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 edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archiving
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 93: Line 93:
::Dear Elonka, I think you have been in an extremly sensitive position, because as we have experienced, even the existence of certain former states may be a crucial issue in our region. I think you assisted us to understand that the history of our region can be interpreted in several ways, and interpretations that differ from the ones we have learnt may be valid, as well. My feeling is that there are several editors on both sides who cannot accept this diversity of views, but I hope that step by step a kind of consesus would develop among us. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::Dear Elonka, I think you have been in an extremly sensitive position, because as we have experienced, even the existence of certain former states may be a crucial issue in our region. I think you assisted us to understand that the history of our region can be interpreted in several ways, and interpretations that differ from the ones we have learnt may be valid, as well. My feeling is that there are several editors on both sides who cannot accept this diversity of views, but I hope that step by step a kind of consesus would develop among us. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


==Hungary–Slovakia relations==
==correct use of historical names of Hungary==
I´m not quite sure if this page is still active but I´m gonna give a shot. Over past few weeks there has been flame war in [[Hungary–Slovakia relations]] article between primary myself and [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] about the look of the page. My point of view can be seen on discussion page, Horbatimus probably as well but it´s going nowhere and I really don´t have neither patiente or time to watch over every edit of Horbatimus, and I guess he either don´t have mood for protecting it before my edits. I asked already for third party to help end this flame war, but the response haven´t arrived yet. Major concerns in article are primary in language law section. Especially about deleting or not deleting the memorial passage and than interpretation and forcing the point of view in article. If you could be take the position of third party in this case and resolve it, it would be great, I want to just stabilaze this article. --[[User:EllsworthSK|EllsworthSK]] ([[User talk:EllsworthSK|talk]]) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked a lot of biografies and I see a common practice to name a place of birth and palce of death: using '''full information''' see [[Garry Kasparov]]: born ''in [[Baku]], [[Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic|Azerbaijan SSR]], [[Soviet Union]]'' or [[Josip Broz Tito]] born in ''[[Kumrovec]], [[Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia|Croatia-Slavonia]], [[Austria-Hungary]]'', but for a lot of people in years 1700 - 1918 I see only Hungary, that is a humbug, Hungary was not existent and [[Kingdom of Hungary]] is only half-truth and falsehood, Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austrian Empire, after 1867 Austria-Hungary, best cheek is comming from [[User:Hobartimus]], he say Segesvar, probably death place of Petofi is in Hungary, there was a lot of laughter, Teansylvania was only 1867-1918 part of Kingdom of Hungary, but not Hungary. --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nina, I think your above remark contain some misunderstanding of historical facts. (1)The Kingdom of Hungary existed from 1000/1001 until 1946 when the Republic of Hungary was proclaimed. (2)The Austrian Empire existed from 1804 until 1918, therefore the Kingdom of Hungary could not be its part before. (3)Although the Archdukes (and later Emperors of) of Austria were also Kings of Hungary from 1526, it does not mean that Hungary was a part of Austria. E.g., Louis I of Hungary was also King of Poland, but nobody claims that Poland was part of the Kingdom of Hungary at that time. (4) Although the political union of the realms and provinces ruled by the Habsburg monarchs went further than a pure personal union, because there were some institutions (e.g., the Council of War) whose jurisdiction expanded over all of them, but consitutionally the Kingdom of Hungary was an independent state with its own legislative and governmental bodies independent from the jurisdiction of foreign powers. E.g., both Hungary and Slovakia are members of the EU, but nobody claims that they are not independent countries any more, although some EU institutions can issue decrees that are obligatory for the legislative and judiciary bodies of the two countries; in the Kingdom of Hungary, during the Habsburgs' rule, the Diets passed acts and no foreign powers could legally enforce the Estates or the law courts in the kingdom to accept any direction. So, I think it is more than surprising that anybody qualifies a polity existing over 1000 years as humbug. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 10:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:The Kingdom of Hungary existed 1000-1944/1946, but Kingdom of Hungary

:from [[Kingdom of Hungary]]:

:*''After a failed Ottoman invasion of Austria in 1683, the Habsburgs went on the offensive against the Turks; by the end of the 17th century, they had managed to conquer the remainder of the historical Kingdom of Hungary and the principality of Transylvania. At this point, the Royal Hungary terminology was dropped, and the area was once again referred to as the Kingdom of Hungary, although '''it was still administered as a part of the Habsburg realm'''. In the 18th century, the Kingdom of Hungary had its own Diet (parliament) and constitution, but the members of the Governor's Council (Helytartótanács, the office of the palatine) were appointed by the Habsburg monarch, and the superior economic institution, the Hungarian Chamber, was directly subordinated to the Court Chamber in Vienna.''

:*from [[History of Hungary 1700-1919]]
:*''Vienna '''controlled''' the foreign affairs, defense, tariffs, and other functions.''

:Summary: Hungary was 1526-1918 only a province of Habsburg monarchy, '''no chance to be independent country''', correct syntax is 1526-1867 [[Kingdom of Hungary]], [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and 1867 - 1918 [[Kingdom of Hungary]], [[Austria-Hungary]]. :--[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is no such country as Habsburg Monarchy I'm sorry. Habsburg Monarchy is not a country. See [[Holy Roman Empire]]. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::: you a right, there is today not such country, there is not more Sovjet Union, but Habsburg Monarchy and Sovjet Union - 2 historical empires: from hu-wp: '''Habsburg Birodalom''' névvel szokás illetni a Habsburg-ház kezén levő államok összességét I. Rudolf német király 13. századi uralkodásától kezdve egészen az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia 1867es megalakulásáig. --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes and that includes Spain, The territory of the Netherlands, All the states in the Holy Roman Empire, including parts of present day Italy, Switzerland, the list goes on. The Habsburg House ruled over a huge number of countries during the centuries, but this didn't mean all of this mess was one country. Hungarian King Nagy Lajos ruled over [[Naples]] (Nápoly) for example in present day Italy but we don't say that Naples was part of Hungary at the time. Or Poland or Wallachia or Moldavia or ... he ruled a lot of lands. Mátyás Hunyadi along with quite a few other Hungarian Kings also ruled over [[Bohemia]], Bosnia and since the King decided on foreign policy all these lands didn't have their foreign policy at the time or their own army (it served at the will of the King) etc. This doesn't mean they were part of each other, that would require a common language common laws etc etc. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::easy - habsburg monarchy was not a country, but an empire, an empire not need a common language, laws and hungary was not an independent country, sovjet union was 1950 not a country and estonia was 1950 not an independent country. --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Habsburg Monarchy was not actually used as an official name of any country state or empire. There was no entity by that name, in existence ever. This is a simple, yet undisputable fact. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::yes, i made now in flash article about habsburg monarchy and i am the only historian, who use it. --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Within the EU, EU institutions control the tariffs, the budgetary system, several taxes, several fields of civil law and other functions of the member states. Does it mean that Hungary and Slovakia lost their independence when they joined the EU? As to the Habsburg empire, during the middle ages, similar empires also existed: the empire of the Luxembourg dynasty (Bohemia, Hungary, Luxemburg), the empire of the Jagello dynasty (Poland, Bohemia, Lithuania, Hungary). All these empires had their own institutions (at least the king and his council), but nobody claims that they lost their own independence. Yes, the union of the realms and the provinces within the Habsburg Empire formed a political union, because they were governed by the same monarchs and there were some common institutions, but each realms and provinces reserved their own constitutional institutions: e.g., the Habsburg kings could not levy tax without the consent of the Diet, the viceroy (the Palatine) was elected by the Diet, the Diet passed the act that ensured the succession of the female line of the Habsburgs. In the course of the 17th century, the Habsburg kings made peaces with the Estates of the Kingdom of Hungary and even in 1711 they had to accept a compormise that ensured the constitutional (although in some territories, only limited) independence of the Kingdom of Hungary. Even the Habsburg kings of Hungary, could not grant offices and estates to their partisans living in their other realms in the Kingdom of Hungary, without the consent of the Estates. I accept that the Kingdom of Hungary did not enjoy the same level of independence from the 17th century, than it had enjoyed before, but Hungary and Slovakia lost the control over several field of law when they joined the EU, but, I presume, both of them are still independent countries with their own independent constitutional institutions. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if you work in wikipedia exactly, you have to write: 1949-1953 [[Hungary]] [[amusement park]] of [[Stalin]], 1953-1989 Hungary (satellite of [[Moskau]]), 1989-2003 Hungary (schoolgirl of [[Washington]]), 2003 - Hungary (part of [[EU]]) --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:Hi Nina, isn't this discussion about how to refer to places in Hungary and former Hungarian territories in 18th and 19th century context? Maybe it's better to focus on that. The [[History of Hungary 1700-1919]] article may help. You can also research how other encyclopedias treat similar cases, for instance [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/454072/Sandor-Petofi#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=S%C3%A1ndor%20Pet%C5%91fi%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia Encyclopaedia Britannica]. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:Dear Nina, your suggestion is really interesting and remarkable. My only concern that it would be difficult to reach a consensus on the proper adjectives. E.g., the [[amusement park]] of [[Stalin]] would not be acceptable for several editors, because the Revolution of 1956 suggests that Hungary was obviously not an amusement park in those years, the satellite of Moskau would not differentiate Hungary from most of the states in the Soviet Block. [[Special:Contributions/213.134.24.30|213.134.24.30]] ([[User talk:213.134.24.30|talk]]) 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::Dear IP and Markussep, my last contribution was a piece of irony, but history of Hungary is truly not funny, it is a long run of negative experience and foreign rule, 1956 is not exception, but it was not only tragedy for concerned generation, but a piece of hope for next generation. It is for me not so important to find a consensus - my chanches are not good - I see I receive a lot of irrational answers - but to say - please be careful and act not only at national basis. ''EB P. symbolized the Hungarian desire for freedom.'' --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::Dear Nina, I fully agree that we should try to act not only at national basis, and we should accept that some of our remarks (e.g., amusement park of Stalin) may be offensive for others. And I also presume that we all also should accept that none of us is in the position to decide whether a fact of history is true or not, and it is not our task to describe our own interpretations of historical facts and events, but to help our community to learn all the relevant interpretations. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

*N. F.
*Ó, mondd Istenem! Ó, mondd meg nekem!
*Ó, mondd miért van ez?
*És mondd meddig tart ez még?
*Horthy jött a fehér lovon,
*Sztálin vágtatott harckocsikon,
*Hitler hozta a csodafegyvert,
*ZSEBREVÁGOTT minket a történelem.
(sorry - only hungarian text) --[[User:Nina.Charousek|Nina.Charousek]] ([[User talk:Nina.Charousek|talk]]) 05:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:33, 13 May 2013

Shortcut

Ground rules

[edit]

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

[edit]

Active threads

[edit]

Archived threads

[edit]

Naming convention

[edit]

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


The 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.

New home

[edit]

Okay, this "Experiment" has been going really well, and I am very proud of all that we have accomplished.  :) I have seen many people learn new ways of dealing with disputes, and some really good articles are developing. I've also been getting positive feedback from other Wikipedia administrators, that they liked what we've done here, and would like to try out some of the techniques in other areas of conflict on Wikipedia. So congratulations!  :) I know that some of the things that we did here were not easy, but I really appreciate how much everyone was working hard to learn new ways to communicate and edit. I have especially been pleased when I saw people reaching out to former enemies, and be willing to forgive and move forward.

As the first step of formalizing this Experiment into something that other people can study, I'd like to move this page to a new home, so it's no longer an "experiment". Any ideas on what a good name would be? Other projects have used things like "Cooperation board" or "Reconciliation project", but we're open to new suggestions as well. I am also open to any feedback that anyone has about how this Experiment developed over the last month or two, and ways that we could have done things better. Or, if there was anything that you thought was particularly helpful, which we should be sure to teach to other folks who are trying to deal with complex disputes, please bring it up! Thanks, --Elonka 04:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selling the format, huh? :) I think this page should stay as a common notice and talkboard for this topic, and should be renamed to reflect that. My suggestion would be "Slovak-Hungarian common talkboard" or something similar. --Rembaoud (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion. Or something like "Cooperation board Slovak-Hungarian topics". One of my concerns is that several editors dropped out of the discussion, the main reason seems to be frustration over misbehaviour of other (incl. anonymous) editors, it might be a good idea to ask them why they left. IMO the main advantages of the experiment are the "no revert restrictions" and someone (Elonka) who instructs the participants to discuss in a civil way. Markussep Talk 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really good idea. I hope that editors who seem to have left Wikipedia for a time would later rejoin us. Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left because I am interested in serious editing, that is addition of new and sourced facts and correction of any inaccuracies. I am not interested in petty arguments about editors' personal goals and interests that don't seem to have much with what Wikipedia should be.--Svetovid (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the editors who "left" have gone on to other hobbies. It is fairly typicaly that people in online communities participate for a period of time (usually 6-18 months), and then they move on. But as older voices leave, newer voices arrive. It's a constant flow.  :) So, for a new title, Cooperation board for Slovak-Hungarian topics works for everyone? --Elonka 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Markussep Talk 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community review

[edit]

Hi all.  :) A question has come up about some of my methods on managing articles, and whether or not I am using good judgment as an administrator. I therefore invite anyone within reach of this page who has an opinion on the matter (good or bad) to participate in the discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka, I think you have been in an extremly sensitive position, because as we have experienced, even the existence of certain former states may be a crucial issue in our region. I think you assisted us to understand that the history of our region can be interpreted in several ways, and interpretations that differ from the ones we have learnt may be valid, as well. My feeling is that there are several editors on both sides who cannot accept this diversity of views, but I hope that step by step a kind of consesus would develop among us. Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Slovakia relations

[edit]

I´m not quite sure if this page is still active but I´m gonna give a shot. Over past few weeks there has been flame war in Hungary–Slovakia relations article between primary myself and Hobartimus about the look of the page. My point of view can be seen on discussion page, Horbatimus probably as well but it´s going nowhere and I really don´t have neither patiente or time to watch over every edit of Horbatimus, and I guess he either don´t have mood for protecting it before my edits. I asked already for third party to help end this flame war, but the response haven´t arrived yet. Major concerns in article are primary in language law section. Especially about deleting or not deleting the memorial passage and than interpretation and forcing the point of view in article. If you could be take the position of third party in this case and resolve it, it would be great, I want to just stabilaze this article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&oldid=554936481"