This category is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
What defines a "Hungarian community"? I've taken a look, and apparently even if a town like Rožňava has only 18.77% Hungarians (2021 census), it is categorised as Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia. This seems WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. I did read two Slovak language laws that say either 15% or 20% of a municipality's population needed to have the same minority language in order to apply for certain administrative facilities. But I'm not sure which percentage is correct and which of the laws is currently in force (the 15% one was apparently repealed a few years ago). Is that the criterion? If so, the category should make that clear, and point to the relevant list of municipalities published by the government. Anything else is likely to be subjective or arbitrary. Even majority-Hungarian populations are not constant, because demographics shift over time. Some mestá have lost their Hungarian majority according to the 2001, 2011 and 2021 censuses, but others have gained one, so this would be a high-maintenance category as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: You mentioned "Hungarian communities" at CfD; what do you think about what I've said here? I think we need to establish some criteria for inclusion and exclusion to prevent this from becoming an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: I agree with everything you say above. This shall apply to the entire Category:Communities by ethnic group category tree. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups may be the best place for organizing research, application and maintenance. They'll need to be updated only after every census in each country (after ethnicity stats are publicized, more specifically). And if we wanted to fully prevent negligent new additions between censuses, {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} can be documented together with wanted number of pages after the updates were done, for each category (though I think this might be over-the-top). –Vipz (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently preparing an updated overview of the 2021 census data. This will allow us to make a better judgement of which "communities" should be in or out. But we still need to agree on criteria. 50%? 20%? 15%? Does it need to be in two consecutive censuses (as the laws stipulated) or just the most recent one? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DoneHungarians_in_Slovakia#Towns_with_large_Hungarian_populations_(2001–2021_census). This only includes the mestá (towns/cities) with a "large" Hungarian population. What the threshold of "large" is, is not defined anywhere, although the original three categories had 10% as the minimum. (Regardless of whether it is 15% or 20%, 10% seems to have no legal value). On the high end, we've got 80.6% Hungarians in Gabčíkovo (2021); on the low end, we've got 8.27% om Levice. Absolute numbers don't matter, apparently, because Bratislava had 11,297 Hungarians in 2021 (more than most mestá in the list), but relatively speaking only 2.38%. If we want to take the law as our criterion, and if the 15% rule of 2 consecutive censuses is currently legally binding, Levice, Lučenec, Senec, and Šaľa should be removed from the category (and perhaps the list?). If the 20% rule is in force, Rožňava should also be removed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Vipz:, @MirkoS18:, @Skovl: and @Joy: because you all participated in the Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia CfR. What do you think is the best solution for inclusion criteria in this case? I think we should look up that percentage of 15% or 20% in Slovak language law, and use that as our standard for categorising, otherwise this will just be a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I don't think we should leave things as they are, nor do I think deletion is a good option, so establishing inclusion criteria is probably our best approach. If you like, you can help. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal may seem reasonable enough. There is also this body called the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe monitoring minority languages at European level (as a part of pro-active measure for the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages). While they are not thrilled about thresholds in principle (1% in Bratislava would be a larger community than 25% in some village) they consider thresholds between 10% and 20% to be reasonable if some country insist on them (plus Hungarians in Bratislava may be a notable topic on its own merit). I would of course line towards 10% because minorities are often faced with gerrymandering or negative demographic trends, but it is certainly open to discussion. 50% would certainly be excessive and would make the whole idea of MINORITY rights a bit meaningless if they count only when they are in fact majority. Also, keep in mind that minority communities rights protection in Slovakia is not at particularly high level and that rules are often rather exclusive and restrictive than inclusive as they should be (that is often the case in comparatively newly independent states which are still in or recently out of process of nation/state building). We should also keep in mind that this category may be abused for irredentist propaganda but not having it can make this community less visible and recognizable and contribute to assimilationist efforts.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing I didn't mention in previous comment. You should also probably consider the legal principle (best practice) of preservation of the acquired minority rights. This would remove part of your concern over the subjective inclusivity in this category. If for example Hungarian community constituted 11% of population in some village and therefore they enjoyed some rights, and now there is only 8% of Hungarians, recognized best practice is to respect acquired minority rights. It is therefore not particularly problematic or subjective to include some cases like this (especially if at some point since the law was introduced minority fulfiled conditions). You will find all of this just by Googling it a bit, but if I should help I can provide some specific references when I get some additional time.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input, and agree with a lot of what you say. The reason why I'm focusing on Language law of Slovakia and not just drawing comparisons to situations elsewhere in Europe, is because there is no universal or even European standard. E.g. minority Languages of North Macedonia require a threshold of 20% minority language speakers, while Belgium required a threshold of 30% minority language speakers for municipalities with language facilities, and more than 50% was a reason for a municipality to be transferred to a different language area. In municipalities where speakers of a minority language were less than 30%, they were expected to assimilate with the majority language population. Obviously we cannot randomly apply Belgian standards to Slovakia; we need to treat Slovakia on Slovakia's terms, and not make things up as we go along (WP:OR).
175. According to the Act on the State Language of the Slovak Republic and the Act on the Use of Languages of National Minorities, minority languages may be used in private without limitations, while official use of minority languages in contacts with local authorities is regulated according to set thresholds (previously 20% and now 15%).[138] The list of municipalities where the right to use the language of a national minority in official communication can be applied will be updated, once the results of the 2021 census are known.
[138]. By Act No. 204/2011, amending the Act on the Use of Languages of National Minorities, citizens of the Slovak Republic have the right to use the language of a national minority in municipalities where citizens of national minorities make up at least 15% of the population according to two consecutive population censuses. However, this will only occur after the results of the 2021 census have been announced.
The 2021 census results have been announced, and can be found at http://pop-stat.mashke.org/slovakia-ethnic-loc2021.htm, from where I have been using them already to create the updated overview at Hungarians_in_Slovakia#Towns_with_large_Hungarian_populations_(2001–2021_census). This is an objective standard, which legally applies in Slovakia. Everyone can read the censuses, compare them, do the WP:CALC and conclude in which municipalities official use of minority languages in contacts with local authorities is now allowed. That means Levice, Lučenec, Senec, and Šaľa should be removed from the category (and perhaps the list?) as I suggested.
I also think this is a reason for renaming this category to something like Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language. Because "Hungarian communities in Slovakia" is just too vague. There are probably also "Ukrainian communities in the Netherlands" right now, but we don't bother categorising them as such. I think "Hungarian" (in an ethnic or a linguistic sense) is WP:NONDEFINING for a town like Rožňava with just 18.77% Hungarians, because even though it meets the 15% threshold, it suggests we should ignore the 81.23% non-Hungarian population. In other words, "Hungarian" (in an ethnic or a linguistic sense) doesn't apply to the whole municipality, not even the majority. But the fact that Hungarian is an official language there (but only indirectly by virtue of having at least 15% Hungarians, thereby passing the legal requirement) does mean "Hungarian" (only in a linguistic sense) applies to the whole municipality. Therefore, the Hungarian language defines Rožňava as a municipality. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and detailed response and considerate invitation to share my thoughts. As long as we agree on facts that is all we definitely need, interpretations and perspectives are of course at everyone's liberty. I do like your idea for a category for it's clarity based on real world circumstances (even if in real world it may be unfair or even oppressive) but it would indeed be a different category from the current one. I don't share your concern about Slovak communities in Slovakia as they would be assumed to live there (to me it seems like so obvious idea that it is basically a hegemonic one, it goes without saying), and I don't believe mentioning other communities would imply any exclusivity while their existence may not be assumed. I don't know what the practice on Wikipedia is, but maybe we can include redirects into this category? For example, Hungarians in Rožňava (if not notable on its own) may work as a redirect to Rožňava and this redirect may be categorized under Hungarian communities in Slovakia (category with Municipalities with co-official language can be a part of that category as well, we may in fact have both of them). In this case we don't have to impose any general preconditions. If 20 individuals belonging to the Hungarian community in Košice are notable we may have a sub-section in demographic section of Košice article and some redirect (Hungarians in Košice) leading to it and categorized in Hungarian communities in Slovakia category. I would certainly like to see the category you are proposing and I would myself start from there, but I don't think it is necessarily X or Y but may very well be X and Y. I wouldn't start the current category myself, but it doesn't mean that we should just turn it into something else since it may indeed just categorize Hungarian communities in Slovakia irrespective of their collective legal status.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree @MirkoS18 - if we were to create a "Serbian communities in Croatia" category and proceed to exclude Vukovar from it because it went under 33% in the last census, usefulness of such category would be certainly questionable. They might as well all just be listified with no arbitrary inclusion criterias, if we don't come up with a solution. –Vipz (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and this particular case is certainly much more sensitive considering town's history. Luckily, Vukovarski Srbi (Serbs of Vukovar) is a notable topic on its own so that article was used for further categorization. In the end, there are cases in which some communities are relevant even when they (almost) don't exist anymore. Consider settlement established by German settlers before expulsion of ethnic Germans after the end of World War II, Greek history of Izmir, Jews of Vilnius... The fact that some county has a certain legal system (often at least historically oppressive) which may not formally recognise someone doesn't at all mean that we are as well obliged to pretend that they don't exist.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very valid points, and I agree this is important to acknowledge and take into account. So a balance needs to be struck between recognising certain minorities (especially if they are to be found in well-documented situations of significant oppression) on the one hand, and categorising an entire municipality according to the language or ethnicity of a relatively small minority, which seems rather WP:UNDUE. That this can also be abused for irredentist propaganda is indeed a real concern. For example, I'm not sure who decided it or why, but I found it rather odd that this category was only in the WikiProject Hungary when I found it; I added the WikiProject Slovakia immediately to balance it out, because both are relevant (for different reasons). This is also one the reasons why I don't think we can equate or identify a Slovak municipality with a Hungarian "community" living in it; only in cases where the required percentage is met, the co-official use of the Hungarian language plays a role in defining the municipality. Listification may indeed be a better (partial) solution in this case, which is why I've spent a lot of time tabulating and updating that list of Slovak mestá with "large" Hungarian minorities. The question remains: what is "large" or "significant". I think the answer is "at least 15%", and that this should be our criterion.
Obviously this cannot ever capture the entire history of that minority in that municipality, including the more meaningful stories out there (such as those of Serbs in Vukovar), but I don't think they are best told in something as dry and statistical like a list or category anyway. Neither inclusion nor exclusion in a category, nor a mention in a list of percentages, would fully do those stories justice, and I don't think that should be our goal here, even if it were possible.
Categories are for organising information in useful and objective ways, and I think the 15% minority language mark resulting in local co-official language use is the best we've got in this case. This is why Vipz' comparison with co-official use of Serbian in Croatian localities is a very good one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you are willing to consider everything mentioned so you should probably just go for it and do it in the way you think is the best. In the end there is probably no some absolutely ideal option, but one is probably better than others. I can't tell you where to draw the line as I am not familiar enough and I am always inclined to be inclusive (that's my own bias). Just putting additional ideas out there (if they may be useful consider it, otherwise ignore), you can make subcategories such as Hungarian communities in Slovakia 15-30%, Hungarian communities in Slovakia 30-50% ... and put them all into the main one. Of course find something more elegant as a titles as I am very often not careful enough with it.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 'Hungarian-minority communities' and 'Hungarian-plurality communities' would be less arbitrary-looking? –Vipz (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think that the list of mestá can stay as it is. The criterion to be included as a mesto should be to have had a Hungarian-language minority of at least 15% (in two consecutive censuses or just one?) in independent Slovakia, or ever since that language law was adopted. Even if it has long lost its 15%+ minority since, for both historical reasons and verification, it's useful to keep around.
I'm not sure what to do with the non-mesto municipalities. We could decide to expand the list to all municipalities that have not (yet) acquired the status of mesto; that way the last two columns in the list determine exactly the municipalities to be included into or excluded from this category. We should keep in mind, however,that there are currently (1-1-2016) about 2,890 obcí (singular obec, "municipality") in Slovakia, see List of municipalities and towns in Slovakia. This would require a lot of work to add to the table I created, a lot of work to update during the next census (although thankfully for us, that won't happen for another decade), and per WP:TOOLONG should be split off as a stand-alone list.
I'm pretty sure what to do with the villages: we should remove them all from this category, and not include them in the list. First, it's just too much data to process, verify and maintain; the municipalities are already sufficient to give us a headache. Second, it's not the village level but the municipal level which legally matters for determining whether the local govt should have co-official language use or not. E.g. if one's 10-house village has a 90% population of Hungarian speakers, but the municipality it belongs to has only 10% in total, there won't be co-official language use. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably save the current category and make the second one as well but while clearly stating what is different about them. The category you are proposing can be a part of this one.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I think renaming is the best option to solve all these problems (as we three have observed already) in one go. I very much appreciate your input and feedback, and plan to submit a CfR soon, referring to this discussion for background information. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your category proposal is certainly a good idea and I see your point. If the current category stay as it is (and that is the most probable option) than there would be a significant overlap. It was just that it seemed to me that it would be good to separate individuals and communities (groups, institutions etc.) in the main category "Hungarians of Slovakia". It would make it easier to look for notable communities within Hungarians of Slovakia (let's say, and I invent here since I am not at all familiar, Hungarians of Bratislava, Reformed Hungarian Church in Slovakia, Hungarian poetic movement or some other community of Slovak Hungarians of that type) without getting lost among personal biographies and without presenting Hungarians as a monolithic group without important inner diversity. But that is certainly of a lesser concern and such a category would nevertheless remove most (if not all) of the settlements anyway→ so, just stop listening to me and do whatever may work best. Just one last idea, you may want to inform WikiProject Slovakia and WikiProject Hungary about the discussion just in case it was not done until now and they want to share some input.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Hungarians_in_Slovakia#Towns_with_large_Hungarian_populations_(2001–2021_census). This only includes the mestá (towns/cities) with a "large" Hungarian population. What the threshold of "large" is, is not defined anywhere, although the original three categories had 10% as the minimum. (Regardless of whether it is 15% or 20%, 10% seems to have no legal value). On the high end, we've got 80.6% Hungarians in Gabčíkovo (2021); on the low end, we've got 8.27% om Levice. Absolute numbers don't matter, apparently, because Bratislava had 11,297 Hungarians in 2021 (more than most mestá in the list), but relatively speaking only 2.38%. If we want to take the law as our criterion, and if the 15% rule of 2 consecutive censuses is currently legally binding, Levice, Lučenec, Senec, and Šaľa should be removed from the category (and perhaps the list?). If the 20% rule is in force, Rožňava should also be removed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)