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
→correct use of historical names of Hungary: refocus on 18th and 19th century
Archiving older threads
Line 110: Line 110:


::::OK with me. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
::::OK with me. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

==Bratislava==
* {{article|Bratislava}}
This sentence is unfair on top of the article, because the city's Hungarian historical roots is stronger:

Bratislava was home to the '''Slovak national movement''' of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

So this sentence would be better:

'''Pressburg was home many of Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.'''

it is better '''[[Holy Crown of Hungary|crown jewels]]''' instead of [[crown jewels]]

This sentence is very one-sided also:

in 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, ''Presspurske Nowiny'' (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published.

better solution:

'''The first newspapers were published here in Slovak, German and Hungarian languages -''Presspurske Nowiny'', ''Pressburger Zeitung'' and ''Magyar hírmondó'' in the 18th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.'''

This sentence in not so good:As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848 in the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called March laws (also called April laws), which included the abolition of serfdom, at the Primate's Palace.

better sentence:

As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called '''April laws''', at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of a '''today's modern Hungarian constitution.'''

this is a wrong sentence with an anachronistic bridge name:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, [[Starý most (Bratislava)]], was built in 1891.

good sentence:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, [[Starý most (Bratislava)'''|Frantz Joseph bridge''']], was built in 1891.

furtermore some absentee but very relevant hungarian related events from the 19th century:

In 1825 István Széchenyi offers his yearly income to establish the Hungarian National Learned Society (now Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in Pressburg. Between 1843 and 1844 Hungarian language is proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and teaching by the Diet in Pressburg. Here formed the first responsible Hungarian Ministry in 1848 on 7th of April. On 7th October in 1848 Josip Jelačić's army threatened the city with bombing but He marched away from Hungarian army who occupied the city until 19th December. On July in 1849 Julius Jacob von Haynau set up his campaign in the city. After this Pressburg became a center of military headquarters. In 1850 railway line connected Budapest and Pressburg. The city was prosperitied by mayor Henrik Justi and banker Theodor Edl in the second half of the 19th century. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 They were political opponents.

[[User:Nmate|Nmate]] ([[User talk:Nmate|talk]]) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:My comments, point by point:
:*Slovak national movement: it would be very strange to omit this, it was very relevant, and it was for a large part based in Bratislava/Pressburg and surroundings. This doesn't deny the importance of the city for Hungary, does it?
:*crown jewels: OK, not controversial IMO, probably collateral damage of the revert war.
:*The ''Presspursky Nowiny'' was (apparently, I don't know it) the first newspaper in the Slovak language, that's relevant. The other newspapers are mentioned in the article [[History of Bratislava]]. The German one was definitely not the first one in German, if the Hungarian one was the first in Hungarian, it's worth mentioning here.
:*I don't understand the fuss about March or April. If the 1848 law served as the basis for the present constitution of Hungary, that might be worth mentioning, but the article [[Politics of Hungary]] says that it's based on the 1949 constitution of Germany. Who's right?
:*It's quite common to use the present name for a bridge or other landmarks. A better wording may be: "The [[Starý most (Bratislava)|Starý most]], built in 1891, was the city's first permanent bridge over the Danube."
:*Your "absentee" paragraph is rather poorly written. Let me rephrase the first part like this: "In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg."

:*I'm not sure what to do with your "ministry" line (what does "responsible" mean here?). If it evolved from the 1848 constitution, it might be better to make it a clause of that sentence. The Jelačić/Haynau part is a bit too much for this article, and also treated in the History of Bratislava article. It suffices to refer to the 1848 revolutions. The railway line to Budapest: OK (was it Buda or Pest? they hadn't merged yet in 1850). "prosperity" is not a verb, and the mayor and the banker are not so relevant IMO, the development of Pressburg in the late 19th century is already treated. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

my point of view:

1, Slovak national movement: I do not want to omit it - I would like to move it
from under the headline to historical context.It would be a good solution also: this sentence remain on this place but an another one very important Hungarian related event will be inserted under this headline too.

For example:

Pray codex is liked to the city - ''which was made between 1192 - 1195'' - that is the first known coherent literary remains of the Hungarian language. The city was the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy from 1536 to 1783. Pressburg was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

2, Newspapers:Hungarian and Slovak are together in an sentence is O.K.because the Magyar hírmondo was the first newspaper in Hungarian language.

3, It is true both : These laws meant the transition from the feudal society into the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary so these laws included the basis of today's modern Hungarian constitution. But it is true the German pattern also.

4, What You rewrote at Hungarian National Learned Society is O.K . A good clause will be find out with first responsible Hungarian Ministry. First responsible Hungarian Ministry means: the official name of the [[Lajos Batthyány|Batthyány]] government.

5, Bridge name is not so relevant for me.

6, What you wrote about revolutions of 1848 is O.K. I do not know exectly that railwayline connetion was at Pest or Buda.

[[User:Nmate|Nmate]] ([[User talk:Nmate|talk]]) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:1. What do you mean with "liked to the city"? Was it written there? <s>And does this prayer book have a specific name? "pray codex" sounds very general.</s>
:2. OK, that's relevant.
:3 and 4. I don't think the constitution is relevant enough for the Bratislava article then. The parliament (Diet) can be mentioned of course. Was it permanently in Pressburg, and when was it moved to Pest?
:5. OK
:6. According to German wikipedia, [[:de:k.k. Südöstliche Staatsbahn]], it was Pest, connected via Vác (''Waitzen'').
:I don't have the time to do it myself now, but I can do the changes on Monday. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pray codex contain a Mortuary speech and prayer and a almanac of Pozsony , which contains the historical events from 997 to 1203.[[User:Nmate|Nmate]] ([[User talk:Nmate|talk]]) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

:Hmmm, that's a rather weak link. It could be mentioned in the "History of Bratislava" article, but then for the almanac ("an early source for the history of Pressburg is the 13th century almanac in the Pray codex"), not for the sermon. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be right to wait for Hobartimus in the debate.

The first newspapers were published here in Slovak and Hungarian languages -''Presspurske Nowiny'' in 1783 and ''Magyar hírmondó'' in 1780 - in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Is it good?

In 1825 the [[Hungarian Academy of Sciences|Hungarian National Learned Society]] (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from [[István Széchenyi]]. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg.''As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called [[April laws]], at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of the civil society in the [[Kingdom of Hungary]]. Here formed the first independent Hungarian Ministry so called [[Lajos Batthyány|Batthyány]] government in 1848 on 7th of April. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria although the local residents were mainly German origins in that time.''

Is it good?

[[User:Nmate|Nmate]] ([[User talk:Nmate|talk]]) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:I've copied our discussion to [[Talk:Bratislava]], and will reply there from now on. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::Why would you do something like that to duplicate the exchange? Well it's not that important but anyway were most of the changes implemented in the article yet on which you agreed above? [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

:::It seemed quite logical since the discussion is about that article. A few changes were implemented, we're still discussing the rest. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 08:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

==Farewell==
Dear Elonka and others, I wish you good luck with your experiment. Although this page has definitely made the environment here more civil, I believe some users are still motivated by their desire to introduce politically motivated POV. New issues are emerging and old issues are re-emerging regardless of our discussions. Instead of improving quality of Wikipedia, many edits just reflect the discourse between marginal and often extreme political views in the region. It will hardly change until the degree of political polarization in Central Europe gets reduced or Wikipedia's rules get stricter. I have decided that I do not want to spend my days arguing in never-ending fights. I have done a lot of work on Slovakia-related articles since 2005, but I could not focus on writing recently due to all those time-consuming disputes. I do not enjoy that; I enjoy the creative part of our work. Although I consider this experiment extremely valuable for the future of Wikipedia, I do not feel like spending more time and energy in the project. I may return if a new generation of editors interested in Slovakia-related topics appears. But this area of Wikipedia is now a sad place to work. Good luck with your dispute resolution. [[User:Tankred|Tankred]] ([[User talk:Tankred|talk]]) 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I share the first few lines. Until the newest declaration of retirement. Sorry for my scepticism, (it is not maliciousness), but we had several examples in the past that retiring did not necessary meant retiring at all, but only a simple attempt of manipulating others (notably "outsiders"). Anyway, bye. --[[User:Rembaoud|Rembaoud]] ([[User talk:Rembaoud|talk]]) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:Tankred, thanks for your active participation in these Slovak-Hungarian discussions. I really value your contribution. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:You did a damn good job here, mate. Yeah, zealots have endless energy for their goals. And yes, it's pointless to waste time on them here. But in other areas, don't bow down or their dogmas will dominate.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
: Tankred, thank you for your participation, and if you ever want to return, you are always welcome. In the meantime, I wish you success, wherever your off-wiki travels take you. :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 04:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== Semi protection needed ==

Semi protection is needed at Bratislava and talk:Bratislava as a blatant sockpuppet of MarkBA is attacking those pages using the same dynamic IP range as before. MarkBA and sockpuppets targeted these pages before numerous times, just three examples from the talk page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABratislava&diff=213887888&oldid=213852293] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABratislava&diff=214224729&oldid=213887888] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABratislava&diff=206334714&oldid=206312869]. It seems that MarkBA simply will not stop and needs limiting either via more semi-protections to most of the articles he attacks or range-blocking the whole range altogether. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
: Anon has been blocked. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::Do you have any special reason to assume that he is MarkBA and not an unrelated Slovak editor? His behaviour sofar {{checkip|78.99.132.221}} has been civil and content-focused IMO, unlike MarkBA's. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Evidence? Since when is that required here?--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Turiec Basin]] ==

Hi Elonka, I would like to ask your opinion on the article [[Turiec Basin]]. Users Nmate and Hobartimus have twice added the Hungarian name for the basin into the article, although it is located in northern Slovakia, is a name of a basin (not a town or a person born before 1918) and the population of ethnic Hungarians living in the basin is very close to 0 (that is around 10 out of roughly 100.000 inhabitants of the basin, i.e about 0,01% by my reckoning). They have already been reverted once by an IP editor, and reverted him/her back. I have really no intention on starting a revert war, as I find this type of editing highly counter-productive and diverting the very much needed energy from other more useful and necessary stuff.

Therefore, as the arbiter in the Slovak-Hungarian issue and so-to-say an expert in the field, could you please voice your opinion on the whether, as per the Hungarian-Slovak Experiment, the article on the basin should also bear the Hungarian name or not?

Thank you for your help, it is very much appreciated.

[[User:PeterRet|PeterRet]] ([[User talk:PeterRet|talk]]) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:IP 78.99.161.255 making the edit was a confirmed as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Looking at the user page helps not to confuse real IP editors with sockpuppets but it's hard to track them sometimes and properly mark the IP so there is no confusion. It's not a town but it's still a "geographic name" I guess. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::The question to ask is: what names for this geographic feature would I expect to encounter in relevant English texts? Is this feature only referred to in hydrographic or orographic contexts, or also in biographies etc.? And of course, what are the locally used names? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Hi Markussep :) To answer your question I did a quick Google hit-count and the results are as follows (please note that I only counted unique hits, i.e. without repetitions as displayed by Google):
:::* "Turiec Basin" : E: 84, S: 29, H:0
:::* "Turčianska kotlina" : E: 81, S:199, H:11
:::* "Túróci-medence" : E: 0, S: 0, H:28

::: Where E=English language results, S=Slovak language resluts, H=Hungarian language results. The results might include translations of local webpages (thus creating a slight pro-Slovak bias of the hit-count), but the tendency towards the usage of the English/Slovak names seems to be quite convincing.

::: The locally used name is exclusively "Turčianska kotlina", officially translated into English as "Turiec Basin". However, it needs to be said that between 1867 and 1918 the Hungarian equivalent, "Túróci-medence", was most probably the official name of the basin, as was the case with all the geographical names in the present-day Slovakia. I have no sources or knowledge about the official name of the basin before 1867 (when Austro-Hungary was created), but it might be reasonable to suppose it was the present name's German or Latin equivalent.

::: Before 1918, Hungarian was spoken especially in the northern part of the region (towns of [[Martin (Slovakia)|Martin]] and most of all [[Vrútky]]), again, as was the case in the entire area of the contemporary "Upper Hungary". This is especially true of the language used on the official and administrative level. Among the general population, the usage was very limited and I will not venture to guess at a number of inhabitants of the Basin, who would actually identify themselves as Hungarian, as I don't possess the required data.

::: However, after 1918 Hungarian fell into disuse in the area, which was further exacerbated by the Beneš Decrees put into effect after the end of the World War 2, causing the deportation of the remainder of ethnic Hungarian population. Therefore, for the past 90 (or, if you will 60) years, the exclusive locally used name has been the Slovak variant, "Turčianska kotlina".

:::[[User:PeterRet|PeterRet]] ([[User talk:PeterRet|talk]]) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::::If you want to know recent ethnic compositions, you can search the [http://www.statistics.sk/mosmis/eng/run.html Slovak statistics office website] (only by municipality unfortunately). From your Google search I'd conclude the Hungarian name is not used in English. However, its historic local use is a reason to include it, according to [[WP:NCGN]]: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted [in the lead of the article]". According to the [http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=Tur%F3cz 1910 census], 10% of Turiec county was Hungarian-speaking (and 20% German-speaking). [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: Hi Markussep, thank you very much for your opinion and for the Slovak statistics office source. I really appreciate your involvement and impartiality in this sometimes excessively heated issue. As per your argumentation I agree with keeping the Hungarian name of the basin in the article (in short: makes sense :D).

::::: However, while researching other Slovakia-related articles for the way this SK-HU thing functions there, I got the following idea, which might help move the issue a bit in a more general way (and maybe, hopefully, calm the passions down a bit). My argument goes as follows: There are articles such as [[Váh]], [[Hron]] e.a. where, in addition to the English name in the title of the article, Hungarian, German, Latin, ..., names are used. This is perfectly fine with me. What is interesting from my point of view, though, is that technically, the Slovak version of the name is ommitted as it is supposed that the name used in the head of the article is actually the English one (since we are in the English Wikipedia). I know it might sound redundant, as the English name is (probably) in the majority of cases identical to the Slovak one, but I would propose including the Slovak name of such articles along with the rest of the language versions (Hungarian, German, Ukrainian, ...) for the simple reason of the town/river... being located in Slovakia. This would, for example, mean, that the first sentence of the [[Váh]] article would read:
:::::: The '''Váh''' ({{lang-sk|Váh}}; {{lang-hu|Vág}}; {{lang-de|Waag}}; {{lang-pl|Wag}}) is the longest [[river]] entirely in [[Slovakia]].
:::::(this is actually the same way the names are constructed in the [[Turiec Basin]] article)

::::: The logic behind this is that since we are on an English Wikipedia (not a Slovak or a Hungarian one), it should not be supposed that a Slovak/Hungarian name for a certain geographical unit is automatically also the English one. To me, including both the Slovak and Hungarian version in addition to the official English one makes a psychological difference: the English name (whether coming from Slovak or Hungarian is unimportant) is reinforced as the official name of the place in English and the remaining languages are shown for illustration (and put on the same level of importance). This, to me, might help remove the feelings some Slovaks here seem to bear, that the Hungarians are trying to liguistically "steal" Slovak towns/hills/rivers... and at the same time remove the feelings some Hungarians here seem to bear, that the Slovaks are trying to linguistically negate the history and the fact that the Slovak towns/hills/rivers in fact used to be a part of Austro-Hungary (and before that the Hungarian Kingdom).

::::: Does this make sense? To you think this proposal could be useful and could gain some support from both camps?

::::: Thanks :) [[User:PeterRet|PeterRet]] ([[User talk:PeterRet|talk]]) 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::Hmm, it seems a bit superfluous to me. I suppose if the place is in Slovakia anyone can guess that the placename is probably in Slovak. But I'm neither Slovak nor Hungarian, so the psychological subtleties might escape me. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::: OK, if you don't mind, I will try adding the Slovak version of the name to the two aforementioned articles (Váh, Hron) and see how it keeps up. This way we can safely use the most frequently used name of a given place in English as the name of the article (albeit it be the Hungarian variant) and freely add both language variations to the articles without assuming that the English name should be equivalent to the Slovak one, when in fact, it does not have to be the case. Btw, I whish all this SK-HU edit-warring would just stop... [[User:PeterRet|PeterRet]] ([[User talk:PeterRet|talk]]) 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I see nobody (I mean not even a Slovak editor) agreeing with that. Would you explain why the Slovak name should be added in parentheses when ''the whole article'' goes by the Slovak name? Or should we move the article to the Hungarian name (Vág) so you can add the Slovak name in parentheses?
::::::::Don't you think this would affect many articles so it's not a good idea to just go on with only one editor's expressing his opinion and even him is basically disagreeing? [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Hi Squash Racket. OK, for me the logic is as follows: From my point of view the name of the whole article is not in Slovak, but in English. The fact that the English name is in this case identical to the Slovak one is theoretically just a coincidence (as, for example, the Turiec Basin has an English name which is different from the Slovak one). Therefore going by this logic, in addition to the English name, it seems correct to include all the other names of the article which might be relevant (Slovak because it lies in Slovakia, Hungarian because it used to be a part of Hungary, German because a German minority lives nearby, etc.)

::::::::: The automatic assumption that the name of the article is in Slovak or in Hungarian (as opposed to English) to me suggests a domination of the given country/language over the subject of the article (i.e. that Váh is in Slovak, therefore the Hungarian name of Vág is inferior to the Slovak one - or that János Szapolyai is in Hungarian, therefore the Slovak name of Ján Zápoľský is inferior to the Hungarian one). This to me might be potentially conflicting. Do you see what I mean?

::::::::: I am aware of the fact that the only response to my proposal was slightly negative. Therefore I wrote I'd just try it to see how it holds up - I'm not planning to impose this solution should the community be opposed and will not revert the edit you made. However, I would like to ask you to please have a look at my reasoning, give it another look and consider if it might or might not have some beneficial effects on the whole naming issue. For me it puts the Hungarian and Slovak names on an equal level and elevates the official English one.

::::::::: As for the fact that it affects a lot of articles - you are right, it does. Maybe the above principle could be implemented with priority in articles where a conflict exists and its usage in "non-conflict zones" could be more gradual.

::::::::: To conclude, I'd just like to make it clear that I'm really not trying to push any kind of agenda here and I'm striving to remain as impartial as possible. If others also have an opinion on this, I would be happy to hear it. [[User:PeterRet|PeterRet]] ([[User talk:PeterRet|talk]]) 07:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some points:
*Treating this name as an "official English name" is a bit tricky: see for example this reference I found just after a quick search [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D9103DF933A25750C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 in The New York Times] where the name is featured as "Vah River" (no diacritics)
*"Domination of the given country/language over the subject of the article" - that's fine, as you see, this is now a river in Slovakia
*To avoid clutter we try to keep the lead simple (there are enough disputes already, see archives)

If you want to propose such a widescale, controversial change I don't think this is the right forum for it. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 09:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

==When is this "experiment" actually going to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?==
So far it has been a popularity context won by editors with agenda, who made Slovak editors leave in disgust. The only result of the debate so far is a continuous disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Slovak editors are leaving because of political correctness or outright pussyfooting around real issues, such as chauvinistic behaviour of Nmate and his and others' magyarization of Slovak articles. When I told my Hungarian friends about this they apologized. They didn't have to, every country has zealots. But why are they not dealt with here?
<br>Just ask yourself two questions: How many Slovak editors did you see editing Hungarian articles, adding Slovak names everywhere? How many Hungarian editors did you see editing Slovak articles, adding Hungarian names everywhere?<br>You didn't even need to read to the end to know the answer...<br>P.S. If anybody wants to reply with obvious fallacies, don't bother.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 20:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

:Let's see:
:Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hedvig_Malina&diff=prev&oldid=220453345 that edit summary] ''after'' your comment here:
::*it was [[WP:VAN|not vandalism]]
::*nobody is compelled to revert anything here, especially not in controversial cases like this
:Answering your comment now:
::*"editors with agenda" - [[WP:Civil]]
::*"chauvinistic" - [[WP:NPA]]
:I hope your Hungarian friends also know about a Slovak editor [[WP:HAR|stalking]] me for months trying to associate me with a banned user. You were honest and told them about [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive63#User:Squash Racket reported by User:Svetovid (Result: no violation)|Svetovid reporting me at night]] on the 3RR board for making two reverts. I hope your Hungarian friends apologized knowing about these.
:[[User talk:Svetovid/Archive 3#You'd better watch out|How many times did you]] apologize to anyone here for the derogatory comments you made?
:I saw Tankred not simply adding Slovak names into Hungary-related articles, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A9la_Hamvas&diff=prev&oldid=180243902 deleting a number of Hungarian ones]. He also tried to [[Category talk:Esterházy|prove at all cost]] that the House of Esterházy was a Slovak noble house.
:Svetovid added a Slovak name to a battle in which most probably zero Slovaks participated and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs&diff=185526356&oldid=185088100 that with a misleading edit summary].
:BTW the naming convention that you don't agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hobartimus&diff=204266227&oldid=204247383 was initiated by Tankred], not a Hungarian editor. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
::You didn't read the P.S. I am not going to respond to your ad hominem.<br>"I saw Tankred not simply adding Slovak names into Hungary-related articles." Names of Slovak cities (Bratislava and Prešov)? That's logical.<br>"Svetovid added a Slovak name to a battle in which most probably zero Slovaks participated." First, probably. Second, that's totally different from Hobartimus, Nmate and Rembaoud adding names into tens of almost exclusively Slovakia-related articles, which seems to be main part of at least Nmate's and Rembaoud's contributions.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A9la_Hamvas&diff=prev&oldid=180243902 The diff I provided was] Tankred's removal of Hungarian names ([[Pozsony]] and [[Eperjes]]) from a biography of a Hungarian writer and leaving only the anachronistic names there. I don't consider this "logical".
:::For example [[Britannica]] sometimes [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030807/Ernst-von-Dohnanyi exclusively uses Hungarian names] in Hungary-related articles without even mentioning the Slovak one. Compared to that this naming convention seems acceptable. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Please everyone, no more accusations. Let's focus on Svetovid's initial remark again: does the proposed naming convention violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? And if it does, which parts of it need to be modified? Or is it a question of interpretation of the policies and guidelines? Svetovid, since you expressed your general concerns about it, could you specify which points under [[/Archive 2#Consensus]] you disagree with (with explanation), and which aspects need to be added or removed from the naming convention? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a policy or part of a policy itself. I mean the ''dispute resolution'' in whatever form. [[Wikilawyering]] does not lead to anywhere. Svetovid just wants to be the one who solely decides about stuff, but that just doesn't work, which often drives him mad, as above, for example. --[[User:Rembaoud|Rembaoud]] ([[User talk:Rembaoud|talk]]) 21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
::Rembaoud, please remember not to make things personal; comment on the issue at hand instead of the editor bringing it for discussion. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:Ignorance doesn't drive me mad. I usually just chuckle. Anyway, unless you can prove that I tried to pass or passed a guideline or policy "solely", your accusations are just personal attacks. It wouldn't be the first time. You already accused me of using a sock puppet and didn't apologize after you were proved wrong.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, you've mentioned this agreement violates some policy or guideline but neglected to mention which one(s) and what you believe fails that policy. Without that information, there's nothing anyone can do to respond to your concern other than by guessing, which obviously hasn't generated helpful comments. Could you please give us some specifics of your concerns? <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:First of all, how is it possible that a failed proposal was used? Second, why are [[Talk:Bratislava#Please revert the breach of the consensus|severe breaches of consensus and Wikipedia's rules]] being ignored by involved admins in the featured article [[Bratislava]]?--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
::I don't follow this page quite as closely as others, but everything I've seen indicated that a general agreement was reached on naming conventions - do you believe that is not the case. Again, I have no idea what rules you feel are being broken here - the only thing I see mentioned in the discussion you linked to is consensus, but even there, you made no mention of what consensus you were referring to. I really can't help address your concerns any further without understanding what those concerns are. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:::A general agreement was not reached on naming conventions, not at all. Some editors tried to push their opinion and failed to convince others. However, some editors left in disgust over what was going on here, which doesn't surprise me.<br>Which guidelines and policies? Start with the basic one: [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]. Information are being inserted en masse without any references what-so-ever. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Brezalauspurc&diff=222076459&oldid=222073930 Typical] [[Talk:Battle_of_Brezalauspurc#Svetovid.27s_edits|example]].--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

::::You were not very involved in the naming discussion, unlike e.g. Tankred and Ruziklan. If you don't express your opinion, you can't blame others for not listening. I've asked you several times what you would like to see changed, but you haven't been specific sofar, for instance which naming policies are being violated here according to you. Now you can keep on reverting edits, and be reverted an hour later, or you can try to work towards a solution. There might be leads towards a more widely supported naming convention in [[User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 2#Consensus check|this discussion]]. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment/Archive_2|See my older posts]]. In short, the whole policy is flawed from the beginning.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::OK, I found some of your comments: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElonka%2FHungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=209423318&oldid=209422017], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=209870559&oldid=209849887], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElonka%2FHungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=220251861&oldid=220201698], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&diff=220314649&oldid=220304870]. In your first comment, I see concrete suggestions: the first is allowing Hungarian names in the subject's article (which is in line with WP:NCGN), and the second is (maybe) giving the Hungarian names in parentheses at the first appearance (which is also in line with WP:NCGN, if we consider the Hungarian name to be a widely accepted name in historical context). Do you still support these suggestions? Those are actually not very far from the current convention, except that you would like to see the Slovak name as the primary name in all instances. To me, that's a reasonable suggestion, and it's something we can discuss, for instance using some English usage test cases. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the primary usage another [[Britannica|encyclopedia]] sometimes [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030807/Ernst-von-Dohnanyi exclusively uses the Hungarian name in historical context]. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:Encyclopedias are [[secondary source]]s. I don't think it's a good idea to exclusively use "Pozsony", because "Bratislava" is a much wider known name for the city in English. See also guideline #3 of [[WP:NCGN]], quote: ''In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name''. I suppose the main question is: are Hungarian names widely accepted historic English names?
:Now about another recent edit war topic: Hungarian names for buildings in Bratislava and for caves and mountains in Slovakia. It doesn't make much sense to me to add Hungarian (or Slovak) translations for "mayor", "street", "house", "town hall", "cave" etc. unless they're part of a proper name. WP:NCGN says to add foreign alternative names (in the lead of the article) when they're used in 10% of English sources or by a group of people that used to inhabit the area. Would it help to settle on a minimum percentage (e.g. 5% or 10%, not only by recent census but also historical ones) for this group of people criterion, to avoid endless lists of alternative names? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 07:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::When it comes to ''naming issues'' encyclopedias are recommended sources at least [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name|according to WP:NCGN]]. In Hungary-related articles Bratislava might be mentioned in parentheses, I was only reflecting on "primary usage" in the previous comment.
::Svetovid [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.160.75.10 and the IP] were removing only Hungarian names as "irrelevant in English", but carefully left there the Slovak ones which are also not used in English. According to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives|"Use English"]] both should be in the lead. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::I think we have a misunderstanding about what "primary sources" means. Encyclopedias don't do original research (those are primary sources), they review information that is published elsewhere. [[WP:PRIMARY]] calls encyclopedias tertiary sources. That doesn't mean they can't be used as sources for Wikipedia, but ideally, the information used should be backed by primary and secondary sources.
:::[[WP:UE]] is not very clear: it says the article ''should list all common names by which its subject is known'', but not whether those common names are in English or in native languages. Better use the more specific WP:NCGN. The edits by Svetovid and 194.160.75.10 are probably based on their interpretation of WP:NCGN, which might be too restrictive. I hope we can agree on a widely accepted interpretation here. What do you think of my suggestions? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 09:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I know encyclopedias are tertiary sources, I modified my comment. I wanted to show that ''primarily'' these should be used when it came to controversial naming issues.
::::Does WP:NCGN apply to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spi%C5%A1_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=222038510 castles], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grassalkovich_Palace&diff=prev&oldid=222038124 palaces], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=St._Martin%27s_Cathedral&diff=prev&oldid=222038557 cathedrals], just to name a few? [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::OK. Since [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture)]] is inactive, WP:NCGN is the next best thing for buildings. "group of people that used to inhabit the area" would refer to a larger area than the building itself of course. You haven't answered my question yet? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is still no reason to delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grassalkovich_Palace&diff=222038124&oldid=221894168 relevant Hungarian names] from the lead. The [[Grassalkovich Palace]] is a palace built by a Hungarian nobleman.<br>
Your suggestion: how do you prove this percentage (in English sources)?<br>
"by a group of people that used to inhabit the area" - to me that's acceptable. Tankred [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Szeged&diff=185434041&oldid=185432776 added alternative names] to Hungarian articles, because allegedly a Slovak minority lived in Szeged once.<br>
I guess Hungarians lived/live in all parts of [[Upper Hungary]] (now [[Slovakia]]) at least in proportion of the Slovak minority of Szeged ([[Szeged#Demographics|today 0.1%]]). Question: why do we need any proof then for any Hungarian names in Slovakia, if a 0.1% minority was enough to add a Slovak name at Szeged? [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:It doesn't necessarily have to be an English source. I suppose any census would be OK. The 1910 census is available on the internet, so are the Slovak censuses of 1991 and 2001. I don't think Tankreds January 2008 edit to the Szeged article is very relevant here. I suggested 5 or 10% as a lower limit, are you OK with that? I would like to see a reply from Svetovid too. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.160.75.10 User:194.160.75.10] ==

Checkuser needed in this case? [[User talk:194.160.75.10|Here]] he mentions the "mob rule", a favorite phrase of [[User:MarkBA]] and the editing pattern... [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.98.14.132 This IP] is also suspicious. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Different IP range than usual, but I agree that it's probably MarkBA again. Tagged and blocked, let me know if you spot any others. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

==The whole problem summed up in one sentence from Nmate..==
"[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Brezalauspurc&diff=222082031&oldid=222081861 I have to restore this article's Hungarian name.]"<br>At least he is not shy about his intentions on Wikipedia.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:The revert wars were launched by Svetovid and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.160.75.10 mysterious IP] today.
:If Svetovid would read the talk page instead of launching revert wars, he could see that [[Talk:Battle of Brezalauspurc#References, name|Markussep mentioned]] the Hungarian name [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Brezalauspurc&diff=216050533&oldid=208929748 also had Google books hits] just like Pressburg or Bratislava. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 14:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
::[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Battle+of+Pozsony Two books is not a wide use].--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] ([[User talk:Svetovid|talk]]) 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::You added bratislava.info as a reliable source, don't forget that. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::OK, let's do this right:
:::*[http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&hl=nl&btnG=Google+zoeken&as_epq=Battle+of+Pozsony&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=lang_en&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn= Pozsony]: 2, one of which written in 1892 (net: 1 "recent" book)
:::*[http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&q=%22Battle+of+Bratislava%22&as_brr=0&hl=nl&sa=N&start=10 Bratislava]: 19, 6 of which written before 1958 (net: 13 "recent" books)
:::*[http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&q=%22Battle+of+Pressburg%22&as_brr=0&hl=nl&sa=N&start=10 Pressburg]: 20, 2 of which about a 17th century battle, and 9 of which written before 1958 (net: 9 "recent" books)
:::*[http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&hl=nl&as_brr=0&q=%22Battle+of+Brezalauspurc%22&btnG=Boeken+zoeken Brezalauspurc]: 0
:::So the winner is Bratislava, closely followed by Pressburg. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Britannica uses Battle of Pressburg (mentioning Bratislava in brackets). So there are "winners" here based on wide usage? That [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs&diff=185526356&oldid=185088100 applies to all articles]? [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::Based on my google books search I'd say that the article should be moved to either "Battle of Bratislava" or "Battle of Pressburg". Alternative names can be added in the lead, if they're relevant. About the Slovak name for the Battle of Mohács: it's probably not widely used in English, and neither are the Hungarian, Turkish and Croatian name. This is not an article about Mohács, but about the battle, so WP:NCGN doesn't apply here. I don't see French, Dutch or German names at the [[Battle of Waterloo]] article. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 08:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to naming issues and there is no clear result [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name|first other encyclopedias]] should be searched according to WP:NCGN. I haven't found anything in [[Columbia Encyclopedia]] and [[Encarta]], but [[Britannica]] mentions the [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/56538/Bavaria/648/History#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Bavaria%20%3A%3A%20History.%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia Battle of Pressburg] in the article Bavaria. So the article should be moved to this name.<br>
I think WP:NCGN emphasizes using other encyclopedias to filter scholarly works of (in this case) Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks etc. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 09:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:One source is a bit meagre. WP:NCGN doesn't apply here, since it's not a geography article. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)]] and WP:UE do. Since there is not one common name, we should check reliable sources, and, quoting WP:UE: ''Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article''. I think both Pressburg and Bratislava would be acceptable, you can try history reference works for more usage data. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 09:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::I think WP:NCGN applies, because the only difference is about the geographical name. The [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)| naming convention you mentioned]] only helps in a debate whether the event in question was a battle or not.
::WP:UE says in case of [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage|no established usage]]:<blockquote>If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.)</blockquote> This is either Hungarian or German (Battle of Pozsony, Battle of Pressburg), the battle is part of Hungarian and German history. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::"no established usage" doesn't apply here, there's just not one single established name. The battle is also part of Slovak history, the Slovaks didn't fall to earth in 1918. I just found the New Cambridge Medieval History, page 298 (and also page 295): [http://books.google.com/books?id=u-SsbHs5zTAC&pg=RA1-PA298&dq=battle-of+hungarians+bavarians+cambridge&ei=CiVmSKuLK4e4jgGv8YGGBg&hl=nl&sig=ACfU3U32m4AI-mvwGFf8VpkmFZmFpAha8g battle at Bratislava]. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 11:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::::The Slovaks didn't fall to earth in 907 either (that is more than 1000 years earlier). I think you have to have a very good reason to differ from [[Britannica]]'s usage. I don't see that reason now. Using a Slovak name invented in 1920 for a 907 battle between Germans and Hungarians to me seems anachronistic, unencyclopedic, wrong.
::::[[Google Scholar]]: [http://scholar.google.hu/scholar?q=%22Battle+of+Pressburg%22&hl=hu&lr=&btnG=Keres%C3%A9s Battle of Pressburg] 7 hits, [http://scholar.google.hu/scholar?hl=hu&lr=&q=%22Battle+of+Bratislava%22&btnG=Keres%C3%A9s Battle of Bratislava] 1 hit. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]]
::::BTW we can add further links like that:[http://books.google.com/books?id=c_lpAAAAIAAJ&q=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&dq=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&hl=hu&pgis=1], [http://books.google.com/books?id=u-xzAAAAIAAJ&q=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&dq=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&hl=hu&pgis=1], [http://books.google.com/books?id=zuKIX5g6MgoC&pg=PA227&dq=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&lr=&hl=hu&sig=ACfU3U2mUyd3EdRLt7j8Lt4PdSunm1EQTw], [http://books.google.com/books?id=mro6AAAAIAAJ&q=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&dq=Battle+of+Pressburg+907&lr=&hl=hu&pgis=1], etc. ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::You have to have a good reason to differ from the Cambridge histories too. Some of your B.o.Pressburg hits refer to a 17th century battle. Anyway, I'm fine with Pressburg, but Bratislava is also used, probably because that's what the place is called presently. Time to request a move at WP:RM? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I guess that is the reason why encyclopedias are important regarding naming issues: too many university presses/scholarly works with different usage. It is simpler to check Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta (if these mention the subject in question). [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

== Svetovid ==

*{{user|Svetovid}}

Just don't learn. As soon as the attention falled back behind a level, Svetovid continued his fight to delete Hungary, Hungarians and any reference to their history from Wikipedia, especially from Slovak(ia)-related articles. In my opinion he is MarkBA number 2. Not a "puppet", but a...how to say...an identical match.

Markussep tries to do his best to stop Svetovid, but unfortunately he (always) fails. Hobartimus, Elonka, others detto. This guy just don't give a shit to anybody or anything. Therefore we should teach him a lession. Should be banned from Slovak(ia) and Hungari(an) related articles for the rest of the year to teach him some respect to this experiment (an thus to Elonka, and other users) and to all what we've reached here. --[[User:Rembaoud|Rembaoud]] ([[User talk:Rembaoud|talk]]) 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
: Rembaoud, the above comment is uncivil, please consider refactoring, thanks. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of alternative names ==

[[WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)]] says about the lead of articles:
*Relevant foreign language names ('''one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place''' <small>[my stress]</small>) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.

Now we could prove for every single place in Slovakia that other languages were also spoken there, or we can save us some work by using census data. The 1910 census of the Kingdom of Hungary is available on the internet: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/hhcounty.htm. This census recorded the first language of the population, and it gives figures by county (''vármegye'') and by (smaller) district (''járás''), and also for the larger towns. Some examples:

{|class="prettytable"
|-
!county/district/town!!Slovak name!!Hungarian name!!%Slovak!!%Hungarian!!%German!!%Rusyn
|-
|county||Spiš||Szepes||56.2||10.8||22.2||7.1
|-
|district||Martin||Turóczszentmárton||80.4||12.6||5.4||0.1
|-
|town||Prešov||Eperjes||39.8||48.9||8.6||0.3
|-
|county||Šariš||Sáros||60.7||10.8||5.6||22.9
|}

So, as a way forward, could we agree on using a minimum language percentage (for instance 5%) in this census as a criterion for including the alternative name? And, to save us the trouble of calculating the figures for every single district or town, shall we use the county data? For the counties that are only partly in present Slovakia (Esztergom, Komárom, ...) I suggest we use only the Slovak part. And if the alternative name doesn't meet this population criterion, it has to be used in 10% of English sources, as WP:NCGN says. Your comments please. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:I don't agree with your proposal. There is no need to prove area by area that Hungarians lived somewhere. The whole area of the KoH was partially inhabited by Hungarians (and by many other people of course). There were no 5 % limit used when Slovak names were added to towns like [[Pécs]] - and absolutely rightly because Slovak names are relevant for the whole area of the KoH. The same is true for Hungarian names but even more so because every topographical feature had an OFFICIAL Hungarian name before 1918. These offical names are encyclopaedical content per se. [[User:Zello|Zello]] ([[User talk:Zello|talk]]) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::I'm sure there are people that disagree with you, for instance the Slovak name (among others) for Pécs was removed in a nice little [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=P%C3%A9cs&diff=next&oldid=185419586 revert war]. The guideline WP:NCGN doesn't say anything about historical official names. Could you explain your statement about encyclopaedical content a bit more? [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 12:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Markussep, alternative names for [[Pécs]] are listed in the "[[Pécs#Name|section Name]]" right after the lead per WP:NCGN:<blockquote>Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead</blockquote>
:::Also:<blockquote>In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". </blockquote>
:::Some context: before that revert war the Hungarian name Trencsén [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tren%C4%8D%C3%ADn&diff=185101902&oldid=184991271 had repeatedly been deleted], that's why it seemed a bit strange when I saw a large number of alternative names (including Turkish!) at the article Pécs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed that revert war but I think that was a step towards the wrong direction. The KoH was a multiethnic country were many towns had a lot of different names. Until now these names were generally mentioned in the lead sections. The "need" for new guidelines appeared when some editors began to delete Hungarian (or in the case of Pécs other minority) names that they were not able to tolerate. The 5 % policy and the usage of the 1910 census is arbitrary. The ethnic composition of the KoH was constantly changing during the centuries. In 1910 there were only a few Serbs in Budapest but they were a relative majority during the first decade of the 18th century. Should we delete the Serb name? I don't think so. Instead of this appeasement policy towards intolerant editors it would be better to stick to the old guidelines. As for the part about official historic names I think that it is obvious that you SHOULD mention all the former official names of a town (or river, lake etc.) in the lead for the sake of providing important information to the reader. For example all the colonial names of the towns are mentioned in other articles although I doubt that many Belgians ever lived in Inner Congo. [[User:Zello|Zello]] ([[User talk:Zello|talk]]) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:That sounds reasonable to me. The main argument Svetovid uses for removing Hungarian (and other) names is the [[WP:Verifiability]] policy. See my discussion with him and Elonka at [[Talk:Váh]]. I don't think there can be any doubt about the fact that ''Vág'' is the Hungarian name of the river ''Váh'' etc.. So the remaining point is the relevance of alternative names. In similar cases, such as the formerly German part of Poland (e.g. [[Opole]], [[Bytom]], [[Słupia]]) and the Czech Republic (e.g. [[České Budějovice]], [[Žatec]], [[Ploučnice]]), German names are mentioned. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] <sup>[[User talk:Markussep|Talk]]</sup> 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

==Svetovid==

User Svetovid deleted seven Hungarian alternative geographical names, that I had to restore after an anonymous vandal, [[User:194.160.75.10]] had deleted them before. This user was identified as a probable sockpuppet of MarkBa and blocked by Elonka. Svetovid deleted the Hungarian name of the Low Tatras recently again although it was sourced. I don't think this malicious activity should be dealt like a content dispute. [[User:Zello|Zello]] ([[User talk:Zello|talk]]) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:And again in the case of [[Kráľova hoľa]]... [[User:Zello|Zello]] ([[User talk:Zello|talk]]) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I have cautioned Svetovid that in the future, he is not to remove names unless he has first requested sources for them, and/or confirmed consensus at talk. If he violates this, please let me know. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sourced info was deleted again from the [[Kráľova hoľa]] article. [[User:Zello|Zello]] ([[User talk:Zello|talk]]) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


==Community review==
==Community review==

Revision as of 18:29, 18 September 2008

Shortcut

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

Naming convention

(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.

Articles in which the convention has been applied


I oppose the whole convention because it's artificial and its only purpose is to satisfy certain editors. It's also against guidelines and policies of Wikipedia.--Svetovid (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what would you prefer instead? --Elonka 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, follow the Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Unless there is actual evidence that a name is widely used in English, don't use it.--Svetovid (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the convention was formulated after months and months of several discussion rounds and the participation of at least 15 editors, you are free to propose your possible modifications if you think they can achive consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New home

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

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]

correct use of historical names of Hungary

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 SSR, Soviet Union or Josip Broz Tito born in Kumrovec, 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. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such country as Habsburg Monarchy I'm sorry. Habsburg Monarchy is not a country. See Holy Roman Empire. Hobartimus (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hobartimus (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hobartimus (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i made now in flash article about habsburg monarchy and i am the only historian, who use it. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina.Charousek (talk • contribs) [reply]

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) --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Markussep Talk 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment&oldid=239349650"