specifically his comments of 7 May. But he didn't really explain what was wrong with the parts he disliked. Svetovid was involved in a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties, his main concern (I think) is similar to Tankred's: (lack of) evidence of the use of Hungarian names for places in Slovakia in English. BTW the Hungarian connection for Juraj Jánošík is that he lived in the Kingdom of Hungary, albeit in an area that never had a large Hungarian population. Markussep Talk 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the article looked about a year ago [18] intrestingly in that version the Hungarian name Jánosik György is listed so the editors back then did think that it had some Hungarian connection. Another intresting thing is that the article lists "Juro" as a variant of the name of the subject and the article was edited by banned user:Juro. The article contains sentences like "Under Jánošík's leadership, the group was exceptionally chivalrous: They did not kill any of the robbed victims and even helped an accidentally injured priest." I'm not sure Eva Krekovičová for example would agree with that assessment. The myth is not separated from fact within the article for example a section is titled "biography". The part where some of the names are is problematic in itself, maybe the article shouldn't contain an unsourced list of "other members" in the first place which is also highly irrelevant to the article, if they are notable they should have their own articles. Even if there was some reason for listing "other members" a sentence would suffice instead of the present list format and adding the home village for each member brings no useful information to the reader anyhow. Hobartimus (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
random Slovak villages that don't have any Hungarian connection? I haven't heard of any such thing. Maybe because all of those Slovak villages were part of the Kingdom of Hungary almost since the beginning (most of those villages were founded in the Kingdom of Hungary) CoolKoon (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: I've tried to discuss the issue with MarkBA after he was blocked and asked for his hostility towards Hungarian things in general. Unfortunately the discussion has been forcefully halted by some admins of the Slovak Wikipedia. They were pretty hostile to me and blocked my accound there for 6 months shortly after that. CoolKoon (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


One year ago there were Hungarian names in Juraj Jánošík, but there are still no sources to establish a Hungarian connection. There are plenty of data to show the Slovak and Polish connections. If someone can show that Janosik was a folk hero for Hungarians, and not just for the other two nationalities, that would be enough proof for me, but nobody has established that. I gather that Janosik's residence in the Kingdom of Hungary is a factor to be considered, but I'd hope that is not considered the decisive item. If we do make that a decisive factor, then the vast crowd of small Slovak villages (with little or no Hungarian population) that used to be in the Kingdom of Hungary will also need to be given Hungarian names, which seems undesirable. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this would require some research to look into the deteals unfortunately very little real info is known about this person much of it is legends or similar. There is also substantial controversy (not covered by the article) as recently as early 2008 with many opinions conflicting on the topic and in many questions we are left without solid proof. The convention however already provides terms like "clearly Slovak", "clearly Hungarian" person for cases like this. This article would fit into the "clearly Slovak" category in my opinion and only the first instance requires the other name to be present all the following cases the name can be used without the parentheses. If an article contains long lists about "all the villages ever visited by person X" or "all the villages where the non-notable bandits were from" then with such lists instead of a few names per article we get somewhat more. If the article only used names of settlements that were important and related to Jánosik himself and not his fellow bandits it would mean very few names affected. Hobartimus (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is no true cross-national consensus. As to Slovak users, both MarkBA ans Svetovid (only on his talk page because he got blocked in the meantime) refused the proposal. The text right after the "Naming convention" headline in this thread is not what we have agreed upon and it would be perhaps safer to remove it. For example, a number of editors strongly rejected the idea of dividing Wikipedia into two separate bubbles of reality, one for "clearly Slovak" persons and the other for "clearly Hungarian" persons. On the other hand, the list of points created by Markussep above this thread (sections "Consensus" and "No consensus yet") sums up the results of our discussion so far. I think that is a compromise tacitly supported by those who have participated in the discussion. I will be happy to support it if the two points I have raised are adequately addressed. I think the italicized alternative names are totally harmless, in line with the current usage in Wikipedia, and no one objected to them. So, can we add them to the list? As to the evidence for the use of Hungarian names in English sources, I would like to thank EdJohnston and Markussep for their input. I also hope more editors will comment on this issue, as it seems pretty crucial. Tankred (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the above text of the naming convention formed after weeks of discussion several rounds of voting (this could be considered the 3rd round) with the participation of about 15 editors(if we count all "rounds") represents consensus of all the previous discussions and should definitely not be removed. Also we do need some text after all to show for all this time and effort spent in this process initiated by Markussep. Commenting on the idea of requiring "proof" I fear that this could be used by bad faith users to constantly demand "proof" from persons they dislike. Also would lead to more arguments not less and go against stability one of the main points of the convention. I must also point out that a very similar wording "unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that..." was already proposed (D) recently and was already rejected soundly so proposing something this similar is not a good idea in my opinion. For all these reasons I must strongly reject this idea. However I'd like to see some reasons for the use of italics I feel this could enjoy unanimous support if some good reasons were brought up for the use of them other than lack of reasons not to do this. Hobartimus (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBA and Svetovid didn't take part in the poll (and that was their decision, they had opportunity to do so, but they refused to).
My only problem with providing evidence for every single place is that it would require too much time and that was the very problem with WP:NCGN.
That is why this whole discussion has been initiated actually here:
Markussep, thank you for your useful suggestions. I generally agree with all of them:
  • The Slovak names of neighboring counties should be mentioned at least at the first occurrence of a county's name in an article. (...)
Cheers. Tankred (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW I couldn't find the diff for the comment, that's why I quoted the relevant part of it. Squash Racket (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it surely will not be so time-consuming to find evidence that those few major towns that are frequently mentioned in Wikipedia (Bratislava, Kosice, Trnava, etc.) are known under their Hungarian (or German) names in English sources. But why should we refer to smaller settlements in the regions without any significant Hungarian population automatically by their Hungarian names? These names are not used in English. I think the English usage should be the criterion here because it is the English Wikipedia. Although we can all agree that it makes sense to use the name Pressburg for Bratislava in the 19th century, the inclusion of Hungarian names of small villages in the 18th-century northern Slovakia needs some reasonable justification. Tankred (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment quoted above you agreed to have Slovak names for old Hungarian counties without demanding any kind of evidence for each and all of them.
Also let me have my doubt: in the thread just below I also heard there was no evidence in English. I could find a number of reliable sources available online after just a quick Google search. The problem is doing this little research for hundreds of places or having a general agreement instead.
Regarding major cities (Pozsony, Kassa etc.) I don't think any research is needed. Squash Racket (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for this question of research, we could fall back on WP:V. In other words, sources are not required unless information is challenged "or likely to be challenged". If someone legitimately feels that a naming situation is obvious, no extra research might be needed. But as soon as a name is challenged, a source should definitely be provided. If there are lots of good faith challenges, then lots of research might be required, but, well, that's Wikipedia.  :) Would this address concerns, or am I misunderstanding the disagreement? --Elonka 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. Are there any objections or we can make it part of the consensus? We should also think about where to discuss relevance of names. WP:NCGN recommends the talk page of the article about the place in question. But it would be perhaps more useful for our group to create a special talk page, on which we would centralize discussions about geographic names (of course, with a thread linked from all other relevant talk pages). Tankred (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the discussed guidelines, an alternative name is used only at the first occasion, not every time a place is mentioned. That is how Markussep also applied the results of our discussion in his exemplary edits. Therefore, Nmate's recent edits ([19], [20], etc.) should be corrected and someone should leave him an explanatory message. Another issue is that Bratislava should be mentioned at the first reference to Pressburg, right? So, this edit[21] is not what we have agreed upon and should be corrected as well. I would prefer someone else doing it in order to assure Nmate that this is not only my personal interpretation. Anyone up to this task? Tankred (talk) 14:31, 19 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]

I agree. Someone should definitely rename the article. However it should be done by someone who's not on an edit restriction so Tankred wouldn't have to tell on me for violating the controversial EE articles editing restriction imposed on me by Elonka..... CoolKoon (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to rename this article, I would suggest they initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and show evidence supporting their view that a particular name is widely used in relevant English sources. I would support Ladislav Medňanský as a new name because this is how he is called in Slovak sources. Both his first name and his last name are of Slavic/Slovak origin. He was born in what is now Slovakia and is still considered Slovak there. I do not think Paris and Vienna were part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so I somehow cannot believe Rembaoud's statement "He was ethnic Hungarian, born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Hungary". But this is my personal view. What is more important than what Rembaoud, CoolKoon, and Tankred think is what English sources say. I have never read any English book mentioning him, so I do not know his "English name". If you want to rename this (or any sensitive) article, please provide evidence and citations on the article's talk page. Tankred (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then let's use this page for the discussion. BTW it's pretty much false reasoning that if somebody has lived in that part of Hungary which is now Slovakia he/she must have been Slovak. Unfortunately many Slovaks agree to this reasoning. And besides I could argue that since Štúr, Hurban, Hodža, Kollár etc. lived in Hungary they must've been Hungarians (although many Slovaks would lynch me for such a statement). As for László Mednyánszky it's interesting that many other nations seem to support our POV: the French; the Germans: [22],[23] and [24];even the Russians: [25] and [26] (hint for those who don't understand the Cyrilic alphabet: search for "Ласло Меднянски" and Vengria is Hungary in Russian). Unfortunately Squash Rocket has found some nice English sources so I won'T have to search for those :P CoolKoon (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times mentions the Hungarian painter several times by his name, László Mednyánszky. Also here and here. Lonely Planet also mentions him by his name, the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture also.
The name can be found also in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and the The dictionary of art. Squash Racket (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to László Mednyánszky per all the above. Hobartimus (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is one week old. Google results also support the Hungarian name. I moved the page, I think we may close this thread now. Squash Racket (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ;) CoolKoon (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the move. From his birth and upbringing it is hard to tell if his Hungarian or Slovak name should be preferred. It's the general use of his Hungarian name in the English sources that is persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Autobahn

I have a bad feeling that this new user might be MarkBA (talk · contribs). Mark finished editing on May 8, this new user started editing on May 8. Its fourth edit was a "revert" of Nmate and deleted a part of the Hungarian history of the town as "unimportant"[27], and under the label "more neutral" rewrited Hungarian history to its Slovak interpretation (April laws to March laws)[28] then renames the article of it too[29]. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it's MarkBA. Or if it is MarkBA, he has turned over a completely new leaf. The Autobahn is participating in the same topic area, but he is doing so in a very civil manner, and he's actually working on articles, creating and updating templates, and making constructive edits.[30] The communication style is also very different. I don't think he's an entirely new user, because he does seem to be very comfortable with wiki syntax right off the bat. But regardless of whether it's MarkBA or not, as long as he is able to participate in a civil and constructive manner, I think he should be allowed to do so. --Elonka 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.[31] --Elonka 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that edit was totally legitimate and not only in line with WP:NCGN, but also in line with what any reader can actually see in this type of articles. Names sections have been written in a number of geographic articles and many editors (including some of the Hungarian editors participating in this very discussion) have subsequently removed the redundant names from a lead. I have probably done it too on several occasions and it did not make me a sockpuppet of MarkBA:-) The Autobahn has received some not exactly welcoming messages from Nmate just after he/she joined Wikipedia and there is now this thread created by Rembaoud. After seeing all that and also after reading Hobartimus' questions about RfC against me in the thread below, I got a disturbing and hopefully unwarranted feeling that there might be some concerted effort to get as many Slovak users as possible blocked. I believe this dispute has already greatly harmed the Slovakia-related articles in Wikipedia and it would be nice to contain it instead of spreading it out. Although the Wikiproject Slovakia managed to upgrade several articles to the FA and GA status in its short heyday, its membership is now effectively wiped out. Tulkohalten left disgusted, MarkBA is banned from editing Eastern European topics, Svetovid is blocked, and I am trying to limit my presence here as much as possible. If we welcome new users interested in Slovakia by sockpuppetry charges, Slovakia-related topics will never recover. I was told to assume good faith by the same users who now seem to be unwilling to assume good faith in this case. It is not exactly the lesson I expected to learn from this experiment. Tankred (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian editors removed names from the lead, because a number of Slovak editors were heavily pushing for that solution, not because they agreed with it.
This editor is not new to Wikipedia, so I'm just wondering why is it strange that someone may think it is MarkBA (who couldn't stop sockpuppetry as we all know). It is better to mention it here than immediately at a noticeboard. Squash Racket (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tankred, I just lifted your own "no revert" restrictions, since the 30 days are up.  :) I personally don't feel that I've blocked anyone in an unfair manner, but if you feel that I have done so, I encourage you to speak up about it. No one, to my knowledge, has been blocked for expressing a civil opinion on a talkpage. And I promise you, Tankred, that you are not in any immediate danger of being blocked. If I do see anything at all that I consider problematic, I promise that I would give you a fair warning on your talkpage first. --Elonka 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I did not challenge any of your blocks (including the one of my own account). In fact, I greatly appreciate what you are doing for us. I respect you as a neutral and trustworthy arbiter that we all need. I am concerned with the fact that some other users seem to assume bad faith and I am afraid that it may discourage the future generation of editors interested in Slovakia. Since the previous generation did not survive this dispute, new users are badly needed to maintain and improve quality of Slovakia-related articles. I hope they will not be dragged into this conflict. Tankred (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to Autobahn's edit of Košice that Elonka questioned above, I think his change is directly against the draft naming convention as I understand it. He was removing the Hungarian name of the city from the lead. It appears that Košice is a large city with an obvious Hungarian connection. I'm not happy with his removal of various events of Hungarian history from Bratislava either but this is not controlled by the naming convention as such. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, his removal of the Hungarian name Kassa (that was also in the "Names" section) is in line with WP:NCGN and the first bullet of the "consensus" above. Markussep Talk 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question about "no revert" restrictions

(ported from User talk:Elonka)

I see that you are busy with other issues as well but I have a question about what is appropriate if someone thinks an edit might be a violation of an existing restriction. Is it better to revert the edit or note it on your talk page or the discussion page? Some of these might be complex or someone might be even mistaken in thinking something was a revert, for example an edit [32] and the revert [33] the edit [34] and the revert [35] the edit [36] and the revert [37]. So the question is what to do, where to post in cases like this, on your talk page or the special page, or nowhere just revert the edit with a summary? Some of the cases might be arguable as well or hard to see that it was a revert of an edit a few days before, or some cases thought to be reverts can turn out to be complete non-reverts even. For example in the second case listed above a source was added, which would make it a non-revert, but the quote and it's translation (like you required before) is missing as well as the page number and the information inserted also seems redundant in relation to the text 2 sentences back. Most instances are much more clear cut than that but I'm sure these issues will come in the future as well so a little clarification from you would be helpful about how to act in such cases and what exactly counts as a "revert"? Hobartimus (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just heading out the door at the moment, so I haven't looked at the diffs in detail. My general advice though, is that if it's not urgent (and content disputes usually aren't), bring it up at the article talkpage, and/or the experiment page. Even if this leaves the article in a "wrong" state for a few days, it'll sort itself out in the long run. See WP:DEADLINE, especially View Two. --Elonka 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the Bratislava diffs, and will check the others later. However, if you feel that someone has violated their restrictions, I would encourage you to speak up about it if you think that it will head off future problems. Your best bet is probably a polite message to the user's talkpage, pointing out what you feel was a violation, and explaining how the editor can do better (and why it's a good idea). --Elonka 04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not urgent at all so It can wait until you have the time to look at the diffs, the main question is what exactly constitutes a "revert" in this context. Also I wanted to ask, what is your opinion of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process? Do these usually result in some type of action by the community or not so much? Hobartimus (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally see the User Conduct RfC as something of a last resort, when other measures have not been effective. It may also be useful for very complex cases, where the involved editors have not been successful in coming up with a solution, and they are genuinely looking for outside input. There have been some calls for doing away with the process entirely, though I have definitely seen cases where the RfC has been useful in raising awareness of a problem. In other cases though, I have seen it used as a "club" to try and embarrass or intimidate an editor, rather than to try and find a solution.
It often depends on which uninvolved editors show up to participate in the Request. Sometimes you get lucky and get some genuinely thoughtful opinions, other times you get the "conflict junkies" who may actively make the situation worse. I would recommend that you look at some previous RfCs, to get a sense of how they work. Or even better, look at some of the current ones, and try to go in as an uninvolved editor and offer a comment. This will often be a rapid way of identifying the challenges involved in offering a cogent opinion.
In terms of the Hungarian-Slovakian disputes, I don't think an RfC/U would offer very much beyond what we're already doing. If you feel that someone needs to be topic banned or blocked, you could just bring it up at the Experiment page, which also serves as a limited form of RfC, ANI, and Wikiquette alerts, all rolled into one.  :) Or if you think that a problem isn't being properly addressed, then please feel free to bring it up in more detail, so that we can examine what other solutions are available. If you're not comfortable discussing it on-wiki, you (or anyone) is also free to send me an email, or contact me in IMs. --Elonka 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&oldid=213472709"