Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

no hungarians in slovakia

Slota compared the indigenous Hungarian population of Slovakia to the immigrants from African countries to France

This is a misinterpretation of the quote. He never said this verbatim. France is a multi-ethnic society which is bound by citizenship. In this fashion, stating that there are only Slovaks who speak hungarian is just emphasizing the citizenship inclusively, not infirnging on anyone's ethnic heritage.

I added more details. Actually he did mean they are not Hungarians in both senses. Qorilla (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends on how you define being Hungarian I guess.  wlad 11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Smer's suspension from PES

This should be deleted from the article as it has nothing to do with the bilateral relations. Smer was supsended due to SNS's extremist(ish) nature in general, not specifically because of its relationship to Hungarians.  wlad 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is needed because the PES is international and independent from both Hungary and Slovakia, so their opinion counts. Qorilla (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But its their opinion on SNS, not on the Slovak - Hungarian relations which the article should be about. This is information to be used in the SNS or Smer articles, it is redundant here.  wlad 11:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I put it into one sentence a bit above. Qorilla (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, much better.  wlad 11:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

One more thing - I know the Map issue has been debated ad nauseam on the SNS talk but... I would move it is removed from this article as internet discussion forums are cluttered with stuff like that. Despite it being a forum on the official page, it can be in no way linked directly to the party. Majority of such forums come with a legal disclaimer that the content added by the users does not represent the views of the site owner. But it's common sense imo. The fact that someone posts on SNS's forum can not be held against the party which is controversial enough in its own right anyway. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It was covered by almost all Hungarian media. I know it is questionable as it was on a forum, but it is still notable. If Slota weren't the chairman of a government party then this whole nonsense (I can just hope everyday Slovaks do not share those claims) section could be left out but as he is leading a government power we need these. Qorilla (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Hungarian media coverage means basically nothing and it doesn't change the fact, that it is hard to link the party to the map directly. Internet forums are a universe of their own, the owner of the website cannot be held responsible for the actions of some irresponsible users, regardless of the case. This is not a bit influenced by whether his party participates on govermnet or not. Either SNS is responsible for the map or not, and I think any internet user can see, that this accusation is a bit of a stretch really. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if this is such a significant case, what about the bumper-stickers of Nagy Magyarorszag that are fairly common in Hungary (compared to the frequency the maps of deleted Hungary appear in Slovakia)? Wladthemlat (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally - I have seen the map. What the heck is the deal about it? It's obviously some kind of internet joke, i find it funny when juxtaposed against the Nagy magyarorszag maps (same difference) otherwise it's not even worth commenting. The Hungarian media obviously didn't have much to cover that day. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also say that is not so significant as many such provocative things are made by internet-fighter nationalists, but it is still known in Hungary and some people don't know it was actually a forum and not the main website of SNS. So it has information. (off-topic: The difference with Greater Hungary maps is that Hungary actually was like that before the 1920 "punishment", but this forum-thing is just fiction.) Qorilla (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, but if realised both would mean annexation of someone else's land, that's what i had in mind. And the Hungarian media should seriously question their sanity if they deemed this worth reporting. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can understand. Hungary gets so much of this nonsense from the north on a daily basis that they felt the need to report about it. Qorilla (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hungary gets so much of this nonsense from the north on a daily basis" - it's mainly slota's occasional idiotic statements. Yes, he's a part of the governing coalition, that naturally raises some fear, but reporting on such worthless cases only adds to the hysteria. Hungary has a fascist and openly revisionist party in the EP, we don't feel too good about that either, however Slovak media are not reporting about every small case with possible anti-Slovak connotation that happens in Hungary. I think the story's vastly overrated. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Many many sources report that Slovakia has an openly racist, far-right and some say neo-fascist party in its government. In it's government, at the highest levels of power, you know where things actually get decided, the direction a country takes etc etc. A party whose leader would say that the Hungarian population "are a tumour" (cancer in other sources, anyway malignant tumour) "on the Slovak nation that needs to be immediately removed". Most commentators agree that a statement like that is a fascist statement on it's face without further need for analysis. And a lot of this stuff, such as the comments of Slota, the description of SNS and other things, these do not come from local media but from international media, who started to take notice of the situation. Hobartimus (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That tumor quote was never verified afaik. The fact that some MEP writes some mass e-mail is not a proof. Slota is just one person, SNS as a whole is not that extremist (but yes, i wish they never got there, but what can i do...). Jobbik is not only an internal issue as they are openly revisionist. You don't understand what those bumper-stickers of Nagy-magyarorszag cause in Slovakia together with those "unifying" "private" trips of Solyom's. There is a feeling that Great Hungary is an idea still alive and actively pursued by some. That is dangerous. Even more so, that it is not denounced by the Hungarian officials loudly and clearly. (The "Foreign Hungarians' IDs" is a step in the opposite direction actually). Slota is a pig, but after Jobbik gets to the parliament, we will have even more fun... Common sense and cool heads that is what is missing between us right now. From both sides. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Any nation can remember the more glorious times of their history. Any nation can protest to protect their minorities from assimilation and to preserve their identity and culture. Asking for autonomy on a region that was only detached for political and economy reasons (like transportation, e.g. train lines), and never for ethnic reasons is quite natural I think. I think Slovaks are totally misled by the education system there. That is why mostly northern Slovaks are the nationalists who hate Hungarians, who never meet Hungarians. Please, even if after WW I, Hungary was punished by splitting clear 90%+ Hungarian majority territories, now should we forget our nation? No one can now say Carpathian Basin, because that means restoring the whole kingdom?? We cannot say "Hungarian nation" because that is fascism?? Just because the borders were drawn along a clearly non-ethnic line? Qorilla (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note, as I wrote down below, Hungarians know quite little about Slovakia, and therefore do not hate Slovaks (if they do that is caused by the recent insults detailed on the page), and would just like to help their fellow Hungarians who were split out to another country (be it Slovakia or another one). Qorilla (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The protection of minorities in Slovakia is incomparably better than in Hungary. Your own ombudsman called the actions of the Hungarian republic in this area over the past ~50 years shameful. You basically culturally eradicated any minorities left. Hungarians in Slovakia have the right to use Hungarian officialy in regions where they make 20%+ (!) of the population, there's a Hungarian university, I don't see what more is there to get. Territorial autonomy is utter nonsense and it's useless anyway. Not to mention that no one actually wants it. Why would you bring up WWI?! The same was true for Germans, so? Are the czechs only entitled to the Protectorate borders? Those so-called "Hungarians" in slovakia have lived in (Czecho)Slovakia for almost a hundred years now, they have adjusted just fine. Only idiots still live in the times long gone. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole attitude of Slovak political and education system suggest not that they are so much protected. Basically stealing a land of another nation and then complaining about why so many of them live there and why they want to be what they are, is extremely arrogant. Robert Fico does not distant himself from Slota, and Slota's party is in his government. For me this is equivalent with Fico himself saying these things, and the prime ministers thought can be further understood as the opinion of the Slovak Republic as a whole. The problem is that Slovakia forms its identity through the hatred against (fear of) Hungary (Hungarians), which they are trying to pass down to the new generations by the education that forms an enemy picture about Hungarians. Confirming the Benes decrees, shouting if anyone dares to speak of one whole Hungarian nation in the Carpathian Basin, the whole idea of creating a language law against Hungarian, building double cross monuments along the border to show that is not Hungary any more... These are all xenophobic actions backed up by the government. These are not only saying "it was a long time ago lets forget about it", these are active anti-Hungarian actions, not just wanting to keep things as they are but provoking with day-to-day actions. This is not pro-minority politics, that lets Hungarians be themselves and preserve their Hungarian culture. Now they are also said to be "Hungarian-speaking Slovaks" just because the area where they live was scandalously attached to Czechoslovakia. Because of this 1920 border setting, now they are not even Hungarians. And the government feels necessary to stress these things every they. As if they weren't sure enough in themselves, so they repeat it on and on, trying to convince themselves. "There are no Hungarians here, 'Madarsko' is not 'Uhorsko', their history is a joke (clowns, parrots, crooked legs), no Hungarian language use here": Just like saying a mantra, for self-convincing. That is not a cold-headed way of handling issues. I state again, no one cares about Slovaks here, if they dont push these things in our face week to week, day to day. Slovaks don't even cross the most Hungarians mind, only in the context of the news about how they insulted Hungary again. Not as in Slovakia, where Hungarians are in the brains like a paranoia all day, stressing to themselves that "its all just, it is all normal, it is right thing to do". Sorry if the message was too harsh, I'm cold-headed when writing articles. Qorilla (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

stealing a land  ?!! This is precisely the terminology that poses problems. Trianon is long gone, forget about it and do not call it a theft. It turned out as it turned out, it is a complicated issue, we won't solve it here. Anyway, you should live with it by now, the fact that you would still open the Trianon issue is exactly why SNS has that broad a support. he problem is that Slovakia forms its identity through the hatred against (fear of) Hungary (Hungarians) true, partially. building double cross monuments along the border to show that is not Hungary any more - and your president is unveiling monuments to show that it IS indeed still Hungary. Same difference. Confirming the Benes decrees - you obviously don't have a clue what revisiting Benes decrees would mean. Not only in Slovakia, but in Czech Rep as well. They simply cannot be revoked, it would put all the post-WWII settlements in question. It is something you should learn to live with as well. Do not equal Slota with all the Slovaks, please. "Hungarian-speaking Slovaks" - completely valid statement. The fact that it enrages you and contradicts your perception of being Hungarian doesn't change it. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at a map like this. Census 1991. 71 years after Trianon, after Benes decrees, look at the legend and search for the colors and see percentage. Now what could have been it 70 years before...An ethnically absolutely Hungarian land that was taken away from Hungary for political and economic reasons, to weaken it. I saw the propositions and claims by Benes and Romanians and Serbs etc before Trianon. Essentially a little part in Central Hungary between the Danube and Tisza would have remained of Hungary if all that is given to them:

• The area east from the Tisza was promised to Romania by the winners in 1919.
• Serbs wanted the area of Pécs, and a corridor from Czechoslovakia to their Kingdom in western Hungary (about 80 km wide).
• Benes also wanted more in the northeast (cutting the whole border almost horizontal)

Had these ideas and promises been fulfilled; would that convert Hungarians to Hungarian-speaking xxx? Citizenship is not nationality. Because that would mean everyone in Hungary before 1920 were Hungarians, even though Hungarians were clearly only a half of the whole population.

I don't say the whole Treaty was a bad idea. That was an age when nation states came into fashion, and the half of Hungary's population was not Hungarian. But then those lines should be drawn on the ethnic border and help the minorities that must be cut away. I don't understand why it is good to chop off a territory that is clearly Hungarian. You can see, it just brought conflict and hatred. Their intentions were maybe negotiation tactics (they did not believe they would really be awarded such great territory) or simply economy. But then it brought so much trouble. If you gain a territory where almost everyone is Hungarian, it is really hard to handle. Had it the border been drawn at the ethnicity-border, the situation would be much calmer. I think the people would have assimilated, moved or just lived in peace. (Others say the whole treaty was bad, because it split the economically favourable unity of a clearly united geographical region (a basin and the mountains around), but now free economy and transport and all is, or will/can be solved by EU and other unions.) I only say that if had to be nation states, then should really be nation states. I also understand that there are always political decisions by the winners of a war. I also understand neighbor countries wanted more and more. That was their interest. I can also understand that Slovaks protect Trianon, as it favoured their home country. But what I do really hope, is that behind all this, Slovaks feel the reality, even if they don't speak it aloud. If they don't then we are in really serious trouble because then they can be totally misled by the government. If they feel what the case really is and just cover it for the nation's interest, it is somewhat better.

If Hungary treats their minorities (about maybe 2% of the population if we count Gypsies as Hungarians, and 0.17% Slovaks) bad, then I say it shouldn't be so. What harm does it impose if someone wants to be what they are, be it Slovak or Hungarian. If they speak and use their language freely. What harm does it do to the majority language? The treatment of the minorities in Hungary (be it like whatever, I don't know it too much) cannot encourage humiliating the 10% (at many places majority) Hungarians of Slovakia, and Hungary itself.

And yes, here we have a very bad government and media, too. They mislead Hungarians. But against whom? The Hungarians! That is why many Hungarians don't know much about the fact that so many fellow Hungarians must live abroad in such circumstances that deny who they are, that deny their history, their language their ethnicity, almost their right to be there on the "sovereign Slovak nation's soil". What a disgrace! Hungarians on sovereign Slovak soil, and they feel to belong to the whole Hungarian nation! Pfui!.... President of Hungary visits ethnic Hungarian majority areas! Scandal! He must not care about them, not even talk! Speaking of the Hungarian nation of the Carpathian Basin means fascism! They should not even think about Hungarians belonging together. What will be later if this escalates? Can we expect mass deportations again? That could be also explained to the Slovaks with the current rhetorics...

When the cohesion between a nation is based on hatred, it is not European. If it's not the culture and history (besides writing Hungarian person's names in Slovak orthography, and faking history against Hungarians on political level), it is just clear xenophobic nationalism. Every country has extremists, right. But the government of an EU country? Qorilla (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this map [1] - should the germans demand "their" land back? And yes, after almost 100 years after the Trianon there is still a substantial portion of Slovak population that speaks hungarian. That is the proof of the brutal slovakization and minority opression in Slovakia. Are there any minorities in Hungary, ahem? To even mention Trianon and the claims of Benes in the year 2009 is crazy, pardon my language. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Germans can not demand anything "back". Bohemia has several centuries long multi-ethnic history in a basin. Hungary had several centuries long multi-ethnic history in a basin. The choice of the winners of WW I, was to split up Hungary. Before that, Hungary was never split on the north (not counting when Ottomans occupied some parts), there was no separate administrative region in the north. The border was arbitrarily drawn in that very time, around 1920. If borders are needed - fine - let them be really ethnic. Now that's for the history, but the more important thing is the present, and what is appropriate of a nation in the EU, what rhetorics one should expect from the government in the EU and NATO about 10 percent of their citizens. Either the government is really so raging mad, or it tries to cover issues in inner politics with keeping their voters together with generating hatred. Hatred can be of great cohesion power. But that should not be endorsed by a cultured government that claims to be European. Qorilla (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a mass email, but I read it in Der Spiegel (among other places too but they have considerable credibility). I don't think they would publish unverified rumors. I understand a lot of what you are saying but I don't understand what does "actively pursuing by some" mean? What do you mean by that, what's the active pursuing? what is the act that is being done by "them" at all? Hobartimus (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The only source that links it in this article mentions only a mass email, read the corresponding section. And I wrote "there is a feeling", that means that I do no necessarily share that view. But anyway, Duray and Csaky are mentioning territorial autonomy from time to time. Cautiously, but they admit, that it would be the best solution in their opinion. As I have pointed out, the cultural independence of the Hungarians is very broad in Slovakia, therefore territorial autonomy is an unnecessary step which can be perceived as only temporary with the final goal being 'unifying' the Hungarian 'nation' once again (which is an idea some members of the Hungarian parliament openly support). And I also recommend counting the 'vesszen trianon' videos on youtube. I know, not a relevant argument, but it gives me chills nevertheless. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't tend to mix my personal views into the discussion such as what gives me what feeling, chills happiness or other. Of course this is a talk page so it's not an issue it's just not my preference. There are two points here, first autonomies can be found all accross Europe in civilised nations so it's clear that there is nothing wrong with autonomy itself per se. An argument like that can be used by Slota and co. to freely spread their hatred against Hungarians without the need to find something "real". And there are always two things here, one is the Hungarian government and the Hungarians living in Slovakia sometimes it's hard to know who is the target at any given moment. As far as I've seen the Hungarian government's response was very measured and almost subservient, Bajnai even offered a meeting after all that happened. Another government might have recalled it's ambassador and expelled the Slovak ambassador at the same time after the border incident to show the seriousness of the issue. The second point is that now you mentioned multiple times that your personal opinion is "the cultural independence of Hungarians in Slovakia is very broad" on the other hand we have the Economist, which runs an article subtitled "Slovakia criminalises the use of Hungarian", who should I believe your opinion or the international press, who states outright that there are problems in the way Hungarians are treated (will be treated after tomorrow when the law comes into effect). Hobartimus (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The very same Economist article stated, that 20% of Slovak population is of Hungarian ethnicity... And the 'criminalisation of the use of Hungarian' is blatant misinterpretation of the law, i happen to have read it. Minority rights are in no way infringed. And OSCE agrees (you should believe them). This hysteria Hungarians unleash very often, even in cases not at all worth it, doesn't help the relations at all. (And please, Economist is infamous for its authors' anonymity. Therefore 'international press states' is a bit of an overreach. I'd say it was written by a Hungarian ergo valid no more than any Nepszabdsag article.). And to Another government might have recalled it's ambassador and expelled the Slovak ambassador at the same time after the border incident. Come on, we're not the first to have a problem with Solyom. The purpose of his travels is obvious and he is bashed even in Hungary [2]. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And to the minority protection [3]Wladthemlat (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wladthemlat, take into account that Slovakia is gaining wide attention in the last years in Hungary. Because of Slota and the government. Hungary has seven neighbor countries, Slovakia is just one of them. What makes it special is this hatred towards Hungarians, what most Hungarians just look at with surprised wide open eyes. This is why Slovakia is associated with Slota, Fico, and their anti-Hungarianism in Hungary. The radical right-wing Jobbik in the EP is more an issue if inner politics and the unpopularity of the Hungarian government. Qorilla (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Qorilla, I can understand your frustration from Trianon and I fully support any idea to help Hungarians feel like home in Slovakia. I see your effort you would like Slovaks to understand Magyar position etc. But your article does just the opposite - biased complains to the whole world how bad (you think) Slovakia treats Hungarian minority. Sorry to say, your article is quite amateur and shows a sad lack of ability/ knowledge to be unbiased. As such, it ends up being a nationalist attack. Sorry I feel it that way, just sick of the idea this should be called an Encyclopedia article. You should study more history before you go and write an article on such a sensitive and complicated topic. Anyway, from what I read above, I feel you are a good person that seeks justice, but just doesn't get the whole picture. All the best to you from Milan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.123.27 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see what your intentions are, but your whole message seems to be just a rhetorical tool, a personal "attack", instead of talking on-topic. Using words like "frustration", "sorry to say", "amateur", "lack of ability", "good person", "doesn't get the whole picture" and other vague and unclear expressions make your message work on emotions instead of arguing; trying to discredit the editor, and not the content of the sourced article. I could also reply with something similar, mutually trying to rhetorically win over each other, and to prove how the other one is less knowledgeable, but Wikipedia is simply not about that. If you have suggestions, then please write your arguments, and someone who has time will discuss it with you.

But in case you are interested: I collected the most important events of the last years, properly sourced. It may seem to be biased, but in fact the relations are themselves not balanced. Wikipedia is neutral (covering what happened) but not some equalizer, trying to show every participant as equal and symmetric.

The editor can have his own opinion, but he must write the information that the properly cited reliable sources tell.

So all in all, I appreciate this intelligent-formed emotional complaint of yours, but next time come up with some suggestions and arguments. By the way I can also understand your reasons if you are ashamed of what Slovak politicians do (although this is irrelevant when editing) and you want to reduce the presence of information about it. In this case I can respect your efforts more, as they may come from good intentions for your home country. Qorilla (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, to mention few paragraphs and ideas that led me to my "emotional" feedback: 1. in the history paragraph, you (somehow) comletelly omited period between creation of dual monarchy and WW1st. This period of strongest magyarization is a root for Slovak distrust towards Hungary. I would say analysing (at least mentioning) those circumstances is crucial for an article of this topic. Creation of Czechoslovakia came at the lates time for Slovaks. The nation would go extinct under agressive national and cultural hegemony of Magyars. Todays numbers of Slovaks and other nations in present day Hungary, comparing it to periods of 100 or even worse 200 years ago, is the clearest evidence.

2. Events after First Vienna Award - military actions of Hungary that went well behind ethnic borders - again, you leave no comment of how Hungary "regained" those territories and how Slovaks were treated there afterwards. Important events for todays relations and trust from the Slovak perpective.

3. Paragraph about football in Dunajska Streda you write "...Amongst the injured were citizens of Hungary as well, who were at the game to support the home team (DAC) and to protest the burning of a Hungarian flag at an earlier game." An independent observer who would like to write an Encyclopedia article would go explaining most of those "citizens" were extremists that came with obvious and planned intention to provoke (flags of KOH, etc). Btw achieving exactly emotions they wanted and were followed by other planned activities and (ab)used by Hungarian politicians in Diplomacy attacks on Slovakia. Sad.

Other notes: - No info on planned Hungarian Nazi provocations in Kralovsky Chlmec and others in recent time. Overall dangerous revisionistic facism on increase in Hungary that is watched with attention in Slovakia... http://www.spectator.sk/articles/view/33553/10/kralovsky_chlmec_municipality_condemns_national_guard_gathering.html http://www.tyzden.sk/casopis/2008/47/tak-trochu-fasisti.html

- Relations got worse immediatelly after ethnic SMK (Hungarian coalition party) did not get to participate in the current Slovak government. So they use primitive nationalistic tools, pumping people, escallate pressure, only to get to power. They just liked to be there for 4 years getting economic benefits and it was a shock that they lost it. Simple as that, but some people eat that crap they prepared. Just read this: http://www.spectator.sk/articles/view/36819/10/csaky_smk_in_government_is_guarantee_of_good_relations_with_budapest.html ...simply rediculous

So what you call "neutral" is what I found a biased analysis. First, I did not want to go into that datail, I don't participate in Wikipedia. I just felt to react as I saw somewhere in the discussion your appeal that Slovaks should better understand Hungarian view of Trianon. Well, I would say, look in the mirror and try to understand Slovak feelings too. Then we can start building something better for the future. Milan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.104.122 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's better. Someone currently working on the article (of course not all was written by me) should look into your suggestions. I don't want to start a general argument now (as I don't think it would lead anywhere). P.S. revisionism is no way equal to fascism... Qorilla (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Map: Hungarian speakers in Slovakia

50%? or 20%?

We need to determine what this map shows! Qorilla (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the description... (you need to click on the map) According to it's description it shows majority areas... Hobartimus (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That could be written by anyone. Best would be to collect the data from Statistics.sk on municipality level, but that would require much work. Showing info on broader administrative regions introduces bias, as they often stretch very much up to the north, giving an average low percent of Hungarians, even though they have a high percent in the south. Qorilla (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't want to sound rude, but it was not written by "anyone" it was written by the creator of the map. If you do not trust the creator of the map to tell the truth it's kinda pointless to use his map don't you think? Hobartimus (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean the creator of the map did not cite the source, like this and this census, or this and this book, etc. I asked on his talk page where the data came from, I did not receive answer yet. Qorilla (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is based on the 2001 census, this one on 1991, Another 1991. On the linked maps it is clear that areas with significant Hungarian minority, that are not majority (i.e. above 10-20% but below 50%) are quite rare! Qorilla (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks! A few months ago, I created a map of Magyars in Hungary's neighboring countries which was based on Sebők László's ethnic map of Central and Southeastern Europe.

The map that I used as source is very detailed and shows data at municipality level. Maybe it may be of some help for settling the dispute over this map (50% vs 20%).

Cheers, Scooter20 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I remember seeing that map some time ago. It is really very detailed. But the Slovakia part is based on the 1991 census, which could be otherwise in the 2001 census, twenty years later. By the way is that map copyrighted? If it is your site, can you license the map so it can be used in Wikipedia? Qorilla (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as my userpage says I am an ethnic-Romanian living in Romania and I created this map which is released into public domain and can be used on Wikipedia articles, or for other purpose.

The source for the map that I created was this picture. Obviously the credit for that picture is not mine and goes to the author, which according to the picture is Sebők László.

So, bottom line, you can use the map that I created for Wikipedia articles or other purpose, but the source picture (Sebők László's) might be copyrighted.

Thanks! Scooter20 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but in according to your map cities like Nitra or Senec have Hungarian majority what is obvious non-sense. And those are just few examples, I think it should be at least actualised. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating a better map. Let's not make this a fight between us. Let me explain. Maps can be created at various levels of averaging. What you saw on the statistic page of Slovakia, was a map averaged on district level, but Hungarians usually live south. Now if you average on these vertically stretching districts, you will get that the on average, Hungarians form a minority. If you measure on municipality level, with greater resolution, you will see that on the south, Hungarians have great majorities. Qorilla (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we don´t have another source, since statistics.sk does not provinde nationality census on commune level. However if you found one and doing map according to it, you have my support. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The census does provide more detailed level data on Statistics.sk, it is just very great work to process it and would be require original research. Qorilla (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good find, I missed that one. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could do that. However I need a super-detailed map of Slovakia with every godforsaken village and google is unable to find that. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Article

Just a summarize of few changes I made. First of all according to point 22, paragraph 8, article 4 of the "language law" all state employees must be able to held conversation in Slovak langauge. However if they speak with person which don´t know the state langauge (Slovak) than they can use any language neccessary for understanding. Sorry but there has been no translation of the whole law to hungarian or english so you have to find the named article and translate it in google translator. Next thing are graveyards - the law does not concern itself with graveyards - they will stay as they are. Furthemore weddings can be hold in minority language (till now it was possible only in state language) and regional television don´t need to broadcast only in Slovak, but it´s enought for them to subtitle the broadcasting in Slovak langauge. or once again read the law itself.

Map. I guess you wanted to see this http://portal.statistics.sk/files/Sekcie/sek_600/Demografia/SODB/grafy/sj/08.pdf In middle - left part of document is graf of Hungarian population in Slovakia according to 2001 census. As we can see only in Dunajská streda and Komárno country are Hungarian majority. Therefore your map (which is from 92 bytheway) is incorrect. That is all. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true. All Hungarians who live in Slovakia are forced to learn Slovak, which is already mentioned in other articles where oppression discrimination or Slovakization is discussed. As such " However if they speak with person which don´t know the state langauge (Slovak)" would only apply to tourists and visitors. Also the map is a geographical map and is not drawn based on "country" (sic) as you say but it's based on the villages towns etc. Also the part about "graves, tombs" (and not graveyards) is sourced. A grave is in public setting therefore if a law says "all texts in public must be written so and so" it will apply to graves. Because of these mistakes I must revert your edit. Hobartimus (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me enjoy this. First of all - "All Hungarians who live in Slovakia are forced to learn Slovak". So according to you, minority school system in Slovakia should not include Slovak language in it´s inventory. Do you even realise what kind nonsense that is? Or is this some kind of bad joke? Because I don´t see a way you could be serious. That map is map from official statistic burea of Slovak republic and from official 2001 census. Your map is map of some anonymus which is from 1989-1991 - 20 years old source. Still want to argue which one is more reliable? I have sourced my claim as well - and those are claims of minister of culture of Slovak republic not some Tabajdi which probably don´t even read that law. Now, because of these mistakes I must revert your edit. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

These are your words: "IF they speak with person which DON'T KNOW Slovak" ... IF IF IF. DO you understand that? So this provision that you quote does not mean anything in the context of this law because the Slovak school system is already as such that it does not allow minority language education, only mixed education where students are forced to learn Slovak regardless if they want to learn it or not. AS such your addition is meaningless when discussing the language law and it's effect on Hungarians living in the territory of present-day Slovakia because they can already speak Slovak. Do you understand now why your addition is wrong? Hobartimus (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Ok, obviously you haven´t read the law (althought you could). So first of all: "it does not allow minority language education

Pure BS. Every village, town, city or whatever which have at least 20 percent of minority population (hungarian, romanian, ruthenian et cetera) must have at least one minority school in which minority language is on same level as state language. Ie - 5 hours per week, forced maturity exam as from Slovak langauge, so from minority language but according to you that school system does not allow minority language education. Once again - are you serious? Well, unfortunatelly we all know answer on that question. Give me one country where is minority school system where children are not obligated to lear state language. One country from the whole word will be sufficient. Thanks in advance for your effort. Next thing - every single minded idiot can make a maturity exam from Slovak langauge at least on 4. And that is problem becase there are reported cases when Slovaks were unable to communicate on town burea on south Slovakia or with town policemans or whatsoever. I beg you - tell me what exactly is wrong with forced knowledge of state language on official SLOVAK BUREAU? Please, answer this single question. I really want to hear your answer. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"according to you that school system does not allow minority language education." Exactly. Minority language education is for example German language education. An education that is German-Slovak 5 hours a week Slovak and forced exams is not minority, as Slovak is not a minority language it is MIXED, and DUAL LANGUAGE education at most. It is not a minority language education, Slovak is not a minority. Seems that simple concepts are hard to grasp here. With such a school system your addition would not apply to anyone who could learn in a 1. Pure Slovak system 2. Dual language mixed system. There is no choice for minority language education so the only way to "don't know slovak" as you said is to be a tourist for example and as such your addition to the article is not relevant. Hobartimus (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I studied on linguistic gymnasium but we never had more than 3 hours of German language per week. In two classes we had 4 hours of english language, however. Next thing is that every other subject is learned in minority langauge and have it´s own books written in minority langauge - ie geography, mathematics, chemistry, you name it. That is called minority system of education everywhere in the world - exclusivly in European Union. So what´s irelevant is not my addition to article but yours addition to this discussion. Once again you´re mixing apples with pies and jumping from thema to thema. Thing is that according to you language law itself does interfere with usage of minority language what is simply not truth because the law itself in point 1, paragraph 1, article 4 sais this - the usage of minority language and ethnical groups is subject to individual regulations. Simply said - state employee must have knowledge of usage of Slovak language - if he/she doesn´t he/she can be penalized. However, conversation can be held in language which is close to the subject of speaking. Now I ask you, and try to answer now, how does this interfere with usage of minority language? If you won´t answer than discussion with you is just a waste of a time and you can consider it as finished. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For speaking German you could be fined under the law, true or not? If you can be fined for speaking a minority language (I don't know any other country in the world where this is possible), then you don't think it interferes with human rights? You can never be fined for speaking Slovak only for speaking minority languages true or not true? Hobartimus (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this wasn´t answer I expected but it is an answer. So for your questions:

For speaking German you could be fined under the law, true or not? not

If you can be fined for speaking a minority language (I don't know any other country in the world where this is possible), then you don't think it interferes with human rights? You can´t be fined for speking a minority language.

You can never be fined for speaking Slovak only for speaking minority languages true or not true? not

Simple questions, simple answers. If you want me to develop the answer than just ask. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so what was the 100 EURO minimum fine 5000 EURO maximum fine in your opinion? If it's not for speaking a minority language is it perhaps for speaking Slovak? Is it for another reason? Is it a complete fabrication and the law nowhere talks about a 100 EUR min 5000 EUR max fine??? Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, simple questio, simple answer. How can employee of state burae be penalized? If he can´t conversate in Slovak, if the annoucment in town radio are not announced in Slovak as well et cetera, not for using or non-using of minority language - that´s how. Any other questions? --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "employee of state burae" is but let's take one of your examples. "If he can't conversate in Slovak" and instead speaks German can he be fined for speaking German? Hobartimus (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Employee -> Employee#Employee

state -> state

bureau -> Government agency -> Government agency

Hope it helped.

If he can't conversate in Slovak" and instead speaks German can he be fined for speaking German? Depends. If he is unable to speak with person in Slovak, althout the person requires it and insist (employee, not the person which came) on speaking in German he can. If the person requires conversation to be held in German, he must speak with person either in German or provide a translator. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot on one thing. "would only apply to tourists and visitors" - excuse me? Are you serious? The law states that if the conversation cannot be hold in official it have to be hold in another language. It does not mention by word about either visitors, tourist, official delegetions, minorities, martians or whatever. It applies to every human being which crossed the border of Slovakia, believe it or not, Hungairans including. End of story. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

About the tables. Point 1, paragraph 5, article 7:

(7) Nápisy na pamätníkoch, pomníkoch a pamätných

tabuliach sa uvádzajú v štátnom jazyku. Ak obsahujú

text v iných jazykoch, inojazyčné texty nasledujú až po

texte v štátnom jazyku a musia byť obsahovo totožné

s textom v štátnom jazyku. Inojazyčný text sa uvádza

rovnakým alebomenším písmom ako text v štátnom jazyku.

Stavebník je povinný požiadať ministerstvo kultúry

o záväzné stanovisko z hľadiska súladu nápisu na

pamätníku, pomníku a pamätnej tabuli s týmto zákonom.

Toto ustanovenie sa nevzťahuje na historické nápisy

na pamätníkoch, pomníkoch a pamätných tabuliach,

ktoré podliehajú ochrane podľa osobitného

predpisu.11f)

Translation:

(7) Inscriptions on the monuments, memorials and commemorative

boards are listed in the official language. To contain

text in other languages, other language texts follow the

text in national language and must be substantially identical

with text in national language. Characters in other language

are same or smaller than characters in the official language.

The client is obliged to ask the Ministry of Culture

binding opinion on the compliance of the inscription on

memorial, monument and memorial plaque with the law.

This provision does not apply to historical inscriptions

the monuments, memorials and commemorative plaques which are

subject to special protection under

individual regulation

I think we can now end that meaningless debate about memorials --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell us which monuments and memorials are "subject to special protection"? Btw your English is not very good so I am not sure you should be the one who gives out translations, maybe someone with better English should do it.

And another point is that you should read WP:PRIMARY to understand why discussing the text of the law is inappropriate. Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind or what? It´s clearly written that historical. Those are, bytheway, catalogued for few decades on appropriate bureau. That text is translated by google translator, so all your reproach adress to Larry Page and Sergej Brin. However, because I´m open minded person, you can translate that as well and give us your translation. I´m sure we´re all gonna enjoy it. And I´m not discussing the law text, I´m just providing the word-by-word translation. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly written that under "individual regulation"... However yes we should not discuss anything by a machine translator to be sure I am sure that since the mother tounge of 10% of the citizens of Slovakia is Hungarian. Only a racist and discriminatory state would ignore alienate and attack 10% of it's own citizens, an example is the USA before 1960 African Americans were about 10% of the population as well, living under incredible oppression and racism. And today one of them was elected President (sort of Prime Minister+ President because they only have 1 position). I wonder if the USA could overcome the racism to a level where a member of a 10% minority was elected the leader, when would the same level be reached in Slovakia. Hobartimus (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was under thouse regulations since nowday, nothing changed. Ok, you translate it - you´re the perfect one, I´m sure you´re just good enought to do the job. I guess I reacted on rest of your post up there. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bytheway: original law from 1995 can be found here http://www.culture.gov.sk/umenie/ttny-jazyk/270/1995, changes which were made can be found here: http://www.zbierka.sk/zz/predpisy/default.aspx?PredpisID=209137&FileName=zz2009-00318-0209137&Rocnik=2009 --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the exact terms of the law. But Hungarians do not only criticize the words of the law, but the idea. This whole paranoid and xenophobic philosophy, that the Slovak language has to be protected by law, and to declare the native tongue of 10% an inferior language and discourage its use in any conditions. This whole idea is only against Hungarians, to get the votes of the Hungarian-hater nationalists (mostly of the north). The model is simple, generate and maintain the hatred through mis-education and the media, then act against Hungarians in the politics. The key to success according to the Slovak leadership. Qorilla (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that a substantial portion of those 10% speak both languages already. And it is completely false, that this law discourages the use of Hungarian. It only encourages the use of Slovak in parallel to Hungarian. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but term like idea are highly relative and subjective term and I believe it should not be judge which idea is correct one on wikipedia. And about xenofobic philosophy - it depends on your experiences. What if I tell you that my friend, which is lawyer, needed on court in Komárno translator not only for the defendant but also during his closing speech for judge as well? If you´d experience this your point of view would change radically, but as I said this should not be solved on wikipedia. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted this on requests for third opinions. This seems like it's a fairly complex cultural issue, so I'll be brief: please refer to WP:RS - if you cannot verify information with reliable third-party sources, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. The section of the article in question looks like it's pretty well-sourced right now, but a lot of the points put forward in the above (and below) argument seem to be based on users' experiences or perceptions, which constitutes original research and should not be included in the article. MildlyMad^Contribs 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mixed language education

Hobartimus, please review the the minority education in Hungary - any minority language is only complementary, all the major subjects are taught in Hungarian. Opposite is true in Slovakia, Slovak is only complementary to the education in the mother tongue. So please, do not say nonsense like this All Hungarians who live in Slovakia are forced to learn Slovak which is demonstrably fallacious. Either way, it is only natural, that Slovaks living in Hungary should speak Hungarian as well, and vice versa. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's news for me. Please point out a city or town where the minority population reaches 20% and there is a lack of minority language education. Let us compare apples to apples here as we all know that Slovakia uses the 20% rule itself. Hobartimus (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not depend on the concentration of the minorities, there is a fundamental difference in the approach to the minority education between Slovakia and Hungary. Hungarians are granted education in their mother tongue, which is a thing no minority in Hungary can achieve under present circumstances. And the 20% applies only to use as an official language (i.e. with the state and/or municipal bureaucrats) minority schools can be open basically anywhere, of course it is only feasible to have them where the real demand for them is.

Once again, you are saying nonsense that all the Hungarians in Slovakia are forced to learn Slovak, which is plain and utter BS. Your only argument is, that their schools are teaching a few lessons of Slovak weekly beside the rest of the subjects, which they get in Hungarian. So you basically want to isolate certain group of Slovak citizens and render them absolutely unable to communicate in the regions, where Hungarian is not spoken. Great, that's what I call inclusiveness... Hungarians are free to keep their heritage, culture, language etc. in Slovakia. To demand that they speak a little Slovak as well would be in no way discriminatory anyway. But mind you, that we have the Selye university which is purely Hungarian. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Under Soviet occupation Hungarians were forced to study Russian, which is of little use in the modern world mostly dominated by English. You yourself chose to learn English out of your free will, and not because an occupying power's military decided it was a good idea to learn. It is interesting that you were allowed to excercise your own free will and have choice and you seem so eager to deny others the same rights. I am sure a lot of Hungarians who want to make a career within Slovakia would make the choice to learn Slovak anyway. Just as you chose the languages you wanted to learn and were appropriate for you and your circumstances.

And an apples to apples comparsion is in very much so in order you should compare Slovakia with other states that have a minority with 10% of the total population. And your words "minority schools can be open basically anywhere, of course it is only feasible to have them where the real demand for them is. " Don't you think the same is not true for any country? Do you that is some special circumstance that only Slovakia has? Hobartimus (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but your claim was, that the minority education in HU and SK is incomparable due to the fact, that there is no area with 20%+ concentration of the Slovak minority. So I am just pointing out, that that threshold has nothing to do with the education and there is a more fundamental difference present.

Why are all the minorities denied the right to exercise their own free will in Hungary? They are all forced to learn Hungarian, why? If there is less than 10% minority population in the country, they can be denied the right of choice, that is your logic?

But I am not denying anyone any choice. If the parents' objections to the few hours of Slovak their children have in the school are that strong, the schools in Hungary that provide the education they demand are not that far away, they can choose freely. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually as far as I know if 8 parents request it the local government has to start a separate class and provide education in the requested language. But I'm sure you know better, I don't know how but you seem to know a lot about Hungarian education law maybe you were a school teacher there or a principal perhaps? And yes there is a significant difference for example in the % of minorities present, how the governments are set up currently etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes a special class with a few lessons of the minority language weekly. But does the minority have the right to choose whether to learn Hungarian or not? Wladthemlat (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the education law too well but they certainly should have that right. The only thing to limit is the number of children but if they have 8 children in a settlement who want to learn in a different language they certainly should have that right. One group I think who is like that (and I say "think" because I didn't check it) is the children of diplomats or other people who stay in Hungary for 1-4 years and they have no interest in learning Hungarian since they don't plan their future in that country (the same could be the case for many reasons in Slovakia too). I think these children who have no interest in Hungarian attend English language schools where there is no Hungarian in any class. An it's English because it's easier to get enough kids to form a school and they can learn using a language they will be able to use later in life, which is not a small language like Hungarian. Hobartimus (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so when the minorities in Hungary will have the right not to learn Hungarian in their schools, Slovakia will become a black sheep in the region. Right now, all is perfectly normal and the minorities in Slovakia have broader rights and options than their counterparts in Hungary. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many of old Slovaks spoke Hungarian out of the 1.9 million recorded in the 1910 census in Hungary. If I understand you correctly they should have been all able to communicate properly in the state language in an ideal circumstance, correct? Hobartimus (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, as the monarchy was multiethnic and ratio of Hungarians to other nationalities was fairly low. But I wouldn't mind if they all spoke Hungarian as well. But Mr. Aponyi did everything to ensure they spoke Hungarian only, that's a bit too much, don't you think? Anyway, majority of the Slovak Hungarians speaks Slovak already, so this is not an issue. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see so "speaking the state language" that you praised so long only applies until the state language is Slovak. As soon as the state language is something else, such as Hungarian it is suddenly not the duty of the citizens to "be able to communicate" and "not be isolated from the rest of the country". Anyway it could be explained away that the law is not discrimination and not such and such, but some members of the government openly state their views regarding minorities such as the length of whips and yards. In such circumstances the press - and I'm not talking about local press - will not believe considering the track record of the Government. Hobartimus (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are great at strawmanning, I'll give you that one. The monarchy and today's Slovakia are two completely different situations. The monarchy was multiethnic to such an extent, that speaking Hungarian did in no way guarantee you would be able to communicate everywhere. But as I mentioned - I have no objections to everyone speaking Hungarian as well, you probably missed that. The whip quote was to the Roma question, that has nothing to do with the Hungarians or any language for that matter (and as I previously stated - Slota is a pig, but if his quotes are your only argument, you have some weak grounds beneath you, my friend). To sum you up - the law is probably not discriminatory, but as Slota had said some nasty things in the past, the press will go crazy. Yay, and Obama smokes, so his health care bill is surely rubbish! Wladthemlat (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And Slota is NOT (thank god) a member of the government. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation is quite close in terms of %, Slovaks were 9% minority in Hungary during the time, less then the current share of Hungarians in Slovakia, but it's really not the point even if a "state language" is enacted to make communication easier. The problem is with size of countries. In 1910 say if everyone in the country learns the state language they can communicate with 20 million people out of 1 billion living in the world (I know the numbers are off but its an estimate), say 1-2% of the world population. That's a reasonable number of people but it's still not ideal or nothing great. Now if you strive to learn Slovak in today's world you can communicate with say 5 million people out of 6.7 billion, less than 0.1%. In general learning a micro language is a lot of investment for a very small return in terms of usefulness. The whip quote was made against a minority, and the language act is also designed against minorities it is a broader issue, applies to Germans and others as well it's only a numbers issue that over half a million Hungarians will be affected by it and a smaller number of other minorities compared to that number. But why on Earth do you think there is not an easy to find official English translation (or any translation?) of the law for example. If there really is nothing problematic with it it would be the quickest way to convince foreign press. Hobartimus (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The last thing really is not up to me and your hypothesis is far-fetched imo (to say, that the official translation is purposely hidden). The whip quote has nothing to do with the current debate and you know it. Besides, it's Slota, he's a pig, but that does not in any way mean that the law is this or that. The minorities in Hungary are forced to learn another microlanguage and even more fiercely than Hungarians are forced to learn Slovak.

Regardless, this law is not about forcing anyone to learn anything. The minorities have rights to have everythig in the language they want, the fact that there will be a Slovak translation present as well only makes sure, that the vast majority of the population will understand as well. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes it's exactly right the law is not about learning anything and I think it was made less for practical reasons and more for political ones. Slovaks will gain little to nothing from this, with the only result being Hungarians in Slovakia feeling bad and feeling like second-class citizens as there are already signs of that with protests and such. I'm afraid that's one of the intended message that's being sent through the law. Hobartimus (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be too petty, but a little reminder here:

I don't tend to mix my personal views into the discussion such as what gives me what feeling, chills happiness or other.

I think it was made less for practical reasons ... I'm afraid that's one of the intended message

And to the point - it's really hard to say what was the main reason for such a law, but i refuse that it sends a message of a second-class citizenship to the Hungarians. The only message it sends is that they are the minority in the state, and therefore should accept a compromise as ~90% of the population in Slovakia does not speak their mother tongue. If the Slovaks will gain anything is disputable indeed, but the Hungarians don't lose anything. And the protest in Dunaszerdahely was politically motivated as well, ~0.8% of all Hungarians in Slovakia attended. They are all enraged I say. Csaky needs to show some activity as Hid is drawing his voters away, that's all. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not petty it's just a misunderstanding, "I'm afraid" is just an English phrase, it does not mean somebody is actually afraid... And "I think" is pretty standard form as well.

It is a fact that Slovaks suddenly won't get out of a massive recession from this law. It's practical value is nil as far as the economy is concerned, which is the no. 1. problem in Slovakia right now. Industrial production is a lot more down even than GDP, while not that long ago there were absurd projections of large growth were made for this year, instead of decrease of GDP. Focusing time and effort on issues such as this, not only take away focus from other issues, they don't help painting a picture of stability which is one thing usually considered. Anyway I'll look into some more sources and analysis regarding the law but what I've read so far certainly does not support that "Hungarians don't lose anything" to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungary has economic problems too massive for this language law hysteria to be worth it. The practical value is not nil, as it ensures, that the ~90% of the population will understand all the others. I agree, that it is partially only a political smoke screen to camouflage the distressing economic numbers, but that's true on both sides. Well, all the interpretations critising the law I've read were either operating with made-up claims or were drawing parts of it intentionally out of context. But find any sources you want and try to make a picture for yourself. Just don't be too quick with judging. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased beyond reason

As a Hungarian, I'm disgusted by the wrong-minded bias and hate coming from this article. Instead of a balanced description of the 16 years of relationship of the two country (of course also accounting conflicts already mentioned in the article) the text is written in the style of "a list of evil things the Slovakian government did to Hungarians", listing mostly Hungarian sources. The article needs a deep revision and expansion.poisonborz (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not central. Neutrality means we describe the issues that stirred up Hungarian-Slovak relationships as the reader is surely curious about all the fuss these days. It is a sad fact that most of these comes from the Slovak side, but if sourced, please expand, and write about the other direction. What you want is centralism, exaggerating the Hungarian side's actions and hide part of Slovakia's, trying to say 'both parties are did the same'. Wikipedia is, I say again, not centralist, but neutral. These issues have all happened and are properly sourced. Please name which specific cases are not acceptable in your understanding? By the way sometimes I feel, we should create "Hungarian-Slovak conflicts" article and this article should focus more on other aspects of the relations and a bit less on politics. Qorilla (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Poisonborz there were "evil things the Slovakian government did to Hungarians" , while using the word "evil" is POV itself. For example a lot of Slovaks might view the events as "necessary actions to achieve the goal stated by our party leader of removing the cancer represented by Hungarians from the body of the Slovak nation". Everyone can view the same words differently. Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly true, and I think these stuff is getting known in Hungary particularly this year. People who closely followed political news may have been knowing Slota's name for a long time, but most people didn't realize what the relation is like. Maybe Poisonborz is also just realizing that all these have actually happened. That is certainly incredible at first. So I suggest looking deeper into news articles and essays about the topic to see that this is article is quite balanced. Qorilla (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And your explanation is a POV itself. I think Poisonborz was deliberately using a hyperbole to describe the imbalance of the article, thus the quotation marks.

It is definitely true, that the article contains almost exclusively only such behaviour of the Slovak side, that is described as negative by the Hungarian side. There is no point to any mutual treaties or efforts or any improvements achieved in the past. Also Slovak grievances are almost not mentioned at all. Furthemore, the list of Slota's quotes in the article creates an impression, that he's an official (and the only) representative of Slovakia, which is not true. Not to mentioned, that the list is in any case misplaced, the quotes should be mentioned either in a separate article or under Ján Slota as they have only an indirect impact on the relations themselves.

Moreover, the quotes of the Hungarian representatives are misplaced as well. E.g. quoting Solyom in the case of his cancelled visit is a POV even if the quote itself is sourced, as it only presents the view of the party in question - their opinion is implicitly biased, therefore of no encyclopedic value. Even more so, if such a strong language is used. This whole article indeed intentionally creates an image in the sense "Hungary good, Slovakia bad" which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That simplification is not true, everyone knows it's not that simple. But Wikipedia is not about saying that both parties are always equal. If one of the parties did (for whatever reasons) really insult the other side several times, we have to include it, even if we cannot include such a list for the other direction. Slota's quotes may get a new article, but being the chairman of a governmening party he and his words represent Slovakia internationally. The Government and the leaders of the parties in the government are the "face" of Slovakia. Quoting is not POV at all. So many people get this wrong. The narrative text has to be neutral, not the people we quote! Banning Sólyom created great diplomatic conflicts, as described by the Hungarian government (foreign minister, prime minister etc) and as it was also documented in the international press. Now stating what Sólyom himself said about this is as encyclopedic as anything can ever be. You are trying to hide things to somehow distort the events. You are welcome to include when and how the Hungarian government did anti-Slovak speeches or anti-Slovak deeds, besides Slota's vision that he sees into Hungary's head and he knows Hungary sends Turuls to conquer Southern Slovakia and all that crazy stuff. So please quote respected and high-ranked anti-Slovak cases! But please do not remove well sourced acts and quotes by leaders of Slovakia, because their words represent the Hungary-Slovakia relations itself.

Again: Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not mean that we should distort the article, trying to equalize or balance the two sides, but that we neutrally describe what actually happened. Qorilla (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to include when and how the Hungarian government did anti-Slovak speeches or anti-Slovak deeds - that's the whole deal with this article. Why am I welcome to add things you, as creators and major contributors should worry about. The article is clearly unbalanced, it deals mostly with only very recent history and there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to point out the positive steps the relationship has taken in the past. I am not trying to hide anything, just pointing to your method of creating an impression whilst ignoring the NPOV principle Wikipedia is based on.

Basically, you welcome me to add my POV instead of worrying about the NPOV of the article yourselves, which makes your intention only more obvious. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, not response to above) WP:NPOV states "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." Facts cannot be ignored or falsified because some falsified or hidden fact would feel more balanced. Just to stress again Slota is a LEADER of a government party, anything he says affects relations. He was the one that created the whole Slovak government through a coalition agreement with Meciar and Fico it's not like he is a nobody. And Fico and the others never distanced themselves from those quotes, never said "this is enough we can't be partners with Slota/SNS any more". Hobartimus (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views

Again, I am not saying that Slota's quotes should not be mentioned, they just should not be copied verbatim with every single quote being given a specific subsection. Instead, the grounds and the scope of the problem should be described with a link to a list of quotes or the Slota article. Also, the impact of the quotes on the interstate relations should be evaluated if possible. Past relationship development should be described with the focus on the political and interstate aspect. It should be also a summary of as elaborate analyses as possible and not a mix of newspaper snippets as it is today.