Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Threats of War by Slota against Hungary

Anyone following the topic is already aware of the most recent war threats made by Slota against Hungary. It is maybe the fourth or fifth time of him mentioning war in the context of Hungary-Slovakia relations. Of course this shouldn't trouble any attempt at the idyllic (and falsified) portrayal of the relations just thought it is worth mentioning. Hobartimus (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fringe political statements, maybe a sentence, if you are able to source it properly (which I doubt somehow). The rest under the slota quotes. But please, show us what you mean exactly here first, thanks. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Wladthemlat. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Be politicaly correct, Malinova is Slovak student of Hungarian ethnicity (nationality). Hungarian student is student from Hungary (Samofi (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

nationality is more political a term, ethnicity is more precise. However, while we're at it, I vote for total removal of the Malinova story, unless a significant official reaction of the Hungarian side is provided. Otherwise it's an internal event, however controversial one, and does not belong into this specific article. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you (Samofi (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

In Hungary its 18 000 slovaks by nationality, 39 000 by ethnicity and 49 000 use slovak language in communication and 61 000 people in Hungary is able speak Slovak (census 2001). Slovak organizations count 100 -110 000 slovaks, number is based on the estimation of organization and on the participation of Slovaks in Minority Self-Government in Hungary. So if we count Slovaks only by ethnicity they are 0,4 % of people in Hungary. From 386 members in National Assembly of Hungary. Its should be 1 or 2 deputees of Slovak ethnicity in Hungarian Assembly according to national act n. LXXVII./1993 § 20 (1). So its POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION from side of Hungary. From 66 official Slovak schools are only 5 with dual language education and in this 5 schools its almost all subjects in hungarian only "music, sport, art, religion and so on" in Slovak. So its MAGYARIZATION. Its not permanent Slovak celebration in the churches in villages with Slovak minority. So its again MAGYARIZATION. Reduction of Slovak minority in Hungary from 1890 to 1991 from 213 000 people to 10 000 people (95% reduction). So its GENOCIDE all together. (Samofi (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.9 (talk)

This talk page is for discussing this article, not for debate on the issue. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be little too late but what Slota said were his usual bs about how Hungary is going to attack, conquer and eat Slovak children and so Slovaks have to vote for his party. Just a pre-election propaganda, nothing that would affect Slovak-Hungarian political relations in any way, thus it does not belong to the article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

I just started to read the article (the version of May 3 2010) and as an expert in the area I stopped right at the first part of the History chapter and I do not need to read more: Slavs arrived to the Western Carpathians in the 7th century. In the 9th century a part of, or all of the Western Carpathians belonged to Great Moravia, a Slavic state usually identified with Moravia and the Czech Republic. Hungarians are thought to have arrived in the late 9th century[2], and occupied the Carpathian Basin, including the western portions of Great Moravia (modern Slovakia). I do not know which insane person has written this, but this is just complete non-sense. I do not know whether this is the result of citing some Hungarian anti-Slavic propaganda source or just evidence of the incompetence of the authors of this article, but to misrepresent even such basic issues of Euroepan history in such a way is really a desaster. The Slavs did not arrive in the 7th century to the Slovak part of central Europe, they arrived around 500 and this is beyond any doubt. They arrived in modern Germany (maybe only) in the 7th century. Secondly, Great Moravia cannot be "associated" primarily with the Czech Republic because Bohemia belonged to it for about 5 years. Again, this is absolutely undisputed. And we could go on like this. I do not have to read more of the article. So please to anybody, just do not read this article, because the (probably Hungarian) "authors" here seem to have a big problem with facts. Sdfghsdfg (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe these two summaries - courtesy of Cracked - describe your argument quite aptly: [1]. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin

This is an absolutely accepted term both in English and in Hungarian. Someone please tell me why we would need the quotation marks around Carpathian Basin. In Hungarian the term "Pannonian Basin" doesn't even exist, so I don't see how Orbán could use that in his speech. Squash Racket (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The terms Carpathian Basin and Pannonian Plain carry slightly different connotations in English, the former being linked to the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary and the latter a more politically-neutral description of a geographical region stretching all the way into Lower Austria. Since the Hungarian term - whatever it may be - was used in a political context, and considering the resulting controversy and accusations of irredentism from use of said term it is appropriate to use and italicise the translation Carpathian Basin. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Carpathian Basin and the Pannonian Basin are exactly the same in English (meaning both are used as geographical terms), in Hungarian — the language of Orbán — only the the term Carpathian Basin exists. I hope you realize Orbán was speaking Hungarian during his speech, not Slovak.

If the Slovak language makes such difference as you explained above, it won't be a good enough reason to add the quotation marks in the English Wikipedia. Squash Racket (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Slovak language makes no difference, and I did not mention it. Please re-read my reply; I am not entirely sure if you understood what was meant. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my reply, I'm not entirely sure whether you understood what was meant. Squash Racket (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A lack of maturity isn't going to help forge a constructive consensus. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for you to grow up. Squash Racket (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemans, perhaps I missed the point but what is the purpose of these edits/reverts: 1) Bohemia, Moravia or Czech territories? [2]; and I would like to ask, exactly 2) How is the Israelian Law of Return connected with the Hungarian law? Dual citizenship is very frequent in the world, which are also regulated by laws. I hope we don't want to mention them too. :) --B@xter⁹ 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ps:Some information about the very familiar Slovak law:

Slovakia, which has been a member of the EU since May 2004, normally requires eight years of residence on its national territory as well as knowledge of the Slovak language to qualify for citizenship. However, there is an exception from this rule in the case of persons with Slovak ancestry up to three generations back. Such persons can obtain Slovak expatriate status. This can be granted to applicants over 15 years of age who are not citizens of the Slovak Republic but can prove Slovak nationality, ethnic origin as well as cultural and linguistic awareness. Persons who have been granted Slovak expatriate status and have received a Slovak expatriate card may then apply for citizenship.

A person with at least one Slovak grandparent and "Slovak cultural and language awareness" may apply for an expatriate identity card entitling him to live, work, study and own land in Slovakia. Expatriate status is not full citizenship and does not entitle the holder to vote, but a holder who moves his domicile to Slovakia may obtain citizenship under preferential terms.

You're right Baxter9, I meant to link to right of return, which bears far more relevance to the Hungarian reforms. I do apologise. The quotes you post are interesting - it may be worth it to note that Slovakia allows a limited right of return as well. Also, Squash Racket, unless you engage in constructive debate, you're just going to keep being reverted. I have offered my rationale for italicising the term, which you apparently didn't understand, rather attempting to childishly sidetrack the discussion. If you'd like me to repost what I said above and underline key terms/explain the scary big words to you, you have but to ask. I have no idea where you are getting Slovak from, I mentioned two languages - English and Hungarian. You have now begun just outright reverting all my edits - I would like to know how exactly you believe this to be constructive. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have offered a rationale for you which you didn't even bother to read, because you still don't understand that Orbán spoke Hungarian during his speech. If you'd like me to repost what I said above and underline key terms/explain the scary big words to you, you have but to ask. Squash Racket (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

NB: The above comment is out of chronological order. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment is OK here, no new details emerged. Squash Racket (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your quotation since what you´re talking about is law nr. 40/1993 which says nothing similiar to what you just wrote. In fact it does talk about the simplification of granting of Slovak citizienship to foreign Slovaks but only after they lived for at least 3 years in Slovakia and had a permanent residence there. The law in Slovak can be found here [3]. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Law No. 70/1997:

i) INFORMATION ABOUT THE STATUS OF SLOVAK LIVING ABROAD: Status of Slovak living abroad may be granted to a Slovak living abroad who does not have a permanent residence in the Slovak Republic but he/she has Slovak citizenship or he/she does not have a Slovak citizenship but he/she is keeping his/her national awareness as well as he/she or his/her predecessor has Slovak nationality origin. How to apply: 1. Any document certifying Slovak nationality (národnos?), 2. Any document certifying Slovak cultural and language awareness... ii) Subject of the law: This law regulates the status of expatriate Slovaks as well as their rights and duties in the territory of the Slovak republic....Expatriate Slovak... 1)An Expatriate Slovak is a person to whom expatriate status has been granted in comformity with this law. 2) According to this law, Slovak Expatriate.... The full text of the law is available here or parts of it from the Embassy of Slovakia, London, UK

Any sort of preferential treatment for ethnic nationals when dealing with immigration is a form of a right of return. The Slovak realisation of this right is far more limited than the Hungarian one, of course. Also, Squash Racket has again reverted, and again copied what I said earlier (this time in the edit summary). His brilliant reasoning and oratorial skill is sure to go down in history amongst the likes of Cicero. Considering he is no longer bothering to even reply to my efforts to continue discussion I think it is justified to deal with his edits as simple vandalism. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What does expatriate status have in common with citizenship?! Hungary is giving away citizenship under same terms Slovakia grants expatriate status, see the difference?Wladthemlat (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In both cases there is preferential treatment for people on ethnic grounds in the immigration regulations (immigration regulations include nationality/citizenship). I agree there is indeed a difference, but both of these provisions qualify as a right of return for a certain ethnic group. What are the changes you would like to make (which sentence in the article do you believe to be problematic)? PS: Also, considering Squash Racket's continued unilateral disruptive behaviour I'd appreciate if you helped me support the consensus-backed version. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And you are labelling others' edits anything? Considering your continued unilateral disruptive behavior? To a "concensus version" that already cited Orbán's words wrongly? Squash Racket (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see it - the term Carpathian Basin is used as a sole geographical term in Hungarian only. In English, Pannonian plain is used and Carpathian basin has a slightly different meaning. To denote the discrepancy and difficulty in translating such a term, the italicization would be correct to use. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I think WP:3RR also applies to you. And wait for my answer.
Happenstance, referring to clearly constructive edits as vandalism doesn't look good, it definitely questions whether the editor lying about vandalism wants to edit constructively himself or not.
Did you say a single word on the main topic of the thread since then? I haven't found anything. You just falsely labeled my edits as "vandalism", just like in your edit summary. Squash Racket (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly have, please scroll above to my comment dated at 04:48, on 28 May 2010. If you wish, I can repeat the important bit: "I have no idea where you are getting Slovak from, I mentioned two languages - English and Hungarian". That still holds true, your replies make no sense and your belligerent attitude, including removing an offer of discussion from your talk, isn't helping matters. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bring your notion of a "constructive discussion" to my talk page, it's enough to read it here. Thank you.

I answered your answer. Nothing new up there, just your usual style.

And Orbán's words were incorrectly "cited", it resembled a little Fico's inflammatory interpretation. Squash Racket (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you, again, this time in more clear language. In English, the terms Carpathian Basin and Pannonian Plain mean different things. One is political, one isn't. Since Orban was speaking in political terms, the appropriate translation is Carpathian Basin. Since there was controversy about his use of the term, the term belongs in inverted commas. That section of the article deals with the controversy that arose as a result of Orban's words, not what you believe to be the meaning behind the words. When your edits have summaries such as "changing Fico's interpretation to what the reference — and Orbán — REALLY said", I don't know how you can possibly claim you are unbiased and not inserting original research. You are being deliberately uncooperative, and your behaviour is not acceptable. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you, again, this time in more clear language.

In English Carpathian Basin is used as a geographical term, just like Pannonian Basin. What you allege is simply not true.

"since Orbán was speaking in political terms" - NO, Fico said that. That Hungarians live all over the Carpathian Basin is a simple FACT. Deal with it.

In Hungarian, the language that Orbán used, only the term Carpathian Basin exists. What else could have been said?

The Slovak Christian Democratic Movement said: Fico wants to hide his corruption with that cheap manoeuevre.

The Slovak media said: the government overreacted.

And I don't want to cite Hungarians on the issue.

Just because Fico and Slota became hysterical, it doesn't make the Carpathian Basin a controversial term. These two are always hysterical. If you italicize an uncontroversial geographical term, you are simply accepting the Fico interpretation of Orbán's words.

"I don't know how you can possibly claim you are unbiased and not inserting original research." — I CITED the source citing Orbán's words. Isn't good enough for you, right?

You are being deliberately uncooperative, and your behavior is not acceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But the article is not in Hungarian. The article is in English, and though in Hungarian there is only one term, in English there are two. The two terms mean different things - if you don't believe me, why don't you read our article on it? As the article says, 'Carpathian Basin' refers to a "cultural area", whilst 'Pannonian Plain' is a "geomorphological term". Orban was discussing how many parliamentary representatives will come from the region - are you trying to tell me you honestly don't see how the term was used in a political context? "Political context" meaning in a context relating to politics in any way, shape, or form? Because I do not believe you. Incidentally, you do realise that parroting is something characteristically associated with children, don't you? It does not help your argument when you repeat my words back at me, it makes you sound like a child. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orbán DID speak Hungarian during the speech. If you italicize/add quotation marks, you accept the Fico/Slota interpretation of Orbán's words.

I won't discuss your interpretation of the article Carpathian Basin. And also: check REAL sources, because Wikipedia is not a source anyway.

So if you refer to MEPs from the Mediterranean Basin, it becomes a political term that should be italicized and quotation marks should be added according to your strange little thinking?

You don't seem to like your own words directed at you. Why is that? Are there worse things here than sounding like a child? Squash Racket (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my replies thoroughly, you repeatedly seem to be missing the point. This is an English article. The words of Orban have to be conveyed in English. The process of translation means having to choose between appropriate lexemes. Carpathian Basin is a SOCIOPOLITICAL term. Pannonian Plain is a GEOGRAPHICAL term. There is no bias inherent in those words. I have provided proof of my assertion that they are separate - you outright dismissed it. This is perfectly illustrative of your inability to debate in an adult manner. If Wikipedia is such an unreliable resource, why are you here? —what a crazy random happenstance 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether you are repeating your false claim in all caps or not. Carpathian Basin is repeatedly being used in English as a simple geographical term. Check REAL sources, not Wikipedia. (Repeating myself.)

What matters even more: even Slovaks considered this "controversy" only hysteria.

This is perfectly illustrative of your inability to debate in an adult manner: we are here to improve WP, using it as a source is simply NOT ALLOWED. Squash Racket (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You have requested evidence for my claims. I point you to a well-referenced article verifying them. You shift your argument and dispute the reference's validity. Why don't you research this yourself then, and try to find evidence to contradict me? You won't be able to, as I suspect you're aware. The reason Wikipedia isn't used to source articles on Wikipedia is not that wiki is unreliable, but because of the risk of infinite regress (using article A to source article B and vice versa). Given that we're on article-talk and not in mainspace it is perfectly acceptable and indeed very common to link to a mainspace Wikipedia definition in order to back an argument. Since your edits are based on your personal biases and you are not proving receptive to discussion, I have requested mediation from an uninvolved administrator of the Mediation Cabal. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found a single reference for your claims in that article. I did find four(!) references for the term Carpathian Basin in books dealing woth geography and geology though.

Another English reference from 2009 using the two terms interchangably: World and Its Peoples/World and Its Peoples: Europe, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2009, ISBN 9780761478836, p. 905:

crossed the Carpathian Mountains into the Carpathian or Pannonian Basin from the end of the ninth century.

"The reason Wikipedia isn't used to source articles on Wikipedia is not that wiki is unreliable, but because of the risk of infinite regress" — Not your first false claim today.
Since your edits are based on your personal biases and you are not proving receptive to discussion, I have no problem with an admin getting involved. Squash Racket (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst there will always be some sources that use the two interchangeably, the vast majority do not. Four references are hardly convincing given the frequent use of the term in academic literature. Incidentally, the source you provide falls under "juvenile nonfiction" and comes in a glittery children's cover and with student and teacher editions. Much like a children's book written by a non-academic on international relations can hardly be expected to use terms like liberals, realism and power correctly and in their academic sense, a children's book on ethnography can hardly be expected to use the two terms we are dealing with correctly. Your argument so far has consisted of (repeatedly) accusing me of lying, misinterpreting Wikipedia policy and shabby referencing. There are two editors, myself and Wladthemlat (above), who independently agree that the meanings of the terms differ, and we are supported by an article which neither of us have ever edited. I hate to break it to you, but have you ever considered the shocking possibility you may be wrong? —what a crazy random happenstance 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The term is used almost exclusively by Hungarian sources which supports Happenstance's take on the issue. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have considered the shocking possibility that this was just continued by an editor who wanted to use unreferenced parts of a Wikipedia article as an argument for the sake of continuing it. So let's close this one until new facts emerge. Squash Racket (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to close this "until new facts emerge"? You seem to be asking me to leave the article on your biased, factually-incorrect revision until you have time to google more children's books to use as references. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Yet again, it seems, rather than continuing discussion over their proposed edits, certain editors are keen to impose them by edit warring. This will lead nowhere. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovak opinion article on a recent event with enough English coverage

Should be removed. The law "resembles" the Russia-Georgia situation in two EU and NATO member countries... Squash Racket (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No. 2: he is Slovak, not Czech, so please don't overwrite my edits with wrong ones. Squash Racket (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Should not be removed, it's referenced. please delete the NATO note, it's obvious and already in the lead.

He's as Slovak az he's Czech and he's not biased, stop sneaking in formulations implying it. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A Slovak opinion piece in a section with enough neutral English coverage should be removed.

Or otherwise Hungarian opinion articles too are OK. In that case no problem.

The cited sentence is pretty stupid, inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

He is considered a Slovak by all sources I saw so far, he was born in Pozsony.

WP:3RR is still a rule, right? Squash Racket (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"The cited sentence is pretty stupid, inflammatory and deliberately misleading." - ?! Misleading in what, the principle is the same and it's only an analogy. Anyway, go for the sandbox and try to ease your enthusiasm, point is to have a good section not to convince anyone of your truth. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The principle is not the same. And to even allege that in two EU and NATO member countries is just a provocation and simply stupid.

We don't insert opinion pieces in the middle of well-referenced facts.

If you make more than 3 reverts a day, then stick to your sandbox. Is it allowed to make a subpage to an article in the main namespace? Squash Racket (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Principle is the same, giveaway of citizenship to people living outside the state's borders.Wladthemlat (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you really feel that the principle is the same, meaning EU and NATO member Hungary will attack EU and NATO member Slo. after giving ethnic Hungarians a citizenship without voting rights and without social system/pension grants, then continue editing your sandbox. Squash Racket (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not here to write about what you personally think of anything. Matter of fact is, Slovaks opposed. The opinion piece helps illustrate one of the reasons for which they opposed. Unless you publish a paper or an article on the topic, your personal interpretation of these events is irrelevant. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

i feel that principle is the same, Hungary is giving away citizenship to people living outside its borders. The whole war thing is just bringing in the context in the sense of who else used similar laws in what situations. Anyways, what happenstance has written is most important. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In short: in that case I see no objection to the inclusion of similar Hungarian opinion articles. Squash Racket (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion articles are not always appropriate in articles but they can be important for understanding events. For example this article describes among other things the present-day presence of neo-nazism in Slovakia (search for the word "neonáci") and the role Slovak neonazis play in the Slovak Government and Slovak Government politics. The author also describes the party and the person who he means, not just generally writing about Slovak neonazis.

What should be certainly considered is that currently there is an election campaign underway in Slovakia, We will see much much clearer after the election is over. Hobartimus (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing pattern

Anybody may add new material, but if I see that my edits get removed/worsened including the falsification of referenced material, I won't start sorting it out, but simply revert to the version before the disruptive editor showed up. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The material isn't relevant. We had an extensive discussion about this not too long ago, there is a difference between inter-ethnic relations and International Relations. Slovaks fighting Magyars is one thing, Slovakia arguing with Hungary another altogether. This article exists solely to document the latter. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you use the English word "Hungarians" as in "Slovaks fighting Hungarians". Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The attack on the Slovak ambassador is hardly understandable to a neutral reader without presenting some facts that might have triggered it. Beating up dozens of Hungarians might be such a factor.

The Slovak government DID argue with the Hungarian one over the incident. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What about sandboxing and discussing it all first? Wladthemlat (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What is there left to discuss? This edit war is largely the work of a single editor refusing to acede to any sort of community consensus. We have offered ample opportunities for discussion, all of which have been turned down or ignored. When an editor gives up on discussing his changes and just begins reverting, it becomes obvious he is just being disruptive. The article is now protected on the most absurd, biased and ungrammatical version, but I have absolutely no intention of allowing it to remain as such. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You've described your own behavior nicely, I do stand by my first comment in this thread. Squash Racket (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again with the mimicry; you must be a master debater. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Basics of foreign policy

Two articles describing [4] [5] some basics on the foreign policy of Hungary, which can be summarized into one sentence, the title at both articles, "Ne bántsd a magyart" (Do not hurt the Hungarian). Meaning protection of Hungarians is the basis of it all (can it be interpreted any differently?). Hobartimus (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Martonyi article, Slovakia is mentioned also as a place where "it seems some sort of hatred of Hungarians surfaced and this needs to be solved" and "the current Government Coalition finds common ground in the hatred of Hungarians", and for this reason a new Government could improve the chance of a solution. Hobartimus (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please please stop this flow of rather incoherent remarks and tie what you have just written to the actual content of the article? Or perhaps propose a wording? Wladthemlat (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I had two thoughts. First an instance where Hungarian citizens are physically attacked would literally meet that given definition (the case where Hungarian fans travelling from Hungary and local Hungarians were rooting for DAC 1904). It might also apply to similar cases. But more importantly the elections are again mentioned, that's significant because there is a chance for a sort of "new age" or however you want to call it a big improvement in relations. I think I mentioned this earlier as well and since the election date is close I think it's better to wait it out while the new Government forms. If something comes of it which is very likely, it will need to be worked into the article in some way. Hobartimus (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that under realism these incidents don't qualify as international relations, I would not normally support you on this. But because you're finally discussing your proposed changes I am happy to compromise. How about a section entitled 'Violent incidents' or something along those lines, with a very brief run down of these incidents? It would be much much briefer than it is now, I think you would agree that three paragraph sections on each incident are simply unnecessary. Maybe a sentence or two on each, and it would have to be completely neutral and balanced from both sides. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation again

Hi all. Sorry it took so long for me to get here, it seems I got distracted by some drama and forgot that I agreed to help you out here. Anyway, I see a lot of discussion going on, but it seems to be going around in circles. If you'll allow me, I can try to help broker a compromise. Is that okay with everyone? The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I too would greatly welcome mediation. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, please go through about 5 threads above this one to understand the issues. I don't see the point in copy&pasting the same arguments here again. If there are further questions, I'm willing to answer them. Squash Racket (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of discussion

Considering the lack of any replies from Squash now that there is a mediator involved, am I to assume there are no longer any issues with the proposed changes? —what a crazy random happenstance 05:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you need answers, maybe notify me about the continuing discussion, H.

Regarding good faith: from my previous answers you knew the reference was dealing with the Slovak law of 1996, NOT the controversial changes made in 2009 (our topic). Squash Racket (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not my job, Squash. I actually make the effort to follow the discussions I'm involved in, I expect others to do likewise. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion stopped almost two weeks ago, H. Because you stopped answering. Squash Racket (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm dreadfully sorry that you believe a brief hiatus in a debate qualifies you to be the winner by default, however this is not the case, nor are such breaks in debating unheard of on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I am even more sorry that you seem to believe 11 days are a fortnight - apparently the school system just isn't what it used to be. The reason I didn't reply and instead chose to contact a mediator is that you were being (and continue to be) intransigent. You appear not to be aware that compromise is an essential component of any mature debate, and you are refusing to make absolutely any concessions or make any effort to work towards a mutually-supported version. Were this not a nationalist issue, your edits and the unique brand of what you seem to believe qualifies as a debate would have been laughed out already. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I won, I said it would have been polite to notify me, if you stop arguing and then after a while show up and suddenly start complaining about me on the talk page of an admin. OK, I won't say anything about politeness to you anymore, just stick to policy. Squash Racket (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging the two contested versions

Claims of Hungarian irredentism in Viktor Orbán speech

The version as has been amended by a run-away Squash Racket is ridiculous: it repeats facts already included in the introduction for a biased emphasis and it reinterprets the speech as to say what Squash Racket believes was meant, rather than what the controversy was about. The point of the section's presence is to comment on the controversy, not elaborate on Squash Racket's personal interpretation of Orban's remarks. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A run-away Happenstance repeatedly falsificated what can be read in the reference. I find it unacceptable to include what Happenstance believes was meant instead of the actual words said by Orbán.

Minor note to uninvolved editors: Happenstance falsificates Orbán's words based on a Hungarian language reference he absolutely doesn't understand but other editors do. Squash Racket (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't get the concept of discussion, do you? Arguments like "I know everything, he knows nothing" are worthless, try bringing some substance instead of emotions and POVWladthemlat (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't get the concept of "read a comment first, try to understand it and answer only afterwards", do you? Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments like " we can speak Hungarian but you can't" make some sense--Nmate (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is google translator, and there is a whole Hungarian wikipedia that could be asked to translate a short amount of text as a favour, there is a huge number of people who can potentially translate a short text if there is a debate on what it means. I don't think translation can be an issue if it's not longer than a sentence exl. "Orbán Viktor arról beszélt, hogy a június 7-i szavazás öt évre határozza meg a magyarok súlyát az Európai Parlamentben." Or is interpretation and analysis is more of the issue than transl. ? Hobartimus (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebec language law

I can't see why this should be removed, the Slovak language law directly borrows concepts from the Quebec language law and the English-only movement, as backed up by the reference. Slovakia publicly compared their law to the English-only movement when it was going through parliament. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Canada has a French minority which is protected by that law. Comparing the Slovak law that clearly puts pressure on the Hungarian minority to that one is a false comparison.

Slovakia has done many unacceptable things publicly, I hope that alone is not an argument. Squash Racket (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebec has a French majority, and Bill 101 is a provincial law, not a federal one. If Slovakia directly referenced it, and included it as part of its rationale for passing its act, is it notable. Oh, and I think you just revealed your biases quite clearly. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Canada as a country has a French minority, Quebec province's position within Canada is comparable to South Slovakia's position within Slovakia.

Oh, and you've just revealed your lack of understanding of the whole situation: why French Canadians are protecting their minority rights also through this law in Canada. Squash Racket (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Quebec's Bill 101 was criticised as coming down on the province's Anglophone minority and enshrining dominance of the Francophone majority. Quebec has a great degree of autonomy, it very nearly separated from Canada in 1995 and 1980. French is the only official language in Quebec, and one of the two official languages (along with English) in the entire nation of Canada. Your analogy is completely off, not to mention irrelevant. It does not matter what you think of Quebec's language law, it was compared to Slovakia's laws by an academic source. It is therefore relevant. The same source asserts that Slovakia itself invoked an analogy with English-only laws in the US. Again, therefore relevant. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding right? Quebec is a province, not a country, its position is comparable to South Slovakia where Slovakia's Hungarian minority resides.

The Quebec language law is comparable to Slovakia's law on minority language use which should be considerably improved according to OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Knut Vollebæk. Comparing it to the Slovak language law which aims to "protect" the majority language from a minority language is simply a false comparison.

No, the academic source doesn't make a comparison. It only says some elements of the Slovak law were borrowed from it (without citing an example).

The problem is your original research addition: "which exists to protect the majority Francophone population in Quebec from Anglophone encroachment from the rest of Canada". No, it exists to protect the French minority of Canada from the English majority of Canada. You can't seem to grasp that very simple concept. Squash Racket (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear not to be familiar with the situation in Quebec - perhaps you can start at Bill 101. The source says exactly what you say it does, "some elements of the Slovak law were borrowed from it". That itself is notable. It also includes a lengthy quotation of a 'Justification' attached to a draft of the law, directly comparing the Slovak language law to the laws of France, Lithuania, Belgium, and Holland, and recounting the fundamentals of the US English-only movement through a recount of the actions of, and a paraphrase from Senator Toby Roth (R-WI), whilst calling it 'characteristic'. Again, relevant. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear not to be familiar with the situation in Canada, which Quebec is only a part of.

Besides, this quote is about the Slovak language law of 1996, NOT the modifications from 2009.

Does the reference mention anything on the minority language use laws of said countries?

"some elements of the Slovak law were borrowed from it" - with a note on the French being a minority in Canada, otherwise it suggests something unencyclopedic. But still, remember, this is about the law of 1996, NOT the modified law of 2009.

I'm not totally against using that reference, just not in the POV-pushing ways of some. Quote:

"Since Slovakia became an independent state a few years ago, the Slovak majority has been imposing increasingly stringent language restrictions on the Hungarian minority. Hungarian place names must be changed to Slovak spellings all official business must be transacted in Slovak even in districts that are almost entirely Hungarian-speaking." Or:

"The entire English-only movement comes to seen tainted with the defensive character we associate with linguistic nationalism in such places as Slovakia. Not that the two movements will ever be the same." Squash Racket (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

One of you says a comparison is made, one of you says it isn't. To make things easier, could someone provide me with a link to the source (or a transcript of the part that allegedly makes this comparison, if it isn't online) so I could help weigh in as a neutral editor/mediator? The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PDF, the relevant page is p. 303 (352 in the overprinted numbers). I quote: "In all fairness, some of the ideas in the Slovak law were also borrowed from Quebec's Bill 101: Charter of the French Language (enacted in 1977 by the Quebec National Assembly)". The 'also' refers to the contents of a quote from an official justification attached to a previous draft of the Slovak law which draws analogies with the US English-only movement (the main topic of the article), and the laws of "France, Lithuania, Belgium, and Holland". —what a crazy random happenstance 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what if there were a sentence in the article along the lines of "Source X said that some of the ideas in the Slovak law were borrowed from Bill 101"? Obviously that's not a perfect sentence, but i'm thinking something similar to that in terms of phrasing and weight. Would anyone be objected to that? The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Parallels have been drawn between the Slovak language law and the language law of Quebec, Canada^[ref]", perhaps? However, this omits the direct comparison made by an official Slovak document to the US English only movement and the existing language laws of the four European states, which I think warrant a mention too. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference talks about the language law of 1996, NOT the controversial modifications of 2009 (which this section of the article is talking about).
The source also says (repeating myself, please read the whole thread carefully): "Since Slovakia became an independent state a few years ago, the Slovak majority has been imposing increasingly stringent language restrictions on the Hungarian minority. Hungarian place names must be changed to Slovak spellings all official business must be transacted in Slovak even in districts that are almost entirely Hungarian-speaking."
I don't assume the authors would draw parallels between the Quebec law (which may be viewed as protection of the French minority of Canada) and the Slovak law of 2009 (a clear attack on the Hungarian minority of Slovakia).
In short: please realize the reference dates to 2001, while the issue arose in 2009! Squash Racket (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, because the issue was unheard of until 2009... The '96 language law formed the basis of the current law, and comparisons have been made between the current law and the Quebecois law as well. If you wish to note that the source refers to a previous draft, I would not mind, but it is rather obviously relevant to the issue at hand. The existence of a language law/draft in 1996, with similar criticism as that facing the current law (which you kindly quote above, straight from the ref), is itself too notable. Your erroneous assessment of the situation in Canada shows your lack of background in that debate (and the Bill 101 controversy - quite similar to the Slovak controversy), your assessment of the situation in Slovakia is painfully obviously biased, and both your assessments violate WP:OR and are thus irrelevant. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 controversial changes are the topic of the article, even if the authors you keep citing criticised the linguistic nationalism of Slovakia already based on the earlier law.

You previously showed you don't really understand that the French are a minority in Canada and Bill 101 protects them from the majority English language dominance. In Slovakia the language law "protects" the majority Slovaks from the minority without having an effective minority language protection law.

Yes, inserting a quote about the language law of the 1990s in the middle of an analysis of 2009 events would go against Wiki policies. Squash Racket (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your constant refusal to read up on Bill 101 is coming through extremely clearly, so I am going to put this very simply for you. The English-speaking minority of Quebec are a long-established minority, hundreds of years old in fact, who are disappearing as a result of punitive linguistics measures. Quebec has a language police, and any business which uses English more than French is given excessive fines, with the English-minority being the obvious subject of the law. Immigrants, even from English-speaking nations, are not permitted to place their children in English-speaking schools, but Bengali immigrants are permitted to place their children in Bengali speaking schools. The Quebec language policies have been criticised as coming down hard on the English minority. The Slovak language policies have been criticised as coming down on the Hungarian minority. You have an academic reference which directly compares the two. You are not an academic reference yourself, and thus your assessment of the source's validity is largely irrelevant. You also raise Wiki policy to back up your argument. I fully realise you only said this in childlike mimicry of my argument, but I am curious whether you'll actually be able to find a marginally related policy of your own or whether you'll just mimic me again and copy what I said with no regard for reason or relevance. Again. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, take it slowly, so that you understand:

• Quebec is not a country, Canada is. The French are a minority there, just like the Hungarians in Slovakia. The bill could be compared to the minority language use law, which — according to Knut Vollabaek — should be heavily improved in Slovakia. (Yes, probably on the level of the Quebec law.)
• the authors made this "direct comparison(?)" to the Quebec law? Quote: "some of the ideas in the Slovak law (NOTE: of the 1990s!) were also borrowed from Quebec's Bill 101." (Questions: Which ones? The controversial ones or some technical elements? Do the authors think favorably of either laws? This would be a direct comparison?)
• your whole argument is irrelevant, because — how many times should I repeat this? — the article section and the whole controversy is about the 2009 law, NOT the one from the 1990s. Squash Racket (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1) It is you who is saying that we should arbitrarily restrict the notion of linguistic discrimination to the national level, I'm sure the English speaking minority of Quebec would disagree. English speakers are a minority in Quebec. They may be a majority in Canada, or in North America, but that is not relevant because it is not on the continental or federal level that a discriminatory law was passed, but on the provincial level. Canadian provinces have the competence to create provincial language laws. Hungarian speakers are a minority in Slovakia, but they are a majority in a theoretical Slovakia-Hungary unit, or in the Pannonian Basin. There are more Hungarian speakers than Slovak speakers in Europe. However it is not on the continental, regional or binational level that linguistic laws are passed, but on the national level. The degree of sovereignty varies, Slovakia's regions would not be permitted to pass their own language laws restricting language use in business, nor would the Canadian federal parliament. 2) Yes, that is a direct comparison. The language laws of Quebec and Slovakia form the subject and object of that sentence. You are not an academic, and if you have an issue with the reference you can find another academic reference to refute it. It qualifies as a reliable resource, no matter how much you question it. 3) I have no issue with extending that section to cover Slovak linguistic policy overall, as this is a significant comparative study attributed to the debate by an academic resource. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Break

I'm going to ignore the whole "Canada is a country" issue because frankly, it is irrelevant and violates WP:OR. However, Squash does have a point that the source is from 2001 so we can't say it discusses the 2009 law. It might discuss the same issue, but we can't say it compares Bill 101 to the 2009 law. Would we be open to restructuring the statement to indicate that there are comparisons drawn between the two issues, as opposed to the two laws? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is what I suggested in my third point, and the fact that Canada is a country was never the issue. I was merely replying to Squash's charge that Quebec's provincial status renders it entirely irrelevant by pointing him towards the different distribution of competencies between Canada and its provinces versus Slovakia and its regions. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate others' opinions on whether we need a long study on the language law overall with pro and contra quotes after it was Happenstance who threw out much of the article with MUCH MORE relevant material to shorten it.

The 2009 controversy is relevant, the law from the 1990s which didn't create such an uproar isn't so. (Even if you want to include the Quebec citation at all cost. The same authors also said: "The entire English-only movement comes to seen tainted with the defensive character we associate with linguistic nationalism in such places as Slovakia. Not that the two movements will ever be the same." Like that parallel?

If we want to expand the article with new sections, I think we have more important topics to cover, but I'm curious about others' opinions on the issue. Squash Racket (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Drawing a parallel does not imply that the two are identical. I wasn't referring to any sort of mass expansion, merely rephrasing the section to cover a broader topic area in order to allow the inclusion of the reference. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only the second citation is called a real parallel.

And I say this: regardless of how you put it, the authors' opinions are NOT very favorable of how Slovakia handles the language issue.

What is a little troubling though is when you throw out half of the article and reedit the remaining part according to your POV and now expand it again, because you found something you like. Squash Racket (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully expect you to receive a WP:NPA warning for that, you are accusing me of maliciously editing with the intent to introduce a bias. You've done that countless times before, but now that you've turned it into a big deal I see no reason to let it by. I do, in fact, find the explicit accusation you make quite offensive. Your attack aside, I have no problem adding the other parts of the reference to the already well-referenced sections criticising Slovak policy. What I do have a problem with is the absence of absolutely anything from a Slovak perspective in the section. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the false warnings. Thank you.

It wasn't me who removed half of the article, and many editors objected to the way you reedited the article. You deny that? Wasn't there edit warring over this for weeks (or months)?

Why don't you search 2009 material that directly references the Slovak opinion? (By the way, it is represented, and obviously it isn't the Slovaks who have been outraged. What did you expect?) Squash Racket (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit war did not go on for months, and an ample amount of discussion and collaboration took place during and following it (example). A willingness to compromise was shown by all parties. That is more that can be said for this dispute, where I can't help but notice the discussion has mysteriously wandered off topic. I see no reason why I ought to search for new references when the one I provide provides ample proof of the analogies between the two situations, going back as far as 1995, which itself is notable. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, only a page protection stopped the ongoing edit war (I won't check its length), not a concensus.
We have an article called Language law of Slovakia, where details may be added. The structure is already ready for it. Here we have much more important issues to (re)cover. Squash Racket (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, so removing bias is some sort of horrific unilateral intervention, and adding material to balance bias is introducing off-topic content. However, I think you're on to something. Domestic linguistic policies of Hungary and Slovakia are hardly relevant to international relations between the two states, at least according to the predominant paradigm of international relations - realism. The sections should be entirely removed, they do not deal with relations between the two states at all, except possible comments and condemnations by foreign ministries, which are hardly unusual. This is what you were getting at, yes? —what a crazy random happenstance 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 modified law DID create a loud uproar in international relations, the law of the 1990s did NOT.

If we would add your little reference, we would have to add a whole new section with pro and contra quotes, arguments (even from the same reference) etc. which isn't very relevant here. It rather belongs into the main article. It was you who found the article too long earlier, now you somehow changed your opinion.

In that case why don't we recover some of the material you removed so unilaterally? That's my question. Squash Racket (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what "an uproar in international relations" is? An uproar in community relations, or ethnic relations, or the media I can understand, but quite what an "uproar in international relations" is eludes me. Are you referring to a systemic or sub-systemic change in how international relations operates, or perhaps a change in world polarity? Domestic policy does not qualify as being within the field of international relations, at least as defined under realism, no matter how many German newspapers it incites. Also, why would we have to add a whole another section? I do not remember having said that, and I find that thoroughly unnecessary. The fact that I supported the removal of biased content earlier does not preclude me from supporting the addition of one, entirely unrelated sentence, at a random point in the future. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to react to the first part of your comment. I don't start arguing about trivialities.
The section deals with 2009 events, and reactions. I hope you don't try to mix in the law and its evaluations from the 1990s into that section AGAIN.
The content you removed should be checked and some of it probably recovered. Squash Racket (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how you expect that kind of reply to be constructive? You are referring to a dispute which preceded this one, which you were not involved in, and which up to this point we were not even debating. As we were coming towards the conclusion of a discussion about the concrete details of Quebec and its inclusion in the article, you've sidetracked and suddenly broadened the debate in what can only I assume is an attempt to prevent reaching a conclusion to the argument at hand. —what a crazy random happenstance 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was me who didn't find the first part of your comment constructive, that's why I ignored it.

Then you asked why it would need another section. I answered.

I know that what you want is to include the Quebec sentence in this article and I already said I'm against it as ALL the details of the whole law, pro and contra arguments etc. would make the article too long. We have Language law of Slovakia where this really belongs. Squash Racket (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry, but you don't get to ignore arguments because you find them inconvenient. That way we'll never get anywhere. You have repeated your post from before, I shall repeat mine. There was no 'uproar in international' relations because there was no diplomatic action taken, other than simple condemnation which hardly qualifies. I do not understand why we would need to add a whole another section to include the Quebec quote, please clarify. There were also expressions of incredulity from me that you are telling me that anything pro-Hungarian belongs here, but anything pro-Slovak belongs away off somewhere. I would like to know how you believe that qualifies as NPOV coverage of the language debate. —what a crazy random happenstance 19:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not able to understand that the reference deals with the 1990s, NOT the controversy of 2009 (the topic of that section), I don't know how (or why) to argue further.
If we would include the reference, we would also have to include the law of the 1990s with all arguments, not just the one you like. But as it didn't create much trouble in the international relations of the two countries, it belongs into the main article, Language law of Slovakia, not here.
This request comes from the same guy who removed most of the shared history of these countries to shorten this article.
I'm clearly against your suggestion, I would welcome others to share their opinions. That's it. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket, how would you prefer to cover the language law issue? If you can make a proposal then perhaps we can discuss and negotiate it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to see a draft of Squash's proposal. I don't think I need to note that Squash is again discussing contributor instead of content; questioning my credibility rather than my actual suggestions, to which I take grave exception. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Next false warning? When did I discuss contributor instead of content? When I noted your repeated removal of relevant content without concensus? Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith:

• the 2009 modifications of the law, with the international body involved in it and the many heavy reactions to it becoming relevant in international relations should be covered in this article
• the earlier language law of the 1990s is already covered in Language law of Slovakia, the main article. There's enough structure and space there to add all the pro and contra arguments, quotes from the study cited above etc. See below section for the text. But we may include the full picture here too as — according to the reference — there WAS loud reaction to it in 1995. (I've just found this one: The Hungarians in Slovakia, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, the Hungarian government and dozens of professional linguistic bodies across the world have protested the Slovak Republic's new language law [note: of 1995].)
• also recovering some of the shared history of the two nations removed earlier by H. seems to me important. Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So your definition of working towards a compromise is that you'll not only stick to your version as it stands, but you plan to reintroduce further content from a revision which completely predates this conflict and which was openly recognised by all parties as biased, simply because you know I oppose it? Oh, the surprise. You could bottle it. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Read my comment before you write something.

"revision (...) which was openly recognised by all parties as biased" - that's not true. A page protection ended an edit war (in which I didn't even participate), but many editors expressed discontent over how you reedited this article. Squash Racket (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Text

Here's what González, Roseann Dueñas (2001). Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Volume II: History, Theory, and Policy. Routledge. pp. 302–303. ISBN 9780805840544. REALLY wanted to say about the language law of Slovakia (1990 and 1995):

Since 1990, under the law on the official language of the Slovak Republic, in communities having at least a 20% minority population, the minority language could be (and was) used in all official communications.

The new 1995 law vacates the earlier (1990) law, so the more than half million Hungarians who have resided here for a millennium were then required immediately to become competent speakers of Slovak and to surrender the use of their native language. The Hungarians in Slovakia, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, the Hungarian government and dozens of professional linguistic bodies across the world have protested the Slovak Republic's new language law.
The Slovak State Language Law cites the example of English Only Legislation in America. But according to Roseann Dueñas González in fact the entire English-only movement comes to seem tainted with the defensive character we associate with linguistic nationalism is such places as Slovakia. Not that the two movements will ever be the same.

Some of the ideas in the Slovak law were borrowed from Quebec's Bill 101. It constitutes an interesting irony, that while the European Union is busily engaged in promoting linguistic diversity, a few nations are still trying to create an environment in which the nation-state is defined in terms of linguistic homogeneity.

So there WAS a loud reaction back then too. Squash Racket (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Slota remarks

Fringe political statements that belong on Wikiquote, not here. We are not a newspaper, we do not have to report every single one of his remarks, we can just say he's a discriminatory idiot once and get it over with, like any other encyclopaedia. His remarks should also be contrasted with Hungarian political remarks for balance. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated provocative, racist statements by a leading member of the Slovak government coalition can not possible be considered as fringe. He alone did quite enough damage to HU-SK relations, which happens to be the topic of this article.

Der Spiegel is a good enough neutral, reliable source to support the quotes.

If you find similar anti-Slovak quotes from governing Hungarian political leaders in similar neutral, reliable sources, we may include them. Squash Racket (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing the quotes exists, the thing is they don't belong here. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And why not?--Nmate (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is on interstate relations, it is not a quote aggregator. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated provocative, racist statements by a leading member of the Slovak government coalition can not possible be considered as fringe. He alone did quite enough damage to HU-SK relations, which happens to be the topic of this article.

Der Spiegel is a good enough neutral, reliable source to support the quotes. Squash Racket (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone here of WP:WEIGHT. I haven't actually looked at the quotes in question, but in general, anything more than one or two particularly notable quotes per article should go to Wikiquote. Even if the quotes are reliably sourced, the article should not contain a large collection of them. A few quotes given in appropriate context, integrated with the prose, might be appropriate though. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We only kept a couple of quotes referenced by Der Spiegel, I didn't restore the original verison with many highlighted quotes, although underestimating his inflammatory role would also be a mistake. He said what he said as a leading member of the governing coalition. Squash Racket (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The section as it stands over-emphasises his importance, but only slightly. The section in the version I advocate is very similar to the current one. It leaves his most notable quote in, and removes the others, which can be found on more relevant pages. His statements were not made on behalf of the government, and thus are not representative of the official relations between the two states, which is the sole topic this article exists to document. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel quotes on behalf of a leading member of the governing coalition are relevant.

Whether we should include other quotes, opinions from him if we can show their effect on the relations of the two countries (topic of this article) is a matter of debate.

An example: Slota attacked then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, called her shock haired, compared her to Hitler etc. for which the Slovak Minister of Foreign Affairs later apologized. Squash Racket (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is a matter of debate. That would be why we're debating it. "The Der Spiegel quotes... are relevant" is not an argument, it is a statement. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're questioning the necessity of three short Der Spiegel quotes on a leading, governing politician who intentionally incited Hungarians literally for years and did everything to harm the Hungarian minority from a high position in the Slovak government, but the "attack on the Ambassador" which we don't even know whether has anything to do with something at least vaguely political, deserves its own paragraph. All in the name of fair&balanced Slovak view. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An ambassador is the representative of a state, and anything which happens to him whilst active in his official capacity qualifies as Low Level Diplomacy under realism. Molotov cocktails being thrown at an embassy are fairly relevant to an article on international relations. This was discussed above. The attack on the ambassador and embassy can be merged into one paragraph, if it is the typesetting which you find bothersome. You will note that my preferred revision of the page not only does not attribute the attack to nationalism of any kind, but it mentions that the Slovak foreign ministry views it as an 'isolated criminal offence'. I consider that quite balanced, yes. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're questioning the necessity of short Der Spiegel quotes coming from a leading, governing politician who intentionally incited Hungarians literally for years and did everything to harm the Hungarian minority from a high position in the Slovak government. The "attack on the Ambassador" (the driver issue) which we don't even know whether has anything to do with something at least vaguely political, deserves mention in the same length?
Question 1: how many more Slota statements do you need to which the Foreign Ministries of either countries reacted somehow?
Question 2: you really think that figure (and his party) wasn't of key importance in the deterioration of the relations between the countries?
Question 3: besides simple quotes when and how will we cover what kind of anti-Hungarian measures he supported/suggested? Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Q1) Foreign ministries react to severe weather. That does not qualify meteorology to qualify as falling into international relations.

Q2) My opinion is not relevant, and the temporary downturn in relations, as perceived by the media, is simply not significant enough to warrant discussion. Other than condemnation, no international actions were taken by Hungary in response to Slota.

Q3) No international actions were taken on behalf of Slota by Slovakia. His remarks are therefore not relevant. One-time member of parliament in Australia, Pauline Hanson, made remarks about Asian immigration, and she is credited with pushing the ruling party to the right on asylum seekers. That still does not make her relevant to international relations. —what a crazy random happenstance 19:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes representatives of states matter to you, sometimes not?
• If you consider your opinion not relevant, then we can move on. We do have the references. Didn't we include simple Slovak comdemnations in the article as "relevant"? When it comes to Hungary, this doesn't work?
• Didn't he also propose laws, measures? SNS was also involved in education policy decisions, right? Confirmation of the Benes decrees? His statues, symbols etc. aren't relevant? Squash Racket (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Foreign ministries these days engage in a variety of activities that would hardly qualify as international relations under realism. There is a difference between a Foreign Ministry, which is the domestic agency responsible for external policy, and a Diplomatic Service, which is the arm of the state tasked with the execution of said policy, on behalf of the state, towards another state.

2) We can remove those too. Hard though you may find this to believe, I really don't have any biases. I just want a balanced article.

3) Domestic laws, domestic measures, domestic education, domestic decrees, domestic status, domestic symbols. —what a crazy random happenstance 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• So according to your latest definition Foreign Ministries (sometimes his own) condemning his attacks are not international relations.
• Hard for me to believe, that's true. Yes, the Slovaks had much less to condemn in recent years, but we won't play the game where H. decides what constitutes international relations and what not.
• Hungarian minority of Slovakia. Squash Racket (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Realism (international relations)

2) Realism (international relations)

3) Realism (international relations)

Realism is by far the predominant paradigm in international relations. Since we have ample room to describe Hungarians in Slovakia in an article entitled Hungarians in Slovakia, we don't need to repeat the fact past the introduction. As many countries (China, Russia, the US) are quick to note, minorities are a domestic issue. PS: Your refusal to assume good faith is offensive. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a number of false warnings doesn't help the discussion much. So you would elaborate on Slota in the article Hungarians in Slovakia?
OK. So this one is closed. If The Wordsmith or a neutral party has anything against that small paragraph fully referenced by Der Spiegel, we may get back to this. As Slota was a key figure in the deterioration of relations between the two countries (nowadays described as the worst in the EU), we'll probably expand the section with his actions/proposals. That's it for now on my part. Squash Racket (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to close discussions because you don't like others' arguments, nor do you win by default as you seem to believe. Oh, and giving lectures on false warnings? Oh the irony. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar corrections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone really have a problem with my grammar corrections to the last section, or was this just a heat-of-the-moment revert? —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, everybody acknowledges that you are very proficient in English but no-one wants to bestir himself to comb out the trifle amount of constructive addition of yours when you are infesting the article with POV-pushing.--Nmate (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Happenstance: Quoting myself, hopefully this time you'll read it:

Anybody may add new material, but if I see that my edits get removed/worsened including the falsification of referenced material, I won't start sorting it out, but simply revert to the version before the disruptive editor showed up. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed per WP:NPA), but Nmate - if you genuinely believe I introduced bias I would like to hear where. I want to work on a version that we could all support. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

From now on, personal attacks will be removed according to WP:NPA. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your audacity in altering my innocuous reply is duly noted, and will do nothing but help convince everyone involved you are not interested in reaching any sort of compromise. If you would like me to dig through all your replies on this page, and pull out everything that I consider to have been a personal attack, or everything that could conceivably be constructed as one, I can easily do so, but I don't think there's going to be much left. You can either work towards a compromise, or continue acting vindictively and prove beyond all doubt it is not the article's welfare you're interested in. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

From now on, personal attacks will be removed according to WP:NPA.

The fact that you start an edit war to add back your clear personal attack doesn't shine a positive light on your commitment to mediation.Squash Racket (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to provoke me. It will not work. I am working towards a neutral version of the article, and I have nothing to be afraid of from you. Removing a remark that barely qualifies shows a malice not even the oratorial skills of Demosthenes could ascribe to you; in other words it saves me the trouble. There are indeed personal attacks littering our discussion, but a very very precious few of those are mine. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

When I remove a clear, direct personal attack and you react like that it shows a malice not even oratorial skills of Demosthenes could ascribe to you. Please point me to any direct personal attacks like the one above made by me.

I don't seriously believe that you try to blame now anybody else for your constant civility issues "littering our discussion", no, you are only provoking me. Squash Racket (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, I will personally remove any further personal attacks and take appropriate disciplinary action. This line of discussion is not helping resolve the content dispute, so I am archiving it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.