Talk:Černová massacre

Very low quality article

I am sad to see how stubborn some people are to push their agendas, the article is too much about unimportant or misinterpreted details, and we learn too little about why things happened how they happened. I do not see the relevance of Slovak National Party, and the relevance of shooters ethnicity is questionable -- the two parties to the conflict were the local people - citizens of Hungary of Slovak ethnicity - and the Hungarian authorities (does not matter whether represented by gendarmes of Slovak or Hungarian or whichever ethnicity). The event had an ethnic dimension, but also local and idiosyncratic dynamics. LEt us just learn more about it, let us try to interpret the events carefully, but I see to many biases in the text..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.109.204 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovak Version Edit

the current outline (that contains the Slovak events) was coppied in whole with permission from a work by Josef Kirschbaum, Professor of Central European and Slavic History at the University of Toronto. I suggest it be left alone as it is not a POV rather a published academic paper. so stop the edit war Hobartimus and accept History as it IS not as YOU would LIKE it to be! It is only fair that if Hobartimus is allowed to push his agenda then the other side of the issue must also be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

conflicting versions...

The most recent version, Uploaded by Nygaard was pathetic... the sources were redirects that ended up in some Hungarian language newspaper and the others to a poorly organized ramble on Slovak history... Perhaps mr Nygaard should stop pushing his own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.200.10 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Suggestions

First, just from the standpoint of helping the reader understand the significance of this event, IMO, the intro and opening sections could be sharpened up so that the reason for the conflict is made plainer for the general reader. I'm having trouble totally understanding why, for example, the locals were so wrought up over this to begin with.

Second, phrases like 'false apostles of Magyar culture' suggest POV-ness which should probably be avoided. Again, I get that there were two sides to this fight, but I'm not sure I could explain what the differences were. I think the first things that should be stated are what the government policy was, and why the locals were on a collision course with it.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That version was a likely copyvio inserted completely by an IP editor of dubious track record. I'm reverting to the earlier version before his involvement, contributed by the community. Hobartimus (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored some of the information (mostly names and dates) and removed the statements that seem to be original research (e.g. who "could" gain from the events). Tankred (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, You have added some quotations to the article, but with no reference. Another unsourced quotation is there since January 2008. Can anyone find the corresponding citations? If not, those supposed quotations should be removed. Tankred (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For some odd reason I can't see the references and the categories right now, when I go into the edit window I see that they are there but not when just looking at the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just fixed that. Are they all right now? Tankred (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes perfect now, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The offender returned with his offensive biased text, which I've removed (Again). Someone may want to watch this page. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 68.39, it's a thing to watch out for. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the current outline (that contains the Slovak events) was coppied in whole with permission from a work by Josef Kirschbaum, Professor of Central European and Slavic History at the University of Toronto. I suggest it be left alone as it is not a POV rather a published academic paper. so stop the edit war Hobartimus and accept History as it IS not as YOU would LIKE it to be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And reverted again. For one thing, there's no evidence anyone gave permission to copy anything. For another, we're not in the habit of slavishly copying other people's work, rather we rewrite and incorporate multiple viewpoints. Franamax (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

YES multiple viewpoints! exactly my point! Some may hold one version superior to others, let them decide which they prefer. No evidence? I asked Pan Kirschbaum months ago if I could use his paper as the basis for an online dictionary, I can ask again tomorrow if you like.

The reality is, that neither version can be deleted, because the represent the experience of both ethnicities concerned, for the Hungarians it is a minor event, for Slovaks it was an example of oppression by a foreign power. I think both version stress that. Further I think it very to leave it as it is. Hungarian editor have their preferred version and Slovaks have theirs. Wiki is democratic... remember that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note ; After the above IP99.249.224.61 was blocked for hate speech (ethnic slurs) [1] a while back, he was more recently blocked for a month for "(Edit warring: amending block - it seems that this has been going on for months, persistent incivility too)" The IP is now also threatening to return "do you think I can't refresh my IP?"[2] Please watch out for further attacks on this article. Hobartimus (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Czechslovakia

A country appered from nowhere, but Cernova is a piece in an unprecedented puzzle. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

from nowhere? the people and politicians had been discussing the merger for years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have seen many politically biased texts in my professional career, but such an example of a one-sided selection of sentences and quotes cited without context as it is presented in this text is really a "record". I really wonder why nobody has noticed that both because it is obvious from every single sentence that the "author" tries to play down the whole tragedy in a ridiculous attempt to say that police is cruel everywhere and because only Hungarian (and I dare to say only non neutral Hungarian) sources are used and because I see no other than Hunagrian editors editing here and because the history of this article shows that a long detailed text (probably written by a non-Hungarian) has been completely deleted without giving any reason why the details should be wrong. But that seeems to be called "neutrality" here, such an article would normally not have been written even in the Hungarian wikipedia in this way, but some radicals from Hungary seem to take advantage of the fact that American admins have no idea what is going on here. "Excellent". Evening8888 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

by the way, article in hungarian wp is somewhat neutral. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of neutrality... why does the Hungarian version make reference to the SNS Slovak national party? this is pathetic... they are a fringe party will little popular support? I have never heard the SNS even mention Cernova in regards to political gains. how can this be acceptable by the wiki community and a verifyable published academic work is not? what is the real agenda here? think! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why somebody frequently erased majority of this article?

Hi, I cannot miss, that somebody cut off this article from 31kB to 6kB version. I want to notice you, that wikipedia is information portal, not a portal for presenting your opinition about something, when you don't have proper education. Soon, I'll fix it, but if somebody again cut this article, I have to write to admin and report a rules breaking. Thanks. --Empiko (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like Hobartimus has quite properly taken out a lot of point-of-view material. For instance, the previous version began "Slovak version of events" and was an obvious copy-paste of a previous version.

We try to keep all articles neutral, based on reliable and verifiable sources. If there are specific issues, you can discuss them here on the talk page. No rules have been broken, except by the IP editor. Franamax (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

clumsy translation

Others have already commented (and will continue) about the NPOV issues "if any", this is about something else. Much of this material appears to have been translated either from Hungarian, or some other language, by someone whose first language is not English. No insult intended, but some of the translation has room for improvement. For example, it seems clear to me, from looking up the word "gendarme" in some on-line dictionaries, that the Hungarian word "zsandár" should probably NOT be translated as "gendarme", but rather, seems to have the same meaning as the simple English word "policeman". See, for example, the entry for "any policeman", under "Translations", (under "English"), at the wiktionary entry for gendarme.

Some other examples: In the first sentence in the "Consequences" section, why is the word "regardless" not followed by the word "of"? In my opinion, it is simply an example of some translation by someone who is not sufficiently familiar with English.

I would "consider" devoting time to improving the translation myself, but judging from the previous section ("[...] Why somebody frequently erased majority of this article?"), there is some doubt about whether that would be "wasted work" or not. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike the majority of the article is erased because it doesn't suit the "remembered history" of some Hungarian editors. They insist that any article that may reflect negatively on Hungary is erased and replaced by a version that is written by a two year old. I have continuously sought the permission and guidance of the author of the longer "Slovak" version, a UofT professor, and have seen it erased time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hobartimus

Is it fair that Hobartimus is editing material without an explination?

I think not... I'd like to hear from Hobartimus... If not then perhaps I'll begin to erase his edits... fair is fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) I have made a reply at Hobartimus user talk. Do not continue edit wars please. ZooFari 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note ; After the above IP 99.249.224.61 was blocked for hate speech (ethnic slurs) [3] a while back, he was more recently blocked for a month for "(Edit warring: amending block - it seems that this has been going on for months, persistent incivility too)" The IP is now also threatening to return "do you think I can't refresh my IP?"[4] Please watch out for further attacks on this article. Hobartimus (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Slovaks

I would like to see some reliable sources to support the claim that all of the gendarmes were ethnic Slovaks. And by reliable I mean peer-reviewed journal articles by historians or a book by an expert, not some obscure internet magazine. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First I wrote a long reply to this but I lost it. Hungarian citizenship or being in the Hungarian Army is not contradictory with being ethnic Slovak, now or back then. About the source, would you mind telling us what the problem is with it? A short English description from its page: "SZOMBAT („Shabbat”) is a Jewish political and cultural magazine. After the first issue came out in November 1989, it has been published without interruption, ten times a year. When starting the magazine, the editors decided to deal with all facets of Jewish life, presenting all trends of Jewry (religious, popular, cultural, national-Zionist) to the Hungarian Jewish community that had lived in isolation, being separated from the main centers of Jewish life." Hobartimus (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, but the fact that they really were Slovak has yet to be adequately established. Please review WP:RS, magazine articles are considered to be unreliable sources when an expert topic is discussed. A controversial historical point is clearly an issue for expert opinion, and no e-mag, however well self-described, cannot be possibly considered to be a reliable source on it. Even more so, if it does not cite any of its sources and cannot be review thoroughly, as it is only available in language other than English. Priority should be to add expert sources in English, if this is not possible, to add expert sources in other languages. But the expert part of it is what is the most important issue here. I doubt it is that hard to find e.g. a book by a historian, which passed through an adequate expert scrutiny. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a dispute to be sure. One of the sources mention outright that "Anti-Hungarian Slovak nationalist circles often claim -falsifying history- that Hungarians shot at the village. " So after there is an outright description of it it's not surprising that the there would be sources doing just that. There are two issues here which are hard to falsify. One is sergeant Ján Ladický, who actually gave the order to fire. I wonder how that is not contradictory with everyone being ethnic Hungarian. The second issue is the actual place where the event took place. As I'm sure you know Gendarmes were drafted from the local population as commuting (traveling to work every day from a long distance) was not possible at 1907 level of technology. As such there are population statistics which are not easy to falsify from these areas, which show a composition of the population. If the Liptó area and the Csernova area were fully ethnic Hungarian at the time it would apply to the the people drafted from there as well. I am sure you can look up the ethnic makeup of the area around Liptó (Liptov) and Csernova and tell us the local ethnic mixture. All the church officials and Martin Pazúrik the dean who actually went to consecrate the Church also does sound kinda similar to a Slovak name don't you think? Hobartimus (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can claim, that Dezo Hoffman, born in Banska Stiavnica, was actually an ethnic hungarian, one never knows even in the case of Liptov. And all you have written here is just OR. Find a reliable source supporting your claim and and less discussion will be necessary. And that someone claims, something is a falsificaton of history... that means nothing, RS is what counts here. I can say that Szentistvan's hungarian origin is a history falsification, so what? Wladthemlat (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dezo is offtopic here and what might be possible for 1 person and a group of 15 is slightly different in terms of % (propability). What about Ján Ladický? What does your source (Felak, James Ramon (1994)) say, who gave the order to fire, or was that detail not discussed? And once your opinion about István I. becomes published in a newspaper (say SME) it will have the same weight as what I qouted form ref. Hobartimus (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not offtopic. You are clearly keen to declare anyone famous a hungarian, but when it comes to discussing someone in a negative context, all the eagerness is gone. Moreover, Banska Stiavnica was in a Slovak majority area as well, which did not change your view, clearly demonstrating, that this is not a relevant factor deciding someone's origin in your opinion. OK, apply the same logic here as well then. The probability issue is just OR, irrelevant.

Jan Ladicky is found in a newspaper article as well, I have already marked it as unreliable.Wladthemlat (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the other sources know nothing of such a name, I shall mark it as dubious as well.Wladthemlat (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol first you declare that Dezo Hoffmann is not offtopic even though he has nothing to do with the shootings, then you say I used OR. First OR applies to articles not talk pages, and there is nothing OR about using simple math. 2+2 is not OR there is nothing "Original" about that. In the same vein the propability of 15 out of 15 ethnic Hungarians in an area with say 70% Slovak majority is 0.3^15. One person being ethnic Hungarian in the same area is 30%. I'm sure you know there is nothing original here I even left it to you to calculate the number using a calculator. So to come back to the real issue according to your source(Felak, James Ramon (1994)), who ordered the Gendarmes to fire? Who gave the order to fire? Hobartimus (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All I meant was, that to add such an information into the article would constitute OR, as probability is not a proof of their origin. You did not accept it at Dezo, do not try to use it here and everything's fine. I will check the other sources. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Only to formally close this question. Slovak origin of gendarmes is confirmed e.g. in outputs from international conference organized on 100th aniversary of the tragedy by Catholic Univerzity in Ružomberok: Kucík, Štefan ed. (2008) Mýtus a realita [Myth and reality], Ružomberok: Katolícka univerzita, ISBN 978-80-8084-314-4 or in complex monography published by Slovak national institution Matica slovenská - Holec, Roman (1997), Tragédia v Černovej a slovenská spoločnosť [Tragedy in Černová and the Slovak society], Martin: Matica slovenská, ISBN 80-7090-377. The second one one describes also various myths about tragedy, both Slovak and Hungarian.--Ditinili (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Move to Cernova massacre

The article should be moved under Cernova massacre as a) the majority of English sources are referring to it as such and b)such events are normally referred to in English as massacres. Cernova tragedy is just an improper translation of either Csernovai tragedia or Cernovska tragedia but it is incorrect in English. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am re-stating this position and supporting it with the fact, that Cernova massacre yields 154 Google books hits, whereas cernova tragedy only 46. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Horbatimus use Hungarian sources from non-scholars

Its necessary to be neutral. That sources are not neutral, not verifiable so not the from of sources accaptable in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources --Samofi (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note the above post is from user:Samofi, banned for vandalism, hate speech and various other disruption. Hobartimus (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved lacking enough support at present. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Černová tragedy → Černová massacre — move from a title that is an improper translation from other languages to a standard and most frequent English langugage usage. 46 vs 154 google books hits. The idea has been unopposed for almost a year, see above. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose! I would like to be the first one within this "almost a year" as Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Nmate (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  Comment How's a grammar correction soapboxing? Google books hits speak for themselves. And yes, it's been there for 10 months, so it is almost a year. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the change of the name of the article according to this [5] vs. [6] because of the Cernova massacre is more frequented name. --CsabaBabba (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose On Google there are 1290 English hits for "Cernova tragedy" while there are only 84 English hits for "Cernova massacre". The low overall coverage of this topic on Google Books doesn't justify a page move. Squash Racket (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Check those links on Google, not a single of them is even close to a reliable source. Google Books is way more relevant, and those results are pretty clear. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And a little note - I know, that in Slovak and Hungarian the word 'massacre' carries a slightly different meaning, a more dramatic one so to say, however in English it is used normally for such events as this one (as demonstrated by the links). Wladthemlat (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't start a debate over your interpretation of having 14-15 times more results for tragedy.

A "massacre" does not really describe this event based on the word's English definition and how the event is described in this article. "Tragedy" applies here much more as you very well know. Squash Racket (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The word massacre is perfectly adequate, see below. And to the results - Google returns searches on unreliable sites, many of which could've been written by Slovaks or Hungarians with not too good a command of English, which would explain the use of the word "tragedy". What counts is the results from Google Books, where the attribution is clear and the level of the publication academic, therefore more authoritative. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry Wladthemlat, but even Google fails to support you on this. I've searched for both terms in English, Hungarian and Slovak as well, and in all these languages the "Cernova tragedy" (csernovai tragédia, cernovska tragedia) turned up WAY more results than the massacre. CoolKoon (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again - the slovak and hungarian terms are used properly, however, when translated into English literally, they're incorrect and Google Books agrees, what's there to argue about?Wladthemlat (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is Google's contradicting itself then. Because (as others have pointed out as well) the search results seem to overwhelmingly favor the tragedy. Besides, as the opposer below has pointed out, do you seriously think that this incident can be compared to events that are called massacres with no doubt at all? As then we could define the deportation of people in accordance with the Benes decrees a massacre as well (many fell to the inhuman conditions provided by the livestock vans with no heating, that has been used for the deportation) or the "massacre" that occurred in Bratislava (Pozsony?) shortly after the czechoslovak legion took hold of it (the army shot at unarmed civilians). You see events that are called massacres usually refer to the killers' intention as well. In Cernova the gendarmes' intention was NOT to kill everyone, but to secure the area for the consecration of the temple (by a Slovak priest, I may add). Whereas most massacres involved shooting at random with the intention of eradicating a group of people (or a whole village for instance) that usually involved some planning in advance as well. Therefore it would not only be pointless to rename the article, but misleading as well. Cernova was NOT a massacre. CoolKoon (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do think this event can be labeled a massacre, ever heard of Boston Massacre for example (very similar a case)? For other examples check the link I have posted as a response to Rokarudi. Number of casualties nor killers' intentions are a factor ergo neither an argument. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose 'Massacre is the killing of a considerable number of people under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people; as, the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day.' Similar definitions are found on the net, which clearly do not correspond to this case. It was a regrettable incident, a tragical clash betweeen rioting villagers and local gendarms that most probably overreacted the situation, but it is not the same case as the Srebrenica Massacre or My Lai Massacre. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

False, even events with less than 10 casualties are considered massacres, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres Wladthemlat (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of the massacre: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/massacre , http://www.yourdictionary.com/massacre , http://dictionary.babylon.com/massacre/ all these can be apply to this article better than term "tragedy" (http://www.answers.com/topic/tragedy). The usage of the term "tragedy" is better for natural or traffic disasters, not for the killing of unarmed people - its massacre, according to majority of books about this topic. --CsabaBabba (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page protection

I've fully protected this page for two weeks to prevent the (fairly slow, but persistant) edit war that is taking place. You need to agree consensus on an alternative form of wording, I think, to describe people living in Hungary who aren't Hungarians. An WP:RFC may be helpful. GedUK  10:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've protected it again. Very disappointing that nobody appears to have attempted to communicate on this talk page. GedUK  20:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After reading the comments carefully, I feel that massacre fits better. I also believe that the definition of massacre and tragedy should not be tainted or biased one way or the other because of political affiliations. Webster's gives the definition of massacre as the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty compared to a disastrous event : calamity for tragedy. Whilst this article clearly fits both, massacre is more specific. KiloT 20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Černová tragedy → Černová massacre – Google Books returns 127 hits for Černová massacre [7] and only 72 for Černová tragedy [8]. Number of casualties is irrelevant, see: List_of_events_named_massacres and the use of the term tragedy is also unnatural in English, such events are normally called massacres as demonstrated by the list of massacres above and [9]. Wladthemlat Wladthemlat (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - (Formerly Neutral Opinion): I understand both sides of this issue, and Wladthemlat is correct in that massacres can be of varying sizes. The Boston massacre killed only a few people, and comparatively the Holocaust killed millions and both are considered massacres. However, in my understanding of the Slovak language 'tragedia' would still simply translate as tragedy, and my three dictionaries seem to confirm this view (One published 2007, one 1985 and the earliest 1960). Also, a quick email to my cousin Vladimir in Slovakia gave his concurrence to the tragedy translation. However, hat would push me one way or the other, is to understand how the modern people and historians view this event. If Hungarian and/or Slovak historians call it a 'tragedia' in name but feel it to be more of a massacre than tragedy, then I would fully support changing the title to Černová massacre. But as for now, I must keep in good conscience and stay neutral. Demokratickid (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note - yes, a literal translation would be "tragedy" but google books hit count comparison indicates, that reliable English sources refer to it as "massacre" more often (and I don't think it's a value-laden use, it is more due to linguistic reasons - massacre is used more often in English than in Slovak or Hungarian to describe such events). I think we should use the standard English term not a literal translation of the original.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

*I understand the point you are making, my vote I shall change to support. Demokratickid (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you're saying has nothing to do with truth. The word "massacre" has pretty much the same meaning in English as "mészárlás" has in Hungarian and "masaker" in Slovak. The "Boston massacre" is translated exactly to "Bostoni/Boston-i mészárlás" and the massacre cited by Adrian below also translates to "1848/49-es erdélyi mészárlás". I could cite you numerous additional sources, but the thing is that you're obviously trying to make the event look more dramatic than it really is. CoolKoon (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Boze! Kedy s tym prestanes? Nestacilo ti to predchadzajuce hlasovanie?

It's been retold numerous times that the events in Cernova/Csernova were a tragedy and NOT a massacre. A massacre is usually an act that's committed by either a foreign power, a local faction(/warlord) or a crime organization. In Csernova however the members of the Hungarian gendarmes were ordered to shoot into its own citizens. Because regardless of what you think Hungary DID regard even lands that are now parts of Slovakia and its citizens as their own. So I'm sorry to disappoint you, it was NOT a nationalist attack, but an abuse of power against the citizens on political grounds. Sure, the Slovak intelligentsia DID try to make it look like a massacre and partially succeeded in the West in doing so, but the facts remain unchanged. The act of shooting into innocent protesters was a tragic and sad part of Hungarian history (and Slovak too, even though they tend to reject the history of A-H) and even though similar events have happened in other Western countries, it's a memorable act that should never be forgot (or else we face of it happening again). On the other hand, such event was just simply bound to happen. If not in Csernova, then somewhere else. The disagreements between political parties were so grave at times that escalating of such situation would've led to a shooting elsewhere too (especially in poorer areas).

Also, what makes you think that "most of the sources" refer to it as a massacre? Did you check the Slovak sources as well? How about the Hungarian ones? Because I know for sure that in Slovak it's mostly referred to as "Tragédia v Černovej" and "Černovská tragédia" (I haven't even seen it written in any other way) and in Hungarian it's either "Csernovai tragédia" or (more commonly) "Csernovai sortűz" (=volley of Csernova). So if you'd take these additional source into consideration, you might find that the "Csernova/Cernova massacre" term isn't THAT common at all.

One last note: while searching for the terms above, I've stumbled upon this "wisdom" on the Slovak Wikipedia: "Černovská tragédia je krvavý masaker, ktorý sa odohral 27. októbra 1907 ako dôsledok národnostného útlaku v Uhorsku." ("The Cernova tragedy is a bloody massacre, which happened on 27. October 1907 as a result of ethnic suppression in Hungary") - no comment -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Number of casualties is irrelevant, so is political affiliation.
• Hungarian and Slovak use is only relevant if English use cannot be found, but Google Books clearly returns more hits on Cernova massacre, that's what English wikipedia should go with, other languages are irrelevant in this case. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of casualties is relevant (somewhat, but there were more than 7) but political affiliation isn`t. EX: This event 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania is political and it is a massacre. Adrian (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tak teda polopaticky: Fine, I didn't dispute the fact that the no. of casualties is irrelevant. I didn't talk about political affiliation however. I've only talked about the fact that the MAIN reason behind the event had roots in politics. It didn't happen for the fact that the protesters were members of the opposing party (far from that), but the REASON behind Hlinka's dismissal was of political nature (he was a candidate of the opposition party in the local elections). Besides he also feared that things would turn ugly (though he probably didn't think that shooting would be involved), therefore he tried to calm the locals (obviously with little success). So the bishop has sent another minister (also a Slovak) to consecrate the temple, but the locals didn't like him, didn't let him enter into the temple and the gendarmes have overreacted. Ironically at least some of the gendarmes had relatives in the protesting mass too.

Another thing: you're obviously trying to make it look like the massacres done by colonists on the occupied territories. However the thing is that NO parts of Hungary were EVER treated as colonies, including areas where population was more than 90% Slovak. Sure, treating the event as a nationalist massacre would make it look good in the eyes of the Slovak public (including yourself of course), but it simply has nothing to do with the truth. The volley was NOT a nationalistic attack of Hungarians against Slovaks (especially because most of the gendarmes were ethnically Slovaks themselves), no matter how hard you're trying to prove otherwise. Or would you like to call the mass executions from the 1950s massacre too? Or the executions after crushing the "Prague spring" in 1968? CoolKoon (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic matters are not up for debate here, just semantics of the article title. Can we save this nationalism discussion for another time? Thank you. Demokratickid (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, although I fear the only reason this move is brought up again is not of an objective one. If you check the discussion of the previous proposal as well, you'd see that Wladthemlat's proposal was not quite good enough to be supported. So now he returns after almost a year and does the same thing over again. Seriously, what was he thinking? That Hungarian editors will vanish off the face of WP and his proposal will be supported with the help of Romanian and other non-Hungarian editors?

Also, the semantics of the article title are strongly related to the event itself. I disagree with the renaming proposal mostly for the fact that objective sources don't support the claim that the Csernova tragedy was a massacre indeed. You might also be unaware of it, but the interpretation of the volley was the target of a VERY heated debate in Slovakia a few years ago. It all began with the then prime minister Fico (a heavy populist BTW) making a speech about it, which's been later publicly resented by a group of reputable Slovak historians. A few days later a group of (WAY) less-than-reputable historians however publicly supported the misleading statements (to say at least) of Fico. Unfortunately ever since there are quite strong pressures on making this event into a "fine example of Hungarian oppression in the pre-1918 Hungary". What's worse the former prime minister (and his whole party) has tried to use the "Cernova massacre" terminology to legitimize tons of other historical inaccuracies and outright myths by forcing them into mainstream history as well. This leads me to believe the Wladthemlat's efforts of renaming the article are less than noble and what's worse he's trying to argue with the sheer number of sources only, ignoring the fact that some (or even many) of the sources might be misleading as well (and ignoring the non-English sources as well, if it suits him). CoolKoon (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I refuse to consider ethnic matters here. This is a question of semantics to a largely unbiased editor who simply takes an interest in the language and area. I am aware of ethnic pressures from radical Hungarians, radical Slovaks, etc. and have no wish to attack or defame any party. Therefore, once again, I view this as a philosophical matter of semantics and not as yet another in a disturbingly large number of ethnic mudslinging incidents between Hungarians and Slovaks on English Wikipedia. I cannot and will not speak for others, but as for myself, my support is unchanged and untampered. Demokratickid (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, do as you wish. I'm trying to be as impartial as possible as well, but the fact that Wladthemlat wants to rename the article again after a year is far too striking. People just don't persist this much for "semantics", without having a more "personal" and "important" agenda to pursue either. Sure, this also includes myself as well, but my personal issue with the "Csernova/Cernova massacre" is the fact that it isn't supported by the majority of contemporary and even present-day sources simply for the fact that it wasn't a massacre. And since I hate ignorance just as much as intentional falsification of historical facts, I shall not support a move which I feel would belong to either of those categories. CoolKoon (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, I shall respect you opinions as your own and I kindly thank you for being civil. So few are anymore :( Demokratickid (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Since there were previous attempts to move it, I will try to explain why do I support this move.

1) Google results (massacre has more results)

2) As I can see from this List of events named massacres , there is an event where 7 deaths Brown's Chicken massacre and 8 Greysteel massacre. I think there are more examples for sure in this list. Citing from the article The gendarmes fired four times, killing 15 people, seriously injuring 12 and lightly injuring 40. . By this, it certainly can be named a massacre.

3) The definition of massacre also support renaming this article. Adrian (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course. But I do not see the need to express my opinion as everything is already said here by CoolKoon.--Nmate (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support

1) massacre is better

2) google and books results

--Bizovne (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The massacre / tragedy issue is truly ideological. Slovakians seem to prefer to refer to it as 'massacre' ie. Hungarian police massacred Slovakian civilians while Hungarian oppose it handling what happened as an incident between ethnic Slovakian rioters and local ethnic Slovakian gendarmes of the Hungarian gendarmerie resulting in an undesired death toll. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we should not follow SNS type rhetoric in Wikipedia, this would be exactly their phrasing. The goal of SNS type extremism was always to distort this event for reasons of political propaganda. The same thing is going on when they try to falsify the ethnicity of the ethnic Slovak gendarmes, who committed the shooting after being attacked by a mob throwing stones. There are some facts, which are confirmed by historians, including Slovak historians who study the time period. Gendarmes were recruited from the local ethnic Slovak population and could not commute to work at that level of technology. Not only that but surviving records and investigations are available for research, and historians who did research them confirm that the shooters were ethnic Slovak. But extremist political parties and other groups STILL attempt to distort the events and spread lies about them ignoring all historical research and evidence, for their political reasons. Using their preferred name for the event would just be playing into their hands. This was a very unfortunate event, but it's high time to base our opinions about it on sound historical research and not following rhetoric of certain political parties. Also per reasons stated above. Hobartimus (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nominator--Yopie (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that ALL of the Czech sources in Google book search refer to it as a "tragedy" (Černovská tragedie) and not "massacre"? CoolKoon (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been noted before, the predominant English version is what matters here, not how it is commonly referred to in Czech. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The definition and meaning of the phrase massacre does not fit this incident. At this point it seems that an ethnic Slovak ordered ethnic Slovaks to shoot at a mob in a Slovak village who were obstructing them, provoking them and threw stones at them. Describing this as a "massacre" is a stretch. Squash Racket (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support In English massacre is the common term for such events, regardless of size or political affiliations of those involved. Making up your own definition of what "massacre" means, or pointing out the Slovak version's title is not persuasive at all. Commonly "Černová tragedy" would refer to a natural disaster or train wreck. Yes, "Černová tragedy" for the Czech or Slovak language articles might be the appropriate title. For the English WP article, use the most commonly referred to term in English, which apparently in "massacre". I performed a Google book search myself and the results were more skewed in favor of "massacre" than what Wladthemlat reported. That's not necessarily the only evidence as to weight, but the editors who are opposed have not provided any refs, but rather have just expounded at length as to their own opinions. Also, it is not bad faith for an editor to ask for reconsideration of an article's title every year - we have collectively made the wrong decision in naming articles quite frequently and at some point we should get it right. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a quite important point: the events did NOT happen in an English-speaking country or region, but in Austria-Hungary, where German was the dominant language or Hungarian at best (but definitely not English). Therefore any of the English books were exclusively based on either Slovak sources, Hungarian ones or both. This makes assessing English sources quite difficult. What's more is that this massacre was used even by members of the contemporary Slovak intelligentsia for propaganda purposes and to support their arguments for an independent "land of the Slovaks". This aspect was strengthened even more after the creation of Czechoslovakia and paradoxically even more after 1993, especially during the communist Fico government in the years 2006-2010. This has inadvertently led to bad science, overdramatization and a tendency to make the event appear as a "Slovak civil resistance" movement against the "ever-oppressing Hungarian forces". I also suspect that such is the case with this moving request as well. Ever since I've seen the first signs of politicians involving into interpreting the events that have happened in Csernova/Cernova I have a tendency to view such attempts as politically/nationalistically motivated ones. This isn't "only an opinion" but one of the facts for which I oppose the move. The other one is the ridiculousness of the "only English books count and their sheer number is bigger than that of the sources of the opposing party", because (as explained above) the sheer number of books might NOT be a relevant source. CoolKoon (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• " did NOT happen in an English-speaking country" - so? The term "massacre" is what english sources use the most, your are not making much of a case here. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: In classical theatre, a tragedy is a play in which a hero's own moral flaws cause his downfall. I don't insist on such a narrow definition, but I'd prefer to confine the word tragedy to events that result from human error; it bugs me when every act of god or other random premature death is called a tragedy. (Sorrow is often applicable, and is one letter shorter.) That said, this massacre was apparently caused, at least in part, by misunderstanding, so the label fits. —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I should perhaps emphasize that "human error", in the sense I intended, does not include premeditated murder even though the Church might call all sins "errors". —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now this is a VERY good point. Even after years of my connection with (and knowledge of) the English language I still don't have the vocabulary necessary for expressing argument in such fancy way, but this is EXACTLY the point I've tried to make: it WAS a human error, a result of some grave misunderstanding on both sides. Massacre is something radically different from this: it's an act of a (usually carefully planned) killing which's supposed to be executed no matter what. Here the priest's task/purpose was NOT to see the villagers being shot at, and the gendarmes' task was NOT to shoot at Slovaks on sight, but to allow the priest to safely perform the consecration ritual.

Good job ;) -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So the Boston massacre, the Amritsar massacre, the Kent State massacre, the Ghulja Massacre were all "carefully planned"? Give me a break... Please stop inventing new definitions of the word every other day. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Inventing new definitions?! What are you talking about? It's quite ludicrous to hear this from a non-native English speaker, but be it. Fine, then I'll say that SOME of the massacres were carefully planned. But still, the soldiers intention WAS to free one one their men during the Boston massacre, at ALL costs. The gendarmes in Csernova didn't have such obligations. They were there to ensure that the priest is able to perform the consecration ritual. The fact that they've shot into the mob instead of the air is therefore more of a tragedy than a massacre. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, inventing new definitions - first, the number of casualties was the defining factor for you, then it was the citizenship of the troops and the killed, now it is a plan. Kent state or Amritsar are cases bearing striking similarities to Cernova and yet they are called massacres. And when you mention native speakers - several have supported the move in the discussion above, the only ones opposing are Hungarian editors.Wladthemlat (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I do have to fully support Wladthemlat here. This question is for me still one of purely semantics, and as a native speaker this incident warrants the title massacre rather than tragedy. In English, there are very few events in history referred to as a 'tragedy' as they are almost universally labelled 'massacres.' Therefore, massacre would make more sense here. Demokratickid (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Move, but not to 'massacre'. As several editors have already noted, the word 'tragedy' is not the right word in English to use here. On the other hand, 'massacre' suggests the intention to kill. Maybe 'killings', 'shootings', 'incident'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually, Martin, the above words would make more sense, however it seems the choice is between tragedy and massacre here. In a perfect world (well this wouldn't have happened haha) it would be something like the 'Černová killings.' Demokratickid (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that 'massacre' implies intention, there are plenty of examples (Boston, Kent State, Amritsar to name a few, again) that show otherwise. Not to mention that scholarly sources use the term on this event quite regularly.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well put, and good examples Wladthemlat, I agree. Demokratickid (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both Slovak and Hungarian sources label this incident as "tragedy". - Darwinek (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Note What terms Hungarian, Slovak, German or Swahili sources use is not of relevance to English wikipedia. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I sound like a broken record but this is a semantics issue on English Wikipedia only Demokratickid (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you might have to read "The Slovak Spectator" or something like that a bit more often (their English proficiency is questionable at times, but generally their articles are quite good readings and they seem to be very competent too), because you still don't seem to be aware of the political connotations of the issue :P Actually when Wladthemlat has made his comment above it REALLY reminded me of one of Ján Slota's fairly recent comments... -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we just PLEASE leave nationalism out of it!? I'm sorry I am getting agitated but for the billionth time this is an English semantics issue, if you feel it has political overtones then no one can convince you otherwise and so be it. However, from a neutral perspective (as an American who finds both Slavic and Magyar nationalism the height of imbecility), I can say my opinion about the true issue about the title without need to reference extremist folks in Slovakia or Hungary. So far, CoolKoon, you have done nothing but raise issues of nationalism that are entirely unhelpful and are arguing 'facts not in evidence' for this particular case. Please, sir or ma'am,I beg thee to allow me to continue assuming your good faith by leaving nationalism out of this once and for all. Please. Demokratickid (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, chill out, dude! I know that you're meaning it well, and I know that you treat it as a semantics issue. I'm only saying that you might be only one whose intentions are the noblest in discussing this issue. I know that the nationalism throughout the Carpathian basin appears REALLY ridiculous to Americans. Gene Simmons has pretty much told the same at Hungary's most popular morning radio show (it's still running today until 10 am local time :P), though his Hungarian proficiency (contrary to the claims on WP) is mediocre at best. I'm only saying that at least a few of the OTHER voters have a bit more malevolent reasons. It's not that I'm not assuming good faith, it's only the history these users and the fact that I'm reading local daily news. If you read the translation of my conversation with Bizovne's IP sock (use an automatic translator if you have doubts), you might see the reason why is it so hard for me to be impartial in matters with deep Slovak political connotations. You know when you see people of a specific political orientation (not only the party members, but its supporters as well) say one thing and then do its exact opposite, it's VERY hard to say that they aren't doing this or that out of political agitation.

My problem with statements such as "Hungarian, Slovak and even Swahili names are irrelevant" is that I don't think that there's an established term for the event in English, due to the fact that it did NOT happen in an English-speaking country. You can quote as many English sources supporting "Csernova/Cernova massacre" as you want, but the fact is that there are a LOT of sources that speak about Csernova/Cernova without referring to it either as a tragedy or a massacre (only beating around the bush instead with statements such as "events in Csernova", "shooting in Csernova" etc.). Once again I think that the event shouldn't be constituted a massacre, because Hungary wasn't an authoritarian state. Sure, it had its deficiencies, but it was a democratic state with the broadest suffrage at the time. The fact that it was a tragedy is supported also by the fact that the event was thoroughly investigated by the authorities at the time, just like it's customary in democratic countries (the fact that only members of the mob were prosecuted is another thing, which's beyond the point). Once again I think that a massacre is something which's done either in dictatorships, foreign forces or criminals (gangs, the mafia, drug barons etc.). And besides, if we're so keen on calling the events in Csernova a massacre, why don't we call other events connected to Hungary massacres too? We could call all the crushings of the Hungarian revolutions by Habsburgs massacres too. Or the crushing of the events in 1956. Or any other events that've happened in Hungary and involved fights between civilians and (somewhat) armed forces. -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again ... " think that the event shouldn't be constituted a massacre, because Hungary wasn't an authoritarian state" - it's the fourth definition you bring forth in this debate. Excuse me sir, but I doubt you are even listening to the arguments presented thus I conclude any further debate with you is futile. I will again point you to Boston, Amritsar and Kent state, the scholarly sources that use massacre way more often than tragedy in this case and native speakers that confirm that tragedy is not grammatically correct (which I was pointing out in the original move request a year ago btw.). If you by any chance come up with relevant arguments instead of flooding us with your speculations and opinions implying a malicious motive to the move, I will be more than glad to listen. Until then I refuse to discuss the matter with you any further. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, once again then: the Boston and Amritsar massacres happened in British colonies and were done by British occupational forces. This was clearly NOT the case for Hungary (Slovakia did not exist prior to 1918 in any form, so Csernova and the rest of the territories later awarded to Czechoslovakia were parts of Hungary proper i.e. that's in contrast with Croatia, which had some form of autonomy or Transylvania along with the Partium, which was independent from Hungary since 1526 up until 1848 I believe). The "Kent State massacre" was renamed "Kent State shootings", probably for the same reason as the one I'm trying to emphasize here (it happened in a democratic country with the authorities shooting their own citizens). You last example therefore even gives me a fairly good argument against your stance (and counters your implication that "massacre" would be grammatically more correct than "tragedy"), thanks :P Let's make it clear then: I'm NOT against renaming itself. "Csernova/Cernova shootings" is fine for me as well. Once again it's the massacre I have problem with, because it's NOT a massacre.

All in all, you seem to refuse the fact that my point could be valid as well. You just seem to dismiss all the counterarguments one raises (not only my allegations of political motives, but EVERY other ones as well) as "speculations" and "opinions" whilst forgetting that yours is just an opinion as well. -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If the term "shootings" is acceptable by both parties, cannot we compromise on such a word? Demokratickid (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No as we desperately lack any sources using the term. We don't lack sources for 'massacre' wording though. I don't see why a compromise should be reached, either we take the sources into account or we don't. But WP:COMMONNAME says we should.

:When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title

and the balance is ~70:17 for massacre. [10] [11] Wladthemlat (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. You said it loud and proud now: you're NOT willing to make a compromise at all. You surely expect everyone else (especially Hungarians) to make compromises, but not you, never. I'm not implying anything, but just for comparison the Slovak Communists (Fico, Smer and co.) are doing just the same: they NEVER EVER back off an inch of their stance, attack everyone else on a constant basis and treat politics as a zero sum game. They're either too stupid or too ignorant/careless about the fact that their attitude leads to a civil war instead of a prosperous economy. Thus I shall warn you that "fighting 'till the end" will NOT earn you respect on WP (except for SK WP that is, which has zero relevance here).

I've already pointed out that the ratio of sources is HEAVILY skewed due to the fact that you fail to notice sources which don't refer to the event as a "massacre" nor as a "tragedy". So what you're doing instead is ignoring any sources that don't fit you and capitalize on the ones that do. Also, pointing to sources in a matter whose interpretation is heavily debated across various historians is pure alibism (at best). You treat ANY opposing sources as irrelevant and essentially suggest that they're all wrong. Also, did you check the sources for "Csernova tragedy" and "Csernova massacre" as well? Somehow I doubt you did otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't hhhave quoted such a ridiculous ratio (70:17). -- CoolKoon (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Csernova tragedy - 1 source, Csernova massacre - 8 sources. Do we really need to debate this any further? There is 4 times more reliable sources naming the event massacre than ones naming it tragedy. And I did not mean it in the way that I am not willing to compromise, but my hands are tied by wikipedia policies and guidelines, thus a compromise wording is not acceptable as it would be against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLECHANGES, see bullet point no.2 below (Cernova shootings has 1 source).

• Google Books returns aforementioned 70:17, Questia returns 2:1 for massacre, ProQuest full text 2:0.
• While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names. - WP:TITLECHANGES
• In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. - WP:TITLECHANGES Wladthemlat
• When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title WP:POVTITLE
• Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. (...) If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view. - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)
• Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. - WP:GOOGWladthemlat (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I still beg to differ. I've done a Google book search for the term as well and it has turned up about 180 sources for the term "Cernova massacre" (with a significant portion of them written by Slovak and Czech authors). It's true that neither of any other terms come close to this number. The mere number of quotes itself however shows that there's NO established English name for the event as you could hardly call 180 cites for a more than 100-year-old event significant. Also if you add upp ALL the other sources regarding the topic (Cernova/Csernova tragedy, shooting/s, events at, killing/s etc.) it's quite likely that they might add up to be even more than the "Cernova massacre" list. Therefore I still say that pointing to the amount of sources in this case is quite misleading.

Citing WP:COMMONNAME and saying that a compromise wording's not acceptable due to the policy is misguided (to say at least) as well. The rule's about naming conventions for terms which ring any bells to native English speakers. Because of the obscurity of the event (from English speakers' point of view) and its fairly low amount of relevant sources however obviously there's no established English name for the event. And thus the rule says that "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above (e.g. recognizability, naturalness, precision etc)." And since I still think that the terms "tragedy" and "shooting" are still MUCH more relevant and consistent with the event than "massacre" I suggest the article's name to be left the same. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'll quote you: "It's true that neither of any other terms come close to this number.". Thank you for admitting that there is indeed a "single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources". Please note that significant majority is important, not the total source count.
• Your case falls apart even if recognizability is considered, as it again refers to English language reliable sources. Naturalness also points to massacre, since it has been pointed out several times by native speakers that 'tragedy' is not the word to use for such events.
• I'll quote WP:POVTITLE again: "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view." As the alternative names you propose return negligible hits, they're an obvious no-go.
• I'll qoute you again: "And since I still think" - Exactly. You think. Sources and native speakers disagree. Wondering what bears more weight. Wladthemlat (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my words. The fact that it's the most often used term isn't convincing enough for the fact that the sources are inconclusive. There are at least as many sources (if not more) which don't use the term "massacre", but another word instead. This proved that there's no consensus among English authors on the usage of the term.

You're repeating yourself even though I've proven this point wrong before: the VERY SAME native speakers have confirmed that "Cernova shootings" is just as natural as the "Cernova massacre". You should stop basing you argument solely on natural English speakers' opinions as well, since they're also only opinions anyway.

Negligible hits?! The amount of sources you base the "Cernova massacre" title upon are negligible as well. Nobody's trying to make up names for the event anyway. Terms such as "Cernova tragedy" are used in other languages as well, so they aren't "invented" either. And besides, all the alternative terms you've proposed are supported by some of the sources as well.

I think? First of all, it wasn't only me alone who disagrees with your proposal, so this isn't solely about you and me you know. The only thing native speakers seem to agree on is the fact that "Cernova tragedy" sounds unnatural. This however doesn't mean that they completely agree with you, far from that (evidenced by the fact that they've proposed the "Cernova shooting" as a compromise as well). Since there's a considerable amount of sources which are in contrary to your claims, the sources' support of your stance aren't unanimous either. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick summary - current title is wrong, the most frequent alternative is massacre and shooting is unacceptable per WP:povtitle and WP:COMMONNAME.

" There are at least as many sources (if not more) which don't use the term "massacre", but another word instead" - no there are not, try proving it instead of thinking again.Wladthemlat (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, it isn't only me who disagrees with you on this. Mentioning WP:POVTITLE is pretty much pointless as well, because "shooting" is just as dramatic or POVish as "massacre". You know, I'd even support your view if there weren't such big discrepancy between the sources. But there is and hence I think that they're inconclusive. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• 4 times more reliable sources name the event massacre than name it tragedy

Google Books returns 70:17, Questia returns 2:1 for massacre, ProQuest full text 2:0.

• Mentioning POVTITLE is not at all pointless as it explicitly refers to compromise title wordings and also explicitly states that we should follow sources.
• Could you please finally bother to bring in some arguments supporting your position (at least provide us with sources count that would support your claim, that there is probably more sources in total using other word than massacre) instead of opinions? Thanks. --Wladthemlat (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine then: there are over 1200 English publications that mention Cernova and there are ~250 publications that mention Csernova. Out of these only 180 mention the term "Černová/Cernova massacre". So once again, what are you talking about? What negligible hits? Isn't 180 out of more than 1200 negligible as well? Turns out my assertion isn't solely based on what I think. Obviously there REALLY is no established English name for the event. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, as usual. Cernova by itself returns hits for other topics as well (not to mention several authors' surname is actually Cernova). What about narrowing it down to this particular event [12] - 240 hits, out of which 107 [13] mention massacre, only 14 tragedy [14]. No, it is not negligible. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You on the other hand just neglect the details even though you should be aware that the Devil's exactly in those. Sure, my list MIGHT include some authors with the name of Cernova, but your search is unnecessarily narrow, because some of the sources don't mention the date at all, while others misquote it (I've seen one that marked 1909 as the event's date). So you just did what you do all the time: misinterpreted the facts/sources to make them appear to be in your favor. This reduces your arguments to mere opinions which have exactly the SAME strength and relevance as those of any other voters'. Despite this you've constantly dismissed my arguments as "merely opinions" and stuff which I "only think". Ironically (and VERY cynically indeed) you've even implied that my behavior renders discussion with me absolutely futile.

Once again I repeat that since only the MINORITY of the sources support the "Cernova massacre" name, it's not the de facto official English name of the event. I still fail to understand your objections to the "Cernova shooting" as well, since it could be a fairly reasonable title that sounds more natural to native English speakers as well (and its Hungarian counterpart -csernovai sortűz- is the de facto name of the event in Hungarian sources, regardless of the fact that you deem this irrelevant). All in all it's you once again who refuses to make a compromise on this despite the fact that this latter title has been suggested by native English speakers as well. And when it's pointed out to you, you just resort to wikilawyering and cling to just about every excuse you can muster that could justify your insurmountable stance. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessarily narrow? You mean a few hundred books misquote the year? Come on. Even if it ignores some books, it ignores them on both sides, but yields definitely more reasonable comparison in which massacre wording is not remotely as negligible as you were trying to present it. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but you've obviously ignored the list of books mentioning Csernova, which contains basically only sources that refer to the event. So if you add up these hits and the ones you've found, the mentions of "massacre" becomes once again not-quite-significant. So what now? Will you just ignore these sources altogether (like you're fond of doing) or will you just try and find another excuse that'd support you opinion that "massacre" is the official English name of the event (despite the fact that it's not)? -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Csernova massacre - 69 results, csernova tragedy 6 results, Csernova shootings 5 results. There may be other alternative names but that 'massacre' is the most frequent use is not my opinion but a fact. I agree that there probably is not a stable English name, but it is more than clear which wording comes the closest. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd Comment Just to comment again I am still not entirely clear why shootings cannot be accepted by both sides? If it is against a wikipedia policy cannot this be an acception or at least be looked at by a higher authority to see if we could use shooting in this case? If the term "Černová shooting" exists (which it seems to) it makes semantical sense and is better suited to the English language readers than tragedy and does not bring up the heated political connotations that to some massacre may bring? A fair compromise in my view... Demokratickid (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see Wladthemlat's the only one who opposes shootings and tragedy as well. I've already stated above that I'd be fine with "Cernova shooting" all the more because its Hungarian counterpart (csernovai sortűz) sounds more natural in Hungarian as well. Still, I think it's VERY unlikely that Wladthemlat will change his stance in this, because he'll just keep repeating over and over again that "Cernova massacre" is the official English name of the event even though it's not. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cernova shootings is used by less than ten sources, there is absolutely no merit for using this name over one that is used tenfold more.--Wladthemlat (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about stopping with the renaming proposals then? You want to have it named "Cernova massacre", while others disagree. It's been told (and retold) in the first vote. This second poll seems to oppose "Cernova massacre" the same way. I can't even see why did an overzealous admin relist it and why isn't it closed at all (MUCH more than 7 days have passed since the relisting). I just don't want to argue about this anymore, since I think it's pretty much pointless. I've already made my point, you made your as well, but we can agree on the fact that we couldn't agree on anything (as usual). So we should just call it a day and move on finally to something else. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Majority of the opposing votes come from your standard clique (Hobartimus, SquashRacket, Nmate, Baxter9, Rokarudi), i.e. people who look at the request solely through the ideological prism and would never vote against you (or support me for that matter), so much for "others disagree". And are you really suggesting that I should not attempt edits and requests just because you and your fellas are better organised?! " This second poll seems to oppose "Cernova massacre" the same way." oh really? And here I thought it was much more undecided than the last time (if only for the fact that it's been confirmed the current title is incorrect). Anyway, I still do maintain that there is no other wording that surpasses "Cernova massacre" in frequency and as we have all agreed "tragedy" is not the word to use here, we should go with what is used the most by the RSs. Wladthemlat (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideological prism?! You have no idea how ironic it is to hear this from you. Anyone who takes a look at your edits can tell that you're looking at things through the ideological prism in the very same way, only on the opposite side of the barricade. Your mentioning of the clique also speaks of your hypocrisy due to the fact that basically the only people who've voted here were either Hungarian editors (members of "my" clique, if you will) or members of the "opposite" clique (perhaps "yours"). Ironically this includes not only Bizovne (who has used a sockpuppet just to tell me how much he thinks Hungarian language resembles a dog's barking), but also a Czech user (Yopie) and Romanian users (Iadrian yu and of course our "beloved" Iaaasi). One has to wonder what is it that makes Romanian editors vote on matters which have nothing to do with Romanians and support Slovaks who have no common borders with Romania in the process. Could it be your "common ground" in your opinions on Hungarians that made you unite so strikingly? Because that's what it looks like. And basically the only exception was/is Demokratickid. He still has a hard time understanding the insurmountable obstacles in reaching agreements across these groups for the fact that Americans generally don't care for ethnic clashes (except when Mexicans are involved that is :P). Still, if he'd speak Slovak and would read discussions on SK WP he'd at least understand.

You know you can still keep whining about the fact that your "sane voice in the sea of madness" has been overwhelmed by the Hungarian clique, but the thing is that you've obviously mustered the members of your own clique as much as you've obviously could. And besides, I wasn't the one who brought this vote in Hungarian editors' attention so don't blame me.

As for the "tragedy" thing itself, I maintain that "shooting" is just as suitable as "massacre" if you want to have it changed. -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol... I don`t understand what`t such a big deal to rename this article? As for the one national groups VS another I would like for my name to be left out. If I am not mistaking, I am the only Romanian user here and the usual Hungarian users ALL voted. That`s strange... I have stated my reasons with evidence and examples why do I think this article should be renamed (not based on some obscure ethnic affiliation) while some users just voted, no matter why or what [15];[16];... I voted here intentionally because it is not "Romanian" or "Hungarian" stuff, because I felt that a neutral vote (nor Slovak,Czech or Hungarian) would clarify some things ,.. but all I see that I am now "branded" as a part of "Slovak,Czech group"... Indeed there are many examples where one ethnic users vote against others, but I don`t think this is the case. Some Hungarian users are really organized when it comes to voting and this kind of stuff that I am wondering if they are mastering some ancient magical powers :) ... Anyway, without any evidence there is no need (or recommended) to talk about this, it does more harm than good. It is good that the article request is decided by the arguments and not by the number of votes. Adrian (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, why don't you ask Wladthemlat about it? It wasn't me after all who has proposed the rename in the first place. And I don't think that leaving out your name would be in place, since you've placed yourself in one of the groups entirely yourself. There's no point in denying it anyway, because anyone who takes a look at your edit log will see that you've been involved in votes and discussions which don't have anything to do with Romanians but has a fairly lot to do with Slovaks. Judging by your lingual self-assessment on your userpage it's likely that you've understood a fairly good share of the discussion I had with Bizovne's IP sock too, so I don't know why were you so vocal about the translation and/or sticking to English on the talk page (besides pointing to the policies, which is BS). The fact that you were the only Romanian who voted here means two things: other Romanians don't want to get involved in clashes between Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors and the fact that Iaaasi is blocked (and hence he's not allowed to vote either).

I didn't say nor assert that you didn't present your arguments regarding the vote (even though I have to disagree with you). It's only that most of those arguments had striking similarities to the ones presented by Wladthemlat. You also seem to assert that my (or any other Hungarian voter's) opinion is solely based on "some obscure ethnic affiliation" (="view the event through the ideological prism" as said by Wladthemlat). While it's true that I still assert this aspect of the issue as well (just throw in the "Černovská tragédia" article from SK WP to Google translator and you'll see why) it wasn't BY FAR my only argument against it. I REALLY don't want to repeat myself, so please read my previous posts instead.

For the record: you were NOT labeled as being part of the "Slovak group" solely for this single vote, but you should know this already. Voting WITH Slovak editors on numerous issues on a constant basis makes one confuse you with them..... As for the "organizedness" of Hungarian editors you might've noticed that it's only the "usual" Hungarian editors who've voted here i.e. the ones who edited this article at least a few times (if not more). Nobody has asked any of them AFAIK to vote in "my favor" or something. Obviously you have quite a few disagreements with Nmate too, but I don't think you should blame him for all the bad things that have happened to you on WP. -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion (that I am a part of some group or whatever), and per WP:NOSPADE I would like to ask you to stop labeling me with whatever label you personally might think..(NPA). As for the translations (Yes, I understood something but...) I explained perfectly on your talk page my reasons, there is no need to drag that discussion here WP:STICK. Lol... I said this "some obscure ethnic affiliation" because you first accused me beign a part of some group for no apparent reason, just because I voted here. What about my vote here?[17] or when I supported your vote at [18] ? Anyway, this is entirely another subject and I would`t like for that subject to add to the further confusion here. PS: I did`t blamed anybody for anything (at those links I wasn`t even involved in anyway), just said that some people vote "just like that" and provided links to support my claim. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, arguments accepted. I only mentioned the talk page thing because I've only checked your talk page now and didn't feel like leaving a note on your talk page about it :P I'd also like to thank you for the rest of the votes too, where you DID in fact agree with me. Since debate is heated in Slovak-related articles at time, please excuse me the heightened paranoia. You know, with my experience on WP and outside one gets suspicious from time to time due to suspicious actions. (şi tu nu ar trebui să ia comenzi de la el - ştii cine) -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, just saw this page now. NP, no hard felling. Sorry if I appeared rude on the translation thing. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:CoolKoon or rename it to "Cernova shootings" (seems to be more neutral).--B@xter⁹ 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cernova shootings is used by less than ten sources, there is absolutely no merit using this name over one that is used tenfold more. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all understand that its frequency is quite high, and I still favor massacre over tragedy by quite a bit, but if it is possible to compromise, that solution will always be better than just fighting inconclusively. Demokratickid (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and trust me I would like to get this over with, but I am not keen on introducing new name whose use is next to nothing. That is not natural, nor recognizable nor per reliable sources use, even thought it seems like a good compromise. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a (somewhat) cynical proposal. While digging through the sources I found another form of the event: Csernova/Černová affair. Both forms yield about 50 results, making them about 100 in total. This means that it's mentioned almost as frequently as Csernova massacre, but its more neutral than the latter. Sure, it might sound unnatural as hell and a bit euphemistic too, but stands on more solid grounds as far as a compromise is concerned. What do you think? -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If the numbers you mentioned were correct, I would think about it, but as it is used [19] [20] 10 times in total, i don't think it would be a better choice.Wladthemlat (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How about giving it another try, but this time without the quotes? -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• For what it's worth Weak Support. Whether Czech, Magyar, or Slovak have adopted this rare French word is much less important than whether English has, and uses it here. Those who are busy defining away the possibility of calling this a "massacre" should really read Boston Massacre first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically Hungarian DID adopt the word "tragedy" as well, but the mainstream media seems to prefer "Csernova shooting" (Csernovai sortűz) instead for some reason (probably because it sounds more natural than Csernovai tragédia). I've also read the Boston Massacre article and you seem to downplay the fact that it was about British colonial forces shooting into American civilians. On the other hand in Csernova it was the Hungarian authorities who have shot into their own citizens (actually some of the gendarmes have wounded/killed their own relatives in the process). Also, since Kent State shootings is more comparable to the event in Csernova and it's been renamed from "massacre" to "shootings" as well I still favor "shooting" over "massacre". -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Read Peterloo Massacre then for Pete's sake... Wladthemlat (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. As soon as the other events named massacres which you've overused in your arguments (up until now) turn out not to really stand up against the counterarguments you just drop them and call on other events instead just to support your argument (then rinse and repeat). Still, this gives one a quite clear clue of the fact that you won't relent in ANY of the issues on WP no matter what (zily mi to ale az tak netrha). -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What?! You keep inventing new definitions of the word and apply your fictitious constructs on any example I present ("it can't be a massacre, there were too few casualties; Ok there can be few casualties, but it has to be intentional; Ok, it doesn't have to be intentional, but it can't take place in one state", etc. etc.), thus I absolutely have to keep bringing in new examples to prove you wrong. After all, it's the principle what counts. So if you keep claiming that massacre is not this or that, prepare for a lot more examples coming your way. Anywho, this is a debate we should not even have, it's not up to us to decide what is or is not a massacre, it's SOURCES what is important. And sources clearly use massacre wording most frequently. For a billionth time... Wladthemlat (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For the millionth time I'm telling you that THE SOURCES ARE INCONCLUSIVE. What you're doing is "self-made synthesis" i.e. presenting your very own OPINION (which still remains to be an opinion nonetheless) but (unlike myself) you try to make it look like unquestionable facts. Since you're not the one who makes the final decision (unlike judges, who also base their decisions on their own interpretation of the law), your arguments are once again just as good as mine. Also regardless of the fact whether you've managed to prove the majority of my arguments wrong or not (and the fact that I assert that this event should NOT be called a massacre), your argument about the sources is still based on flawed logic. You've quoted numerous times a list of sources that you claim to be the overwhelming majority of the sources (which they are certainly NOT) and claimed that no other name of the event comes even close to your favored "massacre" term (and managed to "bend the truth" in the process in this too). Therefore you're basically doing the VERY SAME things as what you accuse me of, especially when you've tried to either skew (like the thing with the quotes) or misinterpret (e.g. the "Csernova" source listing) essentially any source listing I put in here. However I must warn you that a lie that's repeated for a thousand times does NOT become truth, no matter how hard you try. (ozaj a mohol by si trosku precvicit pouzivanie clenov -a,an,the- v anglictine. Prospelo by ti to) -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthesis?

Although police force fire was not uncommon that time in many parts of the world (in 1871, the massacre of the Communards in Paris; in 1886, the Haymarket affair in the USA; in 1905, the killing of 1000 workers by Russian army in Petrograd, the killing of 11.000 rioting peasants in Romania, in 1907, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre by the British India Army) the Černová incident received special international attention as a result of Czech and Slovak intervention.

Is there a reliable source for these comparisons? Two of them are suppressions of full-blown revolutions; the Haymarket massacre was a response to the actual killing of a police officer with high explosive; and the Amritsar massacre was in a different world, after the War, and was committed by veterans.

If I were going to look for an actual comparandum Peterloo would be much closer; but I don't see why we should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

I placed {{POV}} on this article and was then directed to this talk page. The article appears to me to be very one-sided and not very well-referenced. This is not my area of expertise and I hope that a small group of Wikipedians can reach a concensus. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In what what way is it one-sided? Please give some more details, maybe we can correct that 79.117.202.107 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Hungarian gendarmes?

Currently, the article claims that according to other sources (citing James Felak), the gendarmes were ethnic Magyars. I think that it is misleading, as James Felak does not talk explicitly about their ethnicity. Whether he meant ethnic Hungarians or just soldiers serving the Kingdom of Hungary is questionable. See [21] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, suddenly ;) Deleted. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I have restored the neutrality tag. It is clear from the various edits and discussion on this page that there is a serious debate about the neutrality of this article. Until that is resolved, please do not remove the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is more or less neutral, but I can see some issues:

• "Today's Slovak politicians..." is own research and own conclusion. "Today's Slovak politicians" have plenty of opinions, more Slota is not "typical" politician but extreme, SNS is not in parliament and (even more) Slota is not a member of SNS anymore.
• "Some Slovak sources claim that the gendarmes were ethnic Hungarian.." is documented by 1 problematic source. Joseph M. Kirschabaum was a secretary general of Hlinka's Slovak People's Party (!) and book was published in exile in 1978. It is really widely accepted by Slovak historians that gendarmes had Slovak origin and spoke Slovak.
• Usage of low quality sources. It seems that some HU sources ([22], [23]) are not scholarly. Maybe, other sources are OK, but they are general works about Central Europe, Austria-Hungary, Slovakia, etc. They are not focused on this topic and can be inaccurate. E.g., also advocate of people from Černová agreed that they threw some stones (!), but in this article it is presented as something unclear or discussed.

I can include information from works about Hlinka and massacre, but I will need help with grammar. Roman Holec (already mentioned in the article) wrote whole book about massacre.--Ditinili (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019

The shootings sparked protests in European and American press and turned world's attention to the treatment of minorities in the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary.[citation needed] -- Citation could be for example: Robert Seton-Watson: The Racial Problems in Hungary. London, 1908.

-- You have a text that substantiates the claim later in the article as well - The tragedy sparked protests in the European and US press and it turned the world's attention to the attitude to the minorities in Hungary. Important protesting European personalities included the Norwegian Nobel Prize holder Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, the Oxford historian Robert William Seton-Watson, and the speaker of the Austrian parliament. -- It can be easily referenced, wikipedia article on Bjornstjerne does mention he did write on Cernova profusly.

-- References in the text [9] and [8] do not work/are not linked to a source. The claims are indeed disputable, even though the mentioned historian Roman Holec made such claims to media, his monograph on Cernova does not mention it nor substantiate it. Please remove or replace with a credible source.

Viator7292 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Sceptre (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation in "Consequences" section

1. Disputed part: Some Slovak sources claim that the gendarmes were ethnic Hungarian.[16] even though there was a very small number of ethnic Hungarians in the region where the gendarmes were recruited. According to Slovak historian Roman Holec, professor at Comenius University in Bratislava, the majority of the gendarmes were Slovaks from Liptó county.

Actual quote from the author: Všetci žandári pochádzali z Liptova, mali slovenský pôvod a vedeli po slovensky. Otázka ich národnej identity však vzhľadom na miesto v štátnej službe už taká jednoduchá nebola. Translation: All gendarmeries were from Liptov, had Slovak origin and knew Slovak language. However, the question of their national identity considering their state service is not simple. Source: https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/155373-cernova-je-pribehom-o-zneuziti-moci/ Picking only part of Roman Holec' research, twisting it in a way that completely changes the meaning and adding own commentary after the supposed source to drive the point home. For this reason I chose to erase the whole part instead of correcting it. In other words, place of origin or ethnicity is not the same as national identity.

2. Some of the links supposedly supporting the section lead nowhere, making it impossible to verify them.

3. The article delves into local politics with a statement of a minority party member that was mostly irrelevant even back then. Mentioning that part in the article hence serves absolutely no purpose other than to artificially prop up nationalistic feelings between two countries, reflecting other wiki editor's opinion. May as well add corresponding statements from some nitpicked Hungarian nationalists to be more objective and degrade the article even further because no statement is made in a political vacuum. This has no place in Wikipedia. If the article wants to cover over a decade old politics related to the incident, it needs to be objective and add all relevant points, like official statements of both sides, why was it made, what impact it had and such.

4. Blaming the victim for getting shot because "they felt they wouldn't get shot." First, the supposed sources lead nowhere. Secondly, that whole argument is awful and by this logic you can blame anyone who ever got shot for public disobedience, no matter the cause. That is a very slippery slope to stand on. Thirdly, even the original wiki article contradicted itself, pointing to the fact that the gendarmeries were "shooting to kill" - people were shot in the head and torso, which even then people knew tends to be fatal. It wasn't common for gendarmerie to slaughter people, so it is possible they didn't expect it, but nevertheless this can not be seriously used as an excuse. If anything, the author from the supposed source title places most of the blame on the state for how it handled it before and after the incident and not on the individuals, be it the citizens or the gendarmeries. This should be mentioned in the article if the previous wiki editor wishes to quote sources in good faith.

The whole section either needs a rewriting or a removal. Since the rewrite would essentially end up replacing most of the disputed part, I chose to go ahead and remove it. Incorrect information is worse than no information. KIENGIR (talk · contribs) If you disagree, please elaborate. --Martin4x4 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Martin4x4 (talk · contribs),

1. I would not delete, but add the part you say it's missing

2. Please give me details about this

3. I disagree, the article is rather short and summarizing all points of the incidents, from all viewpoints

4 I don't see one-sided blaming, it is written that both sides could be possibly responsible, etc. again, I have no problem to expand this part what you consider missing.

So, slowly we may shape the possible concerns of the article point by point.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC))