Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Modifications by me

Please, don't revert what I have written. I will citate them, all of what I wrote I saw in news. I added information to the former Hungarian Language law article for two reasons. One is that what is there could be citated but lacked information about the real situation. It is press news here, as opposed to Western Europe where it is a common phenomenon to hear such things from people any day, because Members of Parliament with their Civil Law Immunity intended to defend them from unjust police investigations without two-thirds mayority gives them out if it seems to be the case they had done something, dare to speak out for what anyone would get arrested as warmongers or advocators of deprival of human dignity. Moreover, there is no racism here, for that people would get immediately beaten out of emotion by anyone and would be called a death camp officer and sent to hell to one of that. What idiots have is hatred towards other nationalities and territorial claims. Here I wrote about the origin of it.

The second is that I am fed up with the distorted picture that can always be read about the extent of problems in Central Europe. CNN, BBC and others I think should be sued by Central European states collectively, because they present as if the problems were worse than in Western Europe and if people here lacked basic intelligence. This resulted in even Wikipedia editors, EU officials and anyone regarding to any problem when someone from Central-Europe mentions it, to behave as if they didn't hear the real problem. For this reason they easily come to wrong conclusions compelledly (deleting a son of a Hungarian King while it has his own page with citations, while demanding citation if mentioned). Here, people are very conscious about what is a right of a nationality and territorial souveregnity.

Central Europe is described as its opposite, narrow-minded nationalist because the historical problems are discussed by radical parties, and it is not considered absolutely sure on the levels of historical waves, whether all political powers agree to accept the border situation forever. In the West legally it is solved, but people aren't reminded directly to acknowledge that genetical-type doesn't pre-determine a person to certain moral or intellect limit, neither to that what geographical features a state has in relation to others does not qualifies it, that was Hitler's living-space theory and push for war.

I experienced the problems are greater in the West, legally they have no problems, but in citizen, real sphere people lack immune system and are completely insensitive to speech one step from warmongering or to even racism. What here would be examination by authorities and sacking they don't even notice there (not expecting as much from a minority student as from the others, a Scottish having doubt about whether he has a right to mention that he is a Scottish etc.)

It is not even or correct to make a section of something that is irrevelant. For this reason I renamed it to Minorities in Hungary. I put the historical perspective of potential claims of lack of national identity of Slovaks in Hungary. That was a general phenomenon not related to them but related to the official ideology. Moreover, because of the demographical map there is no considerable Slovak population is in Hungary. I didn't remove any information, and left all citation. Yet I had to show it was not an issue of the two state, even if it can be examined in that perspective. N.11.6 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed edit

The questionable edit is this one. I am not denying that it is well-sourced content, but I contest the fact that the text is appropriate for his article. My motivation is below.

As it is specified in the lead, this article is treating "the foreign relations between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic". Slovak Republic did not exist before 1993, so the article must not discuss earlier events. It is like writing about the beer Heineken Hungária in the article about Hungarian wine and asking: "What is wrong? Because it is a Hungarian drink brand".

We must create the article Hungary–Czechoslovakia relations‎ on the model of the couple Czechoslovakia–Poland relations and Poland–Slovakia relations. If we want to write about anti-Hungarian sentiments present in the first Czechoslovak republic, we should add that text to the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment or First Czechoslovak Republic. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

• I agree with this statement. There's nothing wrong with the content itself, but as you said it should be in an article about Czechoslovakian relations, not in the articles about relations with this nation which did not exist at that time. The lead firmly establishes that this is about relations with the Slovak Republic post Czechoslovakia, so this information seems to run contrary to that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you also agree that the content itself constitutes vandalism as well? Because if you agree with Iaaasi, that's what you agree with as well. Also, Iaaasi started discussions about this (and making RFCs) only after he was blocked already for a revert war.
Also, this issue's been discussed at least twice: [1] and [2]. On the second occasion even an absolutely neutral editor (Chipmunkdavis) has pointed out that the historical background information is absolutely valid and should therefore stay. Also, let me repeat my own reason for putting the content here in the first place:

Someone who knows nothing about the struggles, wrongdoings and grievances that plague the Carpathian basin with all the nations living in it, would be unable to comprehend/interpret the reasons behind these tensions. You're probably also aware of the fact that this article is still little more than a detailed stub. It lists some events and facts, but nothing about the background and the fact that why the relations of Hungarians with Slovaks are what they are. However by removing such new additions to the article you make it impossible for anyone to develop it into a better article (including myself who planned to add some more information to it as well). Do you really want that? CoolKoon (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright you made quite a few points there, so I'll try to respond to everything.

• For the first point, I never said I considered this vandalism, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. Also, whether or not he was blocked for edit warring has nothing to do with whether the edits are right or wrong; the 3RR is to prevent edit warring in general, it doesn't decide which side is right. I don't know much about his prior situation, but that's not under discussion, the edit is.
• As to the second, I'd hardly say consensus was reached; the discussion took place just 5 hours or so ago. And Chipmunkdavis did state that the content may fit better in a subarticle. The information would be perfectly valid in an article about Czechoslovakian relations or something even earlier; I don't see any issue with the creation of that page.
• As to this article being a stub, I'm not totally sure I agree with that, but regardless the length of an article doesn't change what should be in it.

Hope that answered all that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, while I don't think I'd classify your edits as vandalism, it does look like you refused to engage in the legitimate discussion the now blocked user tried to start on this page, which runs contrary to the WP:BRD process.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you suggested that idea yourself, by claiming that you agree with Iaaasi. What Iaaasi did was marking Koalicio's attempts to restore my addition as vandalism and "restoring" them along with marking each move as a "minor edit".

I'm sure that the content would fit much better in a subarticle, but a subarticle is usually created when the content in the main article becomes too big and (partially) off-topic for it to be contained in the main article. And besides, a subarticle has to be filled with content. This content has to be created by someone. However the person creating the content might not have the time and willingness to proceed with content creation if his additions are kept being removed by other editors on dubious claims and the content creator has to argue with them ad infinimum (wasting his time he could use for content creation in the process). BTW sorry for the consensus, that was a typo.

As for your claims on refusal of discussion, please check the edit history again and compare it with the edits in the talk page. You'll see then that Iaaasi has removed my addition on sight and asked questions (i.e. engaged in a discussion) much, MUCH later. CoolKoon (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I've just noticed an interesting fallacy in your argument. You wrote "...not in the articles about relations with this nation which did not exist at that time". I bet that if you'd tell this to ANY Slovak you'd get frowned upon at least (maybe even beaten up by some less intelligent grunts). They'd also explain to you that they've been in the Carpathian basin WELL BEFORE the Hungarians came. Even if that's a bit far-fetched, even Hungarian historians agree on the fact that Slovak was used in northernmost parts of Hungary at least from the 17th century. In the late 18th century they even had their language codified. Yet you claim that the Slovak nation didn't exist until 1993? You also say that the lead talks about relations of Hungary with Slovakia, which makes information about Czechoslovakia appear to be contrary of that. In that case it can also be said that the article dealing with Germany has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire and even less with the Frankish empire (which's the name used in German for France up to this day: Frankreich), right? Or the Italy article should forego any mentions of the Roman Empire, or the article about Iran should leave out the Persian empire as well, right? Can't you see the absurd nature of your argument (well, Iaaasi's argument which you seem to agree with)? CoolKoon (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't argue that Slovaks weren't there, but this article is about relations with the Slovak Republic. As for those other countries you mentioned, note that this article does contain a history section, but it should be an appropriately detailed summary given the relative depth and length of the topic. A thorough discussion should go on the more specific pages (which, once again, I'm confused why you don't make, since the info is obviously more applicable there) Germany, for example, does contain a brief section on the history of the HRE in it's history section, but it is only a small summary of the incredible amount of info explained on the HRE page and all of its many subpages.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I have to repeat my statement from above though: I don't have enough content. Writing Wikipedia's not like writing a composition, where you get some inspiration and write pages of text almost effortlessly. Here you have to do some research, cite sources, use encyclopedic tone, insert links to other articles, use the Wiki formatting etc. This all takes time. Unfortunately time works also against me. There are quite a few "AfD-happy" (something like "trigger-happy") editors who seem to spend their entire day looking for stubs they can nominate for deletion. Maybe it's a mating ritual of sorts for them or something, but the point is that they'd be overly happy to nominate some or all of my newly created subarticles for deletion so once again I'd have waste more time arguing with them about the notability of the issue. Besides, I'm sure that the subarticles of Germany, Iran etc. begun as sections of the main article as well. So what I suggest (well, technically I've been suggesting it the whole time) is leaving the section intact/putting it back and splitting it into a new subarticle when it becomes long enough to justify it. I'm always open to discussions so when the time comes you can tag the section with the appropriate template. What do you say? CoolKoon (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a reply here as well - I don't see why this article should serve you as a sandbox for unrelated content. The section in question does not even deal with interstate relations, only with one minority group within one state, i really don't see why keep it here.

Oh, and btw. - ".not in the articles about relations with this nation which did not exist at that time" is perfectly fine, you see, in English the term is used to denote states as well as cultural groups.Wladthemlat (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should create a new article with every single former country you can think of. I mean, East Germany-Hungary relations??
IF we create a subarticle, it will be because of the amount of material to deal with, and even then the Czechoslovak period will be covered in this article, with a link to the more detailed subarticle.
The Hungarian-Slovak relations have not started in 1993, but well before that. The Polish editors decided to create a separate article, well let them do that, but this has not become any kind of new rule or guideline for everybody. Squash Racket (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC. I have to say that I agree with Squash Racket. The relations during the period when Slovakia was part of another country are very relevant, at the very least for context for the current relations. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Iaasi and Yaksar. The content in question is irrelevant to the article - not only it is about Czechoslovakia, but it even is not about any relations between two countries, but focuses on position of a minority ethnic group within one state. CoolKoon has certainly heard about sandboxes, he can use them freely to create an article which won't get deleted , no need to keep the content here.

Moreover, if the czechoslovak period is to be kept, then the treatment of Slovaks within KoHU needs to be added as well, where will we stop? The title says it clearly: HungaRY-SlovaKIA relations, not HungaRIANS-SlovaKS, neither HungaRIANS - any state on the territory of ex-KoHU. Let's keep it logical and clean. Wladthemlat (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And because you agree with Iaaasi you intend to use his methods as well? Because removing major parts of the article's exactly what Iaaasi did. And I don't think that that's the way things should be done on WP (i.e. removing content first, asking questions later).

I have nothing against including the treatment of Slovaks within KoHU either. Feel free to re-add sections such as the one about Cernova tragedy and similar stuff. The historical section needs to be included for the fact that the conflicts between Slovaks and Hungarians (and hence Slovakia and Hungary at times) stems WAY in the past. It's been marked by events that led to the mutual resentment of some Slovaks against Hungarians and vice versa.

Also I don't think that the parts about Czechoslovakian history should be omitted for the fact that this is an article about Slovakia-Hungary relations either. It's the situation of Hungarians in Slovakia that usually causes tensions between Slovakia and Hungary, so it has absolutely a right to be there. Sure, the Fico-government has taken this to the edge by some of his moves (e.g. refusing "Solamyl" entry to Slovakia), but all in all it's always about the fact that Slovak nationalist governments plot cynical plans of intimidating its Hungarian minority and Hungary protesting against it. CoolKoon (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The context can be briefly explained in the history section of the article with link to a more specific article included. I agree that many of the current issues stem in the past, but it's definitely not the only defining factor, you are overestimating its importance. Moreover, that's no reason for bloating this article with all the info someone will deem remotely relevant, as we would end up with thousand pages, which is unfeasible. If the reader is interested, they will read further.

Look at the section as it is now, it's just unnecessarily detailed (is the faith of one statue really that important for the article's topic?) and you plan on adding on to it, this has to end somewhere. This article should be about interstate relations of two modern political entities, not a historical overview of what who did to whom and when. You are criticizing Iaasi's edit, let me present to you examples of how addition of relevant content was treated on Hungary by our very own User:Nmate

[3] [4] [5] (he also managed to call the info "panslav propaganda", but that's another story. Definitely a proof of his obvious bias though).

and that was only about one sentence, we are talking about a whole overly detailed section on a topic that even wasn't included (and was never intended to be included) in the original article. I really think you should create a separate article (sandbox it if necessary), slim this section down massively and include it as a brief subsection of the history part. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, you're DEFINITELY better than Nmate. He only removed a few sentences, while you've done away with a whole section. Congratulations. The problem with your addition though is the fact that it's almost ancient history that has next to zero relevance to present-day relations between SK and HU. Sure, many Slovak nationalists love to over-enthusiastically write/talk (sk: trepať) about the fact that the Hungarians "drove out the poor Old Slovaks, who previously offered the Hungarians shelter", but that's a myth fabricated by a few bored nutjobs. The REAL roots of the conflict stems in the 19th century, probably from the events in 1848. Up until that time the Slovaks and the Hungarians have pretty much lived between each other peacefully. So I'm sorry, but I just can't accept arguments about content that predates 1848 (especially stuff that does it by almost a millennium).

Sure, I can see the logic in the argument that the historical section is far too much detailed. But if it's so, why did you outright remove it? Why didn't you just propose the whole section to be split into a subarticle? Would assuming good faith hurt as hell?

The fate of the statue is meant to be more or less an illustration. I'm sure you prefer plain and dull articles with no images whatsoever, but I don't think that articles should be like that. Pictures make comprehension (and memorization) of the text MUCH easier by anyone reading it, in short, the article becomes much more palatable. I'm sure that you don't write articles only for writing's (or author's) sake as that's a VERY bad approach. CoolKoon (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles should have images, but images related to the central theme, not to some by-the-way illustrations.

Why I removed the section? Because in the previous debate you agreed, that the content from it is suitable for a new article, your only concern was that you don't have enough content for the article not to get deleted. Thus you in fact agreed that it should be removed, just was asking for more time to finish it. But that's of no concern when the structure of this article is considered, we don't have to wait until you complete your section and then move it, you are free to use sandbox for that. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I've agreed with moving the article into a new section doesn't even remotely mean that I agree with its removal. As I've continuously asserted for you and Iaaasi as well, the proper way to handle such "urges" is to suggest a splitting of the article by inserting the appropriate tag into the head of the section and then DISCUSS it on the talk page. But instead of doing that you've just removed the whole section. This alone clearly shows that you don't assume good faith at all and show no (or next to none) interest in others' opinions at all.

Also, let me share some of my plans regarding content expansion on this article with you (and everyone else who reads this obviously :P): I'm planning to add a new section about the "Mečiarism" era as well and will probably include a photo of Mečiar as well. The sources will also proceed to confirm how big of an asshole he (and his whole "regime") was in context of anti-Hungarianism. Will you also remove that whole section on the grounds of "irrelevance" as well? Or will you just weed out the parts detailing his grave anti-Hungarian moves? Will you also remove the photo of Meciar from the article too? Because all in all, it seems like that's what you intend to do with any kind of content one wants to add here. You've continuously proven here (and in other articles as well) that the only thing you seem to be keen on is the removal of anything that points out the dark parts of the Slovak history. I hate to break it to you, but that's not the way history books (and ANY kind of books) are meant to be written. Sure, dumbasses such as Fico, Meciar and their brown-noses had numerous oportunities to false the Slovak history, but Wikipedia's not the right place for that. Therefore you should really keep your attraction to myths, fables and neologic fabrications to yourself, along with your insatiable urge to assert them wherever you go. Since you've obviously removed ALL the sources from the new section I've added (and even cynically added the citation needed template as well), I think it's pretty much pointless to discuss the matter with you any further. CoolKoon (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and remain civil. I was bold and reverted according to the discussion I saw here, now we're discussing, nothing out of the ordinary. I repeat, you have not proven relevance of the destruction of several statues to the article's topic, actions by modern politicians are a completely different story. I do apologize for the removal of all sources, I meant only to delete the irrelevant paragraphs and did not realize those sources can be used, they are present in the proposal as you can see.Wladthemlat (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Maria Theresa

Part about statue of Maria Theresa is pure nonsense. This statue was destroyed for anti-Habsburg feeling, not for anti-Hungarian sentiment. She was not Hungarian, as both her parents were German. In Prague was destroyed in 1919 statue of Czech General Joseph Radetzky von Radetz for his service for Habsburgs. Please, understand, that anti-Habsburg is not same as anti-Hungarian (especially in view of Kossuth rebellion etc.).--Yopie (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Joooj, ty vole! Ja ti najdu ten spravnej zdroj...... I know that she wasn't Hungarian. I also know that other non-Hungarian statues fell prey to the riff-raff which called himself the Czechoslovak legionaries. But in Slovakia the overwhelming reason for toppling statues was the fact that they were connected in one way or another to Hungary. Nowadays there are plans to create an exact replica of the destroyed MT statue. And do you know what's the reason many Slovak nationalists are against it (typically it's those who are the loudest who never EVER lived in Bratislava at all)? The fact that the statue included "two Hungarian soldiers" (who weren't soldiers at all, but they couldn't care less). So I'll just try and find an appropriate source for supporting this (maybe I already have, I'll reread the sources I've already quoted as well). CoolKoon (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with CoolKoon above. Also, telling that this was not a sandbox page as a reason for reverting was not a helpful contribution by Wladthemlat--Nmate (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is your opinion, could you please revert your edits here: [6] [7] [8] where you did the exact same thing? Thank you. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not the same thing. So is when an opened encyclopedia is really an opened encyclopedia. And consider it to be an affability on my part that I do not want to dissect the dire details on why I think so.[9]--Nmate (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yopie, cekni si tohle: [10]
"Vláda sa vyzýva, aby v čo najkratšom čase odstránila všetky takzvané miléniové pomníky, hlásajúce tisícročnú nadvládu Maďarov na území bývalého Uhorska.[...]Poslanci osobitne upozornili na súsošie Márie Terézie v Bratislave. "Oslavuje princíp uhorského kráľovstva a cnosti maďarskej šľachty, provokuje československé národné cítenie," uvádza sa v interpelácii." - Toto je skratka jasna sprava o tom, ze zburanie sochy MT bolo namierene proti "uhorskej nadvlade" a "madarskemu utlaku".
I don't have the patience to translate the whole quote from Pravda (Google Translate will do it for any of you), but the point is, that it was viewed as a symbol of the Hungarian rule ever since the beginning. And you can't even say that it's an unreliable source (e.g. from a Hungarian newspaper written in Slovak -for now-, like some think SME is). CoolKoon (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't change anything on the fact that this whole story is a) way too particular for this article b) way too disconnected from the main topic of this article. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"way too particular for this article?" I don't think I got your point. Perhaps in Slovak?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that this is "way too disconnected from the main topic", because it's a quite notable episode of history of Hungarian-Slovak relations and put thus a considerable leverage into Hungarians' arguments when they were badmouthing Slovaks later. As I've said, feel free to re-add the Cernova tragedy as well, since I think that it's also of similar importance in the view of present-day relations. CoolKoon (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Way too specific, about one particular problem that is not connected to the article.

I don't want to add anything like that (Cernova, magyarization etc.), as I think it's irrelevant to this article.

"quite notable episode of history of Hungarian-Slovak relations" - according to whom? I'm afraid it's only your opinion that came about thanks to the debate that arose around the statue in the media, but the fact is, that the whole "statueclasm" is unimportant when the relations in general are considered. It does not tell anything about relations between the Slovak Republic and Hungarian Republic. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

According to whom? And according to whom is it irrelevant? You? Because then its my opinion against yours. As I said, it's an EPISODE. Not a turning point, but an important event nonetheless. And how do you intend to prove me wrong? By saying that you don't agree with me? Because that won't be enough I'm afraid. CoolKoon (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you, provide some sources that support the relevance of the topic, to prove nonexistence is impossible. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already quoted a LOT of RELEVANT sources in the whole section you've removed. Those sources show that the topic IS relevant indeed (i.e. it meets the general notability criteria). The fact that the statue's something Pravda wrote an article about and also the fact that there are talks and preparations about creating an exact replica of the statue shows that the statue really IS important in the whole context of Hungarian-Slovak relations, history-wise or other. Besides, it's not like you have the absolute right to determine what's notable in this and what's not (i.e. doing edits in the manner "it's important, because I said so" and "I'll remove this, this is unimportant, because I don't see it as important"). You once again fall into your own fallacy of believing that its your own opinion alone which's infallible and important, since you act as if you'd be representing the opinion of all the Slovaks (just like that braindead Fico does), which's far from the truth. Then there are also the opinions of the Hungarian editors, which you obviously just constantly ignore as well (after all, they're all just ugly Mongoloid types with ugly ponies, who were civilized by Old Slovak blood, right?). CoolKoon (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your only argument is, that media are writing about the historical destruction of statues because there are attempts to rebuild one. No significance whatsoever for the topic of the article (interstate relations). You provided no sources claiming that it was the destruction itself that influenced the interstate relations in any significant way. All we can say is that it was a symptom of general tensions in the relationship,not that it in and of itself influenced it. Thus a note that it happened is relevant, detailed elabortion is not. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. First of all I haven't mentioned it only because the statue of MT is getting into mainstream media's attention. I've also mentioned it for the fact that post-Trianon Hungary DID express his wish to have these statues recovered if the newly established government didn't want them. However the Czechoslovak government has lacked the generousness and general will to protect these statues from the mob. What's worse the statues have been viewed as symbol of the Hungarian oppression and several nationalist retards have called for the demolition of these statues in the CS national assembly ever since the beginning (see the Pravda article quoted above). Ironically I was having a hard time finding a credible source because most of the search results have pointed to sites maintained by nationalistic dimwits who have used the anti-Hungarian outbursts of those nationalist politicians to justify the barbaric destruction of statues and book burnings (i.e. something in the likes of "the politicians at that time said that they were symbols of Austro-Hungarian oppression so it was ok"). Hungary on the other hand would've gladly taken all those statues (the ones that have been destroyed) into present-day Hungary had he been allowed to do so. But obviously nobody has bothered to ask their opinion in this just like nobody has asked the locals in Bratislava when armed mob was pillaging the city (and shooting into protesting masses) either. So technically you're right when you say that this isn't too relevant to HU-SK relations because Hungary had no say in this whatsoever (mohol akurat drzat hubu a krok, ze). BTW how amusing that Hungarians have never resorted to such shameful deed (i.e. toppling of statues), even after the Vienna award.... CoolKoon (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they did, see e.g. Stalin_Monument_(Budapest)

Those statues were understandably viewed as a symbol of oppression, the policy of the KoHU in its late years was that of forced assimilation and magyarization, political rights of ethnic groups other than Magyar were denied etc.. The destruction is regrettable but not worth that much of space here as such events are tied to majority of regime changes. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's flawed logic, because the megalomaniac Stalin statue was pretty much the ONLY statue that's been toppled even during the revolution of 1956 or afterward. The rest of the communist statues are still around, they've only been moved into a "statue park" in an outer district to commemorate an era of cult of personality and political oppression. The statue of MT in Czechoslovakia (or Slovakia) however wasn't BY FAR the only one that fell victim to the mobs. The sections you're so eager to remove document exactly this. And to make matters worse, the toppling of the Stalin statue happened during a revolution during a regime which wasn't even a tad bit democratic. The CSR however has proclaimed itself to be democratic ever since the beginning and most historians still assert this. So it's much more of a shame if statue topplings happen in a democratic country (remember the toppling of the two Buddha statues in Afghanistan by those nutcases?) than in a dictatorship.

I don't fully agree with the concept of the statues being symbols of oppression either due to the fact that it wasn't only the most striking symbols of oppression the marauding mob tore down: statue of MT wasn't one of those, while another statue fell victim too, which had nothing to do with Hungarians or Habsburgs at all. Statues of Hungarian historical people have vanished too who had nothing to do with "Hungarian oppression" and "magyarization" whatsoever. And you can't explain away the book burning even by the explanation above. I mean how could books be symbols of Hungarian oppression at all? It's also something that's only done in theocracies and despotic regimes (i.e. regimes that impose brainwashing and restrict general freedom of speech and freedom of information). CoolKoon (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, see: [11] for a hungarian example, [12] for american one, [13] for post-communist situation in general.Wladthemlat

and read this: [14]Wladthemlat (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

History section update proposal

. CoolKoon, please at least try AGF. Follows the section proposal:

---

Hungarians in Czechoslovakia in 1920-1938

Immediately after her foundation, strong anti-Hungarian sentiment manifested itself in Czechoslovakia. The Elisabeth Science University was disbanded, and many historical monuments representing Austro-Hungarian Empire destroyed.

Hungarians (and other minorities e.g. Germans and Rusyns) were thus not present in the constituent assembly and had no influence on the new Czechoslovak constitutionit nevertheless guaranteed minority rights and the use of minority languages in educational system and local representation.<

Due to gerrymandering the Hungarians had diminished level of representation in the National Assembly and their influence on the politics of Czechoslovakia remained limited. The same factors have limited the Slovak intelligentsia's political power as well.

Hungarians in Czechoslovakia during and after World War II

During the World War II era, Nazi-allied Hungary regained some areas of Slovakia under the First Vienna Award of 1938. These territories were returned to Czechoslovakia when Hungary was defeated at the conclusion of World War II Treaty of Paris (with the exception of Carpathian Ruthenia which was annexed to the Soviet Union).

---

Reasoning:

To dedicate two long paragraphs solely to the issue of the statue destruction and another paragraph solely to the situation in one city and only months after creation of RCS is unfeasible in the this article, even more so, if most of the data comes from media or dubious sources (will elaborate).

Please note, that I left the last paragraph almost intact - that one really sums up the situation of Hungarians more generally and is thus relevant to the article, although only remotely (focuses on one minority in one state).

It is true that history is relevant to the current relations, but that does not mean that we shall list every single issue Slovaks or Hungarians might have with one another in detail. Try to keep more encyclopaedic tone and also select your information, encyclopaedia is to be brief by definition.

To the source - a publication by a politician with no expert qualification published by some obscure institution with no expert credibility is not a reliable source on historical data and interpretations, even if it tries to pose as one.

• Makes sense to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Doesn't make any sense to me. You're just trying to remove what makes Slovakia look bad in this situation. However, I wouldn't be against adding a short summary on Magyarization (also Slovakization) with a link to the respective main articles and on the historical grievances of Slovak people. If there's too much relevant material, we might create further subarticles, but right now you're just deleting relevant info without concensus. Squash Racket (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• "You're just trying to remove what makes Slovakia look bad in this situation" - thanks for admitting to your bias, i.e. that your main goal is to add information that makes Slovakia look bad, not any info that's relevant to the article. And no, I am not trying to remove anything, as you see, the note that the monuments were destroyed is there. I am not against adding one more sentence specifying what and where, but that's it, statues are not relevant enough to keep such detail on them. The history section should be very brief and as general as possible, to describe events day by day is for another article.
• Mind you that the history is missing e.g. situation of Slovaks in KoHU, "population exchange" after WWII and Benes decrees, these are way more important than a few statues and need to be added in the future, the history section will get larger. Let's focus on relevant topics while keeping it all as brief as possible, it is not the main topic of the article. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say I reverted vandalism this time. First decisions should be made what to keep and what needs to be moved into which subarticle. Your current deletion policy won't be accepted. Squash Racket (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We most certainly will not discuss to which article what content will go, we will discuss what needs to be kept here. Any argument for the inclusion of lengthy details on statue destruction that had no effect on interstate relations whatsoever? I have explained my point several times, you on the other hand have acted without AGF and provided no arguments for your position at all. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So in Wladthemlat's world that here didn't affect interstate relations "whatsoever":

Tensions have further mounted in Bratislava as soldiers of the Czechoslovakian legion have volleyed at civilians, leaving 7 dead and 23 wounded. Most of these soldiers have taken a lion's share in the destruction of Hungarian and Habsburg statues and monuments.
Another aspect of the anti-Hungarian sentiment was the hatred towards all the statues and monuments representing Austria-Hungary or Hungarian historical people. National socialist MPs of the Czechoslovak National Assembly have been calling for the demolition of such works of art as early as 1920. The hatred however wasn't limited to sculptures only: Hungarian books were burned in Poprad and possibly other locations as well. Concurrently some of the statues were destroyed as well: the millenium monument along with the Árpád statue in Devín was blown up using dynamite, the statue of Maria Theresa in Bratislava (pictured) was brought down using ropes tied to trucks. Statues of Lajos Kossuth were destroyed in Rožňava, Lučenec, Dobšiná and Nové Zámky, also a statue of Ferenc Rákóczi in Brezno and numerous others. In almost all of the cases the perpetrators were the soldiers of the Czechoslovakian legion. The police and government officials were watching the process idly and decided to intervene only after the mob has begun to take over shops and properties of German enterpreneurs.

You know what? We'll just keep it as it is. Squash Racket (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How does copy-pasting help to prove your point? Again, how did the destruction of statues affect interstate relations of Slovakia and Hungary (you know, the modern ones)? Statues were destroyed and removed after the communist rule ended, I don't see Russians making a fuss about it. You are overestimating importance of this. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

>sigh< (.....nincs itthon a macska, cincognak az egerek...)
Ok, I'll try my best to react to the proposal as well as to some of the allegations:

• You've mentioned that there are parts of the history of the HU-SK relations which are more important than the one we're having this discussion about (e.g. the Benes decrees, the population exchange, the Vienna awards etc.). However the very fact that the article's protected (surprise, surprise, by one of Iaaasi's suspected socks) and your (and Iaaasi's) persistent edit wars regarding this issue has made it pretty much impossible to make any additions about the topics you've talked about. I've added some content about the Meciar times, which was fine, but once I've left for a few days (ok, maybe a tad bit more than that) all hell broke loose again. Do you seriously think that engaging in an edit war about removing content you deem irrelevant helps in making progress? Also, your edit history in this article and your recent activity also show that it's not the article's expansion which you have interest in. You've consequently mangled any attempts at adding some meaningful content to the article. And when someone nevertheless did, you've tried your best to remove it. And even though you were blocked numerous times for disruption, you've just cynically waited until nobody of your opponents were around (or only a few of them) and gradually removed some content. Then rinse and repeat.

• Isn't it hypocritical of you to ask me to AGF after you've proceeded to remove ALL of the sources from the new section and replaced them with "citation needed" tags? If there IS a fine example of ill faith then this is one. Will you remove sane Slovak sources as "unreliable source" too? Because your edit history shows that you have a tendency of doing so.

• Your claims about the author of the book "Érdekvédelem és önszerveződés...." is misleading and can be considered an "ad hominem" attack as well. You seem to question the content of the book based on the fact that the author's a politician and was nominated on various political positions within the government in the past years. But this has absolutely zero relevance in regards the content of the book. The book isn't even about contemporary politics, but about politics from 60 years ago. As far as the book's concerned, it fulfills all the criteria of a scientific work: it's been published by a reputable publisher (Lilium Aurum is a reputable publisher in Slovakia publishing mostly Hungarian books i.e. the source's definitely NOT self-published) and it cites a LOT of sources, specifying most of them in his 800 notes. The contents of the book, the quality of the sources used etc. all show that the topic's been laboriously researched and the topic's been covered in a very detailed manner. Therefore I suggest you stop removing this book citing the fact that its biased due to the author itself (and even if it would be, this alone doesn't prove that the book has factual inaccuracies). I could name some other points against discarding this book all day, but the thing is you apparently removed the book mostly for the fact that you've deemed that its content doesn't fit your agenda (whatever that is). You've also done this despite the fact that you can't even be sure if the book's content is reliable or not.

• The author is not a historian and the book was published by an obscure institute, not an established research organisation or a university, it is not reliable by definition, no matter how many cited sources ar in it - we cannot count on the conclusions being drawn from them are correct. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Obscure institute?! You mean one that receives regular grants from the Hungarian and Slovak government alike? If I wouldn't know better I'd say that you must be joking. Besides, you say that the institute has supported unscientific books written by not-so-credible authors, but I've never seen any book that reeks of heavy bias or historical inaccuracies. I'd ask you to point out some of such books to me, but I doubt that you would, since most of their books are written in Hungarian and AFAIK you have trouble understanding those. Don't you resent the Forum Institute only because you don't like them? CoolKoon (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Also, have you read the book at all? Have you had someone who understands Hungarian better than you read it? You only say that it's unreliable because it's been written by someone you don't like and aided in publishing by an institute you resent as well. Besides, Béla Angyal isn't even a mainstream politician. He's nowhere near as prominent as Duray, Csáky or Bugár. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't use the books of the latter three as sources in topics like political history, but I still see nothing wrong with a book written by a middle-class politician. CoolKoon (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not my fault that you use sources others cannot verify, but my point stays - if it's not written by an expert (and he is not one) and published by an established institution, it is not a reliable source, it's as simple as that.Wladthemlat (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's amazing that you manage to express your bias against content in this article even though you deny it and you're apparently trying your best to avoid such accusations. You say that dedicating content to historical facts that are only remotely relevant to the main topic is a bad idea (yet you don't deny that they ARE relevant to some degree), yet when you're asked to specify a topic/article/subarticle the content should be moved to, you effectively say that "I don't care where does the content go, but the point is that it should be REMOVED from here no matter what". This isn't only against the conventions and proper procedure (i.e. when a section gets too large, it's split into a subarticle, or a different article whose details are discussed on the talk page), but also shows that you'd wish to see all that content deleted without any mention of the dark parts of the Slovak history. So if we manage to agree on the place the content should be put in (and please spare me of argumentations to the likes of "into your own sandbox"), I'm willing to shorten the article to some degree.
  

• But it really is not of our concern to decide where to put the content (i would nevertheless suggest to use the tile of your section, something in the lines "Hungarian in the inter-war Czechoslovakia), if it is obvious that the content is not relevant to the article, it has no place in it. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing with the whole history of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia during the interwar period is the fact that it's far from being complete. The section I've added was meant to be only the first part, since it has only dealt with the years immediately succeeding the creation of CS. I needed to do some additional research on the later years up until the events immediately preceding WWII (e.g. the land reform, colonization of areas inhabited by Hungarians using Czech/Moravian/Slovak colonists, Vienna award etc.) which I wanted to add either to this article or a separate article/subarticle later on. But since you've obviously done everything you could to foil this plan of mine, I'm still at ground level and now even grounded as well. CoolKoon (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Note about NATO and EU

That this is mentioned right after the description of Simecka's opinion makes it a blatant POV pushing meaning that the author of the note thinks it's preposterous that such scenario could happen between two countries with membership in these institutions. While I don't think this scenario is realistic either (and neither did Simecka) such manipulation is not acceptable on Wikipedia, we should only list cited info, not provide annotations for "better understanding". Moreover, both Turkey and Greece were members of NATO when they fought for Cyprus, so in fact the sentence makes no point at all. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't add opinion pieces into encyclopedic articles at all, but if you insist, then we'll also keep the note, otherwise somebody might take this false comparison seriously. I'd propose simply removing the paragaph itself. Squash Racket (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you please delete these sentences as well?

• Hungarian newspaper Budapest Times has questioned the dual standards for use the Czech language in Slovakia
• Slovak political scientist Miroslav Kusý claims that by adopting such scientifically questionable rhetoric Fico aims to "strengthen national consciousness by the falsification of history".Wladthemlat (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Budapest Times, an English language newspaper from Hungary is an acceptable reference, but we can also add a better one which covers the same topic.
• Miroslav Kusý has his own Wiki page. Unlike your journalist.

Opinion pieces like that absolutely don't belong in an encyclopedia article, in the above thread you were questioning the inclusion of more relevant material. Squash Racket (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Respekt is a renowned Czech publication, it's an acceptable reference.
• Budapest Times referred to the law in a commentary, just like Respekt did
• Kusy is not a historian, i.e. he was merely expressing his opinion on the matter, just like Simecka did in his piece. Existence of a wiki-page means nothing.Wladthemlat (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this in a nutshell: he makes an inflammatory false comparison and without the note an average reader might take his nonsense seriously. We can add many references to support the note if that is your problem.

You forgot to mention that there's a clarifying note at the Czech language issue too. (On mutual intelligibility.)

So you think that political scientist Miroslav Kusý's criticism of Robert Fico's way of rewriting history is inappropriate? Squash Racket (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is, that this - "inflammatory false comparison" - is not for you to decide and comment on, it's a factually accurate comparison, referenced and from an established news source.
• That note is referenced, not a personal commentary of an editor.
• I'm not disputing the content of his remarks, but rather the fact that a political scientist commented on a history subject matter.Wladthemlat (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The note I added can be backed up by hundreds of sources, so don't call it a personal commentary.
• He was talking about the political misuse of fake history. A political scientist should comment on such things. Squash Racket (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that you've called even Budapest Times an "irrelevant" source (and unreliable too, but only between lines). Will you EVER stop treating any kind of Hungarian sources as unreliable by their nature and remove them on the spot? CoolKoon (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I did not, I only pointed out that just like Respekt, Budapest Times commented on the law in an opinion piece. I expressed no opinion on BT in general. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting of the History section of the article into a new section

Since the article's been a victim of gruesome edit wars especially since my expansion of the section that deals with history from a blocked editor who's still socking around (Iaaasi) and another editor with dubious past (Wladthemlat), I'm proposing a split of the article to prevent further edit wars.
Since it's mostly the history section of the article that's been target of all the edit wars (and attempts to cripple its contents), I'm proposing to split it into a separate subarticle or a different article altogether. Therefore please express your opinion on whether you agree with the split or not and try to propose your desired name of the subarticle. CoolKoon (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - titles: Hungarians in inter-war Czechoslovakia or Inter-ethnic tension in early Czechoslovakia Wladthemlat (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - title Inter-ethnic tension in early Czechoslovakia sounds OK, also includes others than HungariansKnorrepoes (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE This is an encyclopedia. If we remove the history section how will an average reader understand the background for recent years' conflicts? Squash Racket (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• REPLYWe are not talking removing the history section altogether, we are talking removing too detailed info on events of only remote relevance to the topic. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Partially agree instead of creating new article sections should be integrated into History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) and Hungarians in Slovakia article and only small sub should be left in its former place. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, to avoid further edit wars and reach a consensus, I shall move most of the content from the "History" section to a new article named "Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia" (with an optional redirect from "Ethnic conflicts in Czechoslovakia"). I'll also expand it by adding some contents about the Sudetenland Germans and (possibly) something about Ruthenians (provided I can find an appropriate source for that). CoolKoon (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Laszlo Kover for a Hospodarske Noviny - war with Slovakia, change of border, Treaty of Trianon

Hungarian President of Parliament Laszlo Kover told that Hungary could use the army because of building of Gabcikovo, coz Slovakia "brutaly" changed the borderlines. Next controversial speech was that Hungarians could take a southern Slovakia (after breakup of Czechoslovakia), because the treaty (of Trianon) was signed with Czechoslovakia. I think its hate speech and provocation and it should be mantioned coz Kover is the Hungarian President of Parliament - one from the 3 most important politics in Hungary. Here is the link: http://hnonline.sk/svet/c1-52022150-kazdy-vas-politik-ma-v-sebe-kusok-slotu --Samofi (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to history of both states

Why are links to history of Slovakia, Hungary and Upper Hungary irrelevant in this article? Wladthemlat (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't link general articles as main articles, only specific articles that help to understand the topic. As you very well know. Squash Racket (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that these are not "Main" articles but rather "See also" articles, which is completely valid and all of those help with understanding the topic. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"History of.." and similar articles are too general to be included there. Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The following two statements:

"this egalitarianism was never realized as thousands of Hungarians and Germans were forced off their lands, imprisoned, or their property confiscated [6]

Due to gerrymandering the Hungarians had a diminished level of representation in the National Assembly and their influence on the politics of Czechoslovakia remained limited. The same factors also limited the Slovak intelligentsia's political power.[7]"

are sourced by:

Frucht, Richard C. (2005). Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture / edited by Richard Frucht, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO.

Mandelbaum, Michael (2000). The new European diasporas: national minorities and conflict in Eastern Europe. Council on Foreign Relations.

Apparently the authors do not know that both Slovakia and Hungary are in Central Europe. This level of ignorance hardly makes the two quoted statements credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.97.29 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

There are not any mentions or references to events with significant impact to mutual relationships like magyarization, attack against Slovak republic in 1939, etc. Sentences like "It nevertheless, on paper at least (???), guaranteed minority rights" does not represent NPOV, especially in case when there is not any comparison with minority rights in Hungary in the same time. None links or mentions about terroristic actions of Rongyos_Gárda, participation of Hungary in breakage of Czechoslovakia in cooperation with nazi Germany is also missing. Persecution of Slovaks in occupied territory (1938-1945) is also ignored completely.

In my opinion, this goes far behind "some information are missing" or "extension is required". Ignoring such facts makes article seriously unbalanced. Zblnk (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

• Text under figure Ethnic groups in 1910 does not contain any information that this census "had been manipulated by the ruling Hungarian bureaucracy" (for more information and references see History of Slovakia).
• Section "Slovak riot police beating of Hungarian football fans" is so heavily unbalanced, that author(s) even did not mention massive presence of football fans of Ferencvárosi TC (team not playing the match), open provocations like flags with Slovakia joined to Hungary, etc. I will not comment the rest of text and author's interpretation.
• Intro of section Slovak language law. Text "Use of a non-state language in state institutions (local government, hospital, police) by citizens interacting with it could carry a financial penalty. The law does not interfere with private use of minority languages" is serious misinterpretation. I don't understand why conclusion of Europe High Commissioner on National Minorities Knut Vollebæk has less dedicated space (one sentence) than opinion of American Hungarian Federation, organisation which is obviously absolutely irrelevant in this case. In my opinion, last part about Tiso and Esterhazy is out of topic in context of language law.
• Intro of section János Esterházy controversy is uncritical glorification of this controversial person. It is not true that Esterhazy voted against deportations of Jews. He simply did not vote and he was not the only one. However, he voted for all previous anti-jewish laws as well he voted for all laws which helped to build totality system. Esterhazy also declared his antisemitic opinions several times. Again, author did not mention it. By the way, he did not collaborated only with Hungary but also with nazi Germany. This is important, because it shows opinion of Hungarian president that "he was true democrat and humanist" in very, very different light. (Compare with "Declaration of Slovak academy of sciences about Janos Esterhazy", signed also by directors of some other historical institutions [15]. For details in English see Deak, L.: Political profile of Janos Esterhazy, Bratislava, 1995. ISBN 9788096742707.
• Case of "Komárno incident" is already closed. The conclusion of Court (Grand Chamber) is here [16]. Hungary lost and was ordered to pay the costs.

I don't have time and English skills to fix article but I want to put this to your attention. --Zblnk (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungary–Slovakia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mq7Guq5t to http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/06/00/tabeng/1/load01_10_0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungary–Slovakia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mti.hu/cikk/422463/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725073506/http://www.mr1-kossuth.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100295&Itemid=99 to http://www.mr1-kossuth.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100295&Itemid=99
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mti.hu/cikk/413770/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826235105/http://mti.hu/cikk/413776 to http://www.mti.hu/cikk/413776/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111060103/http://www.budapest.mfa.sk/App/WCM/ZU/BudapestZU/main.nsf?Open to http://www.budapest.mfa.sk/App/WCM/ZU/BudapestZU/main.nsf?Open

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)