Talk:Slovakization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rather than an invention of user Arpad, the term has been used by the most respected of 20th century Slovak historians. I refer Juro to Ľubomír Lipták, Changes of Changes: Society and Politics in Slovakia in the 20th Century, Studia Historica Slovaca XXII (Bratislava: AEP and Historický ústav SAV, 2002), pp. 35-44. This entire section of Liptak's article, which details the cultural reconstruction of Nitra, Trnava, and Trenčín after 1918, is titled "Slovakization." Jesse47 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(no title)

The term is not used (it is an invention of user Arpad) in other than the technical general sense and definitely not frequently. Therefore it is only a wiktionary entry. If we start with such articles, then maybe we should write an article "Deslovakization" article about current southern Slovakia...Juro 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Deslovakization" in current southern Slovakia has no meaning because "Southern Slovakia" as you put it (the Csallóköz, Bodrogköz, Mátyusföld, Southern Gömör, Southern Zemplén, etc. area) was never "Slovak" in its strict sense, the Slovak population first appeared there as a result of government-engineered settlement policies Árpád 08:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovak population in Southern Slovakia appeared at least ~1500 years ago. During wars with Turks, the magyar aristocracy fled to north, taking parts of Slovakia. At that time, the magyar aristocrats started to force the slovak people to use magyar language. This way, magyar minority became magyar majority in the south of Slovakia. This process continued until WWI and is called Magyarization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above edit was added by an IP long after the discussion was over. Squash Racket (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above edit by Squash Racket is irrelevant. The discussion is not obsolete as Squash Racket suggests. Moreover, the contribution is a personal attack (WP:NPA), as it refers to the contributor and not only to the contribution. Finally, Squash Racket is modyfying archived discussion.147.175.98.213 (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It may not be used by Slovaks, but according to Google, it definately appears to be used by Hungarians and Rusyns. Besides, if we have all these articles, we probably have room for one more. —Khoikhoi 01:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "reslovakization" is used with respect to the post-WWII period, but that term has a particular meaning. But not the term Slovakization, because there has never been the slightest official or planned or otherwise organised policy in this direction (rather the opposite), therefore I do not understand, what this article is supposed to contain other than the linguistic definition of the general word. If we do not restrict such articles to organized -izations, they will attract all kinds of extremists and finally will contain information of the type "John Smith from the village X in southern Slovakia said the the Hungarians from the same village are stupid". In this case, I am quite sure that this will happen as soon as by tomorrow.Juro 01:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Google hits are not about re-Slovakization, but just Slovakization. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. As for your comment about it not being an organized policy, the MAR website begs to differ.

BTW, the name for it in Slovak would be "Slovácizácia", right? —Khoikhoi 02:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, once again and step by step: The term does exist - like for any other nation in the world - however not as a historical term (i.e. a term that should be in an encyclopaedia), but as a general word meaning "becoming Slovak" (to put it simply). And that belongs to a dictionary. Secondly, if you remove the re-Slovakization occurrencies from the google results (and occurrencies calling reslovakization wrongly "slovakization") what remains is a very low number of hits - very low even for the general word, not to mention a term. Also, could you elaborate on how exactly the text "begs to differ" and by whom the text has been written? - because that would contradict all facts, and I definitely know what I am talking about here. Juro 02:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does the term have to be historical? As I said before, the term probably doesn't exist for Slovaks, but it obviously does for Rusyns and Hungarians. Look at this Rusyn cartoon for example. It says: This is what I think. Our people have traveled far: from forceful Ukrainization to voluntary Slovakization. I don't see why this article belongs in a dictionary and other articles like "Kurdification" should stay. As for your Google search, I'm not sure how you figured out how many pages use the term Slovakization without the "re-". When I checked it appeared to be the exact opposite. As for the MAR text, I was saying that it begs to differ with what you said, that Slovakization was never an organized policy, which contradicts this paragraph. Also could you answer my question about "Slovácizácia"? —Khoikhoi 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have read the paragraph now, and except for partially one point (the word order of names) the rest is plainly wrong - explicite lies: the number of Hungarian language schools INCREASED, the number of Hungarian speaking persons INCREASED, the signs have always been bilingual and an attempt to change that in the 1990s led to protests etc. Therefore I will delete it, because it is wrong. Secondly, an answer to you first question: Why does wictionary exist then, if we include general words here? And if Kurdification is the same non-sense like this article, it should be deleted as well. Finally, you do not read what I am saying: I have not said that the word does not exist in Slovak or any other langugae, see above (I am repeating this for the third time). Juro 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro, please see WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." MAR appears to be a verifiable source (the article is well-referenced with academic sources), so it being "wrong" is not a valid reason to delete it, because it's sourced. I think this article belongs in Wikipedia, just like all the other "-ization/-ification" articles. Feel free to AfD it if you like, but my guess is that this article will most likely stay here. —Khoikhoi 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the text is plainly wrong - it could not be more wrong, because it contains things that contradict well verifiable material facts (the signs, statitistics, laws). There are things that are relative (like the first sentence), but the other things are not relative. As for the deletion, I will wait what happens next. Juro 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: And I think the things you are trying to place here should be in articles called Magyars in Slovakia and Rusyns in Slovakia, which would be valid titles and would allow to go into details.Juro 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have sources of your own, please add them. However, it's against WP policy to delete something that's sourced with the explanation that "it's wrong". You're going to have to contradict it with sources of your own. You are not your own source. —Khoikhoi 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your second comment, Slovakization should go into more detail while Hungarians in Slovakia is more of a general topic. —Khoikhoi 02:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can delete it, because it is plainly wrong (probably deliberate lies, the source is not reliable and does not contain any prove or number for its claims). You can ask anybody whether there have been bilingual signs or not, everybody will confirm you this and everybody from southern Slovakia could see them every day (it is right next to the capital of the country). As for the rest, the claim that the situation in Slovakia really changed after 1968 is a at best ignorant, because the Slovak Socialist Republic was only a formal entity (I think we have that in the article anyway). And the numbers are easily verifiable from any source dealing with this issue - I can find some books, but they will not help you, because they are not in English. And I will wait first what is going to happen to this article as such. Juro 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(read my above paragraph for reply, I'm not going to repeat myself) —Khoikhoi 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

read my above paragraph for reply :) Juro 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I already did. —Khoikhoi 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know if this deserves an article, but I don't really think it meets the criteria at WP:CSD. I suggest, Juyo that you put this through AFD. Borisblue 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never done that in this wikipedia, I do not know how to do that.

I'll do it for you. Borisblue 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the second sentence

Juro, read it carefully. It does not say is only used in relation to Hungarians and Rusyns, it says it is OFTEN used. Feel free to add Germans, Roma, Vlachs, etc. to the list (with references of course), but I think people would want to know who specifically the term is used for—it's important information! —Khoikhoi 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is NOT used OFTEN, I have read thousands of books on this and even your ridiculous google results (including all unrelated usages such as reslovakization, deslovakization, slovakization of Czech words etc.) yield a very low number. It could not be more clear than that. This article is your personal invention and is the first such article in the world. This is "original research" par excellence, and in this case directly motivated by a combination of your personal ignorance (because you wrongly assume that the same things that happened in the KoH must have happened elsewhere too) and the activities of a permanent vandal known as Arpad alias 100 other names here. Juro 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do a search on Magyarization, too, the most hits are Slovak or Romanian sources, so either delete Magyarization and Slovakization or allow both articles. The difference may be that while Magyarization was often connected with elevation of social status (thus it had a spontaneous part to it), Slovakization was in many aspects the opposite, i. e. cultural annihilation of an already developed middle class). Árpád 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, once again: Magyarisation was a planned and organized process, about which discussions were led and books were written, and as an example it ended with 0.0 Slovak schools for a whole nation in the whole kingdom, 0 or 1 Slovak deputy in a parliament with 400 members, deportations of Slovak children for Magyarisation to the south (yes, unfortunately, this happened) etc. - the Magyarisation article here is far from complete. In Czechioslovakia on the other hand there was no such organized process and 500 000 Hungarians have more than 800 schools, a university, have been in the government, have 11% of seats (more than their number in the census) in the parliament, and it is even impossible to speak Slovak in southern Slovakia nowadays, because those guys do not even speak Slovak in many cases. In other words, as I already mentioned, these are two completely different things (actually the second one is non-existent and only your personal attempt to relativize the Magyarisation article), and as ridiculous as it will be with respect to the title of this article, the text will contain this. Juro 12:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can someone double-check if the name for Slovakization in Hungarian is Szlovákosodás? I'm pretty sure that the name in Slovak is Slovácizácia, as Juro hasn't said it's incorrect. —Khoikhoi 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In Hungarian it is called elszlovákosítás or szlovákosítás. Zello 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The name is "szlovákosodás" if it is a spontaneous process, like in the Middle Ages, many originally Hungarian towns and villages (like in Szepes, Liptó, Sáros etc. counties) ended up being Slovakized. "Elszlovákosítás" or "szlovákosítás" would be a government-initiated, administrative, thus forcible process. (See for example, the Benes decrees).Árpád 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are lying again. The towns were originally German, not Hungarian. No historical town in Slovakia (and even most of present-day Hungary) was ethnically Hungarian up to second half of the 19th century (read Bekcicz for example, where he explicitely complains about this and provides numbers). I wonder what explicit lies will follow next. Juro 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And then of course there is the older term, "tótosodás". See the following:

Társalkodó, 1840, No. 92, Szatócs' letter; No. 102, A bazankbani tótosodás ügyében (in the matter of the Slovakization of our country), by Count Zay (for the entire article see User:Khoikhoi/Magyarization).

—Khoikhoi 06:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Or another important reference (available in libraries):

KÖRÖSY J. 1898 A Felvidék eltótosodása (Slovakization processes in Upper-Hungary/ca. present Slovakia), K. Grill, Budapest, 56 p.Árpád 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not use as a reference chauvinistic propaganda. We know that in Hungary to the year 1910 Hungarians were minority and because of aggressive hungarization there is so much Hungarians in present-day Hungary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.67.19.105 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Slovak word is wrong of course, I am really eager to see the result of this incredible theatre here. And I am considering to inform the press on this particular article, so that evertbody can see how far the English wikipedia can go nowadays. And it is really getting worse every single month and that is a pitty. Juro 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Slovakization" mentioned in Entsyklopediia Ukrainoznavstva

These articles from the Ukranian Wikipedia are copied from the above encyclopedia (check the edit histories). Note that Rusyns are referred to as Ukrainians. This is probably because it appears to be strongly Ukrainophile. However, the issue here are that its facts and statistics are not challenged (we may argue about interpretations) and that it proves usage of the term "Slovakization" in an encyclopedia. —Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Prešov Region

Етнічні відносини П. досить складні й мінливі. Багаторічне культ. і побутове співжиття українців та сх. словаків і угорців, при перевазі чужого елементу, особливо у низинних р-нах П. (між Брановом, Гуменним, Михайлівцями і Собранцями, куди у 18 в. почала напливати сильна словацька колонізація), сприяли мовній словакізації українців; лише частково (у містах та етнічних островах на півд.) вони угорщилися. При цьому, в одному й другому випадку вони зберігали релігію (гр.-кат.). Гр.-католики з словацькою мовою до 1920-их pp. становили переходову групу, яку єднала з українцями віра й традиції, з словаками — мова. Їх ч. постійно збільшувалося через перехід частини укр. населення на словацьку мову. Найбільший відсоток становили гр.-католики з словацькою мовою у півд.-сх. частині Словаччини — від ⅓ до ½ всього населення. Разам з цим укр. суцільна територія зменшилася до сх. і півн. частини П.; поза нею залишилася ще низка укр. мовних та гр.-кат. островів з словацькою, а на півдні з угор. мовою (див. каргу). Словакізація укр. населення збільшилася за чехо-словацької влади; тепер гр.-католики і правос. з словацькою мовою почувають себе вже словаками.

The ethnic relationship of Prešov Region is complex and volatile. A long term cultural and everyday cohabiton of Ukrainians, Eastern Slovakians and Hungarians, under the prepodence of the non-Ukrainian element lead to the linguistic Slovakization of Ukrainians, while in some parts (in cities and ethnic islands in the south) they where Magyarized. Still, in both cases they preserved their religion (Greek Catholicism). Until the 1920s, the Slovak-speaking Greek-Catholics composed a transitional group that was connected with the Ukrainians through religion and traditions, with Slovak as their language. Their number was gradually increasing with the transition of the parts of Ukrainian population to the Slovak language. [snip] Slovakization of the Ukrainian population increased in the times of the Czechoslovakian authorities. The Greek Catholics and Orthodox started to perceive themselves as Slovaks.

Розподіл гр.-католиків і правос. за мовою й докладне визначення кількости українців зробити трудно, бо угор. і чехо-словацькі переписи населення подавали ч. українців невірно. На підставі цих переписів ч. гр.-католиків і правос. у всій Словаччині було таке (у тис.): 1890 — 185, 1900 — 199, 1910 — 200, 1921 — 198, 1930 — 223; ч. українців за ці самі pp.: 84,4, 84,6, 97,0, 85,6, 91,1. Укр. дослідники (В. Гнатюк, С. Томашівський, М. Кордуба й ін.) визначають ч. українців значно вище. За оцінками В. Кубійовича 1930 на П. жило щонайменше 110000 українців (у тому ч. на укр. суцільній території — 87 000 або 73,8% всіх; крім них, 16 000 словаків і чехів, 11 000 євреїв, 1 000 угорців, 3 000 ін.), на укр. островах і в розпорошенні 23 000; ч. гр.-католиків з словацькою мовою бл. 80 000. Повоєнні переписи подають ч. українців на П. цілком невірно (у тис.): 1950 — 46, 1960 — 33, 1970 — 38. За цей час опитування Словацької Нац. Ради в 1967 знайшло у 206 с. (з усіх 250) 98 000 українців. Їх ч. на П. можна нині визначити на 110-125 000. На зменшення ч. українців на П. за останні ЗО pp. вплинула не тільки словакізація, але й еміґрація значного ч. українців за межі П., гол. до чес. країв.

It is difficult to estimate the distribution of the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics by the language as well as to determine the number of Ukrainians because both the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian censuses provided the incorrect number of Ukrainians. [snip statistics and its criticism and alt estimations] The decrease of the number of Ukrainians was influenced not only by Slovakization but also by emigration of a significant number of Ukrainians from Presov, mainly to the Czech lands.

But this is about a natural process. When Slovaks go to neigbouring countries, they are frequently Czechised or Polonized within a month, because of the linguistic similarity, but I would not write an article about that. Secondly - and this nationalist text "forgets" to mention that, of course - it is exactly the policy of Ukrainization of the Rusyns (dictated by the then UdSSR also to Czechoslovakia) which caused that Rusyn/Russian schools were turned into Ukrainian ones, which in turn made many Rusyns (whose language is between Slovak and Ukrainian) to prefer Slovak schools rather than Ukrainian ones (they hated the Ukrainians after WII because of the developments at that time), but again that was neither organized nor directed and belongs under "Ukrainization". Juro 11:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC) And as for the sentence "the censuses provided an incorrect number of Ukrainians" - if the text denies the existence of Rusyns (in contradiction to all obvious facts), then of course the censuses provided "wrong" numbers of Ukrainians, because the censuses contained either Rusyns or "Ukrainians and Rusyns" together (because in reality they spoke one and the same language). In general, you should be careful, which source you use. Juro 11:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this Rusyns or Ruthenians were mostly highly loyal to the Hungarian cause all over history, called by "gens fidelissima" (the most faithful people) by Rákóczi himself. Árpád 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia

Словацький тиск на українців на С. збільшився з 1919, коли до С. включено частину укр. Закарпаття, положену на зах. від р. Уж. Словакізація українців була в програмі Словацької Нар. Партії, лідери якої відмовилися від співпраці з укр. політиками Закарпаття (але співпрацювали з угрофілом А. Бродієм), які тому увійшли в зв'язки з чес. політ. партіями, що ставилися позитивно або невтрально до укр. питання. Культ. словацько-укр. взаємини тоді були мінімальні. Деякі зв'язки існували між С. і Закарп. Україною (у Братіславі діяв Клюб друзів Закарпаття, що видавав ж. «Podkarpatská Revue», вийшло кілька кн. про Закарпаття, переклади творів закарп. письм.), зате ін. укр. землі та їх культура залишалися невідомими для словаків. У той час і Україна не виявляла зацікавлення С.

The Slovakian pressure on Ukrainians in Slovakia increased after 1919 when Slovakia incorporated the parts of the Ukrainian Transcarpathia to the west of the Uzh river. The Slovakization of Ukrainians was a part of the program of the Slovak People's party, whose leader refused to cooperate with the Ukrainian politicians of Transcarpathia but cooperated with Hungarian-speaking A. Brody. Therefore, the Ukrainian politicians opened the links with the Czech political parties which were supportive of neutral towards the Ukrainian question. The cultural Slovak-Ukrainian relations at the time were minimal [snip to the end]

—Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above text is a Ukrainian nationalist text (which can be seen from the use of the term Ukrainians) and you do not know that. First of all, people living there were Rusyns, not Ukrainians; it is only Ukraine itself and some extremists who claim the opposite. Otherwise, the text is plainly wrong and literally ridiculous, because Slovakia as a political unit did not exist at that time and had no influence whatsovere in the separate Transcarpathia territory. There was no Slovak administrative unit at all, not to mention a Slovak government or central authority. So the "pressure" - if any- came from Prague, and the whole paragraph is just historical non-sense; the author did not even bother to inform himself on basic things. Juro 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know it—but it's not our job to pass judgement on the validity of our sources. This is a widely-used academic encyclopedia in Ukraine, and thus a verifiable source. If you want to counter these views, add (don't just say that they exist) appropriately cited material of your own. —Khoikhoi 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I see that you are just a completely ignorant person or a sockpuppet, so in the first case please just stop to comment on things you do not have the slightest idea of. I really have the impression that I am talking to a 5-years old child. It is not a "widely used" whatever, it contains even errors on such things as subdivisions of Carpathians, and irrespective of this it IS our job to evalute the sources, because a source can be found for virtually anything you want and because sources can contain errors. And most importantly, maybe you have not been told this yet, but there are things called libraries and books in the world, not only the internet, and (except for one or two exception) there is no single reliable longer text regarding the history of Slovakia, not even on google book search, so whatever you find on the web is just ridiculous. The USA might be covered well on the web, but not the rest of the world....So, I repeat: the above text is plainly wrong, because:Slovakia as a political unit did not exist at that time and had no influence whatsovere in the separate Transcarpathia territory. There was no Slovak administrative unit at all, not to mention a Slovak government or central authority. Which part of these very simple facts are you denying or which part of this do not you understand? These are absolutely elementary facts. Juro 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical statistics

The extent of Slovakization can be easily seen in historical references (e. g. population statistics can be reliably estimated from medieval tax records). The general trend characterizing the percentage of Hungarians in the former Felvidék is as follows: ca. 40% around 1490, ca. 30% around 1910, ca. 20-25% around 1930 and 10% today). From these figures it is apparent that the general tendency in the former Felvidék was Slovakization with the most dramatic population shift being the expulsion policies following WWII. These are hard-core data and not "19th century lies" or "hypernationalist crap" as (I can't help saying) our fellow-user Juro likes to put it whenever he is facing exact data contradicting his POV (On the other hand, when he is asked to prove his statements, he often evades this by referring to them as "common knowledge" or "every schoolchild knows this". He seems to be a historian of some sort but clearly has a problem with historical objectivity. Árpád 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1st: word Felvidék is a nacionalistic word. It should not be used. 2nd: Hungary before WWI was named in Slavic languages as "Uhorsko/Uhersko", what is differnt from present-day "Maďarsko" (present-day Hungary). It was because in Hungary before WWI there were Hungarians ethnic minority. So main mistake is that English now doesn´t differentiate these terms.

You are lying Arpad, like always: it is not even sure that there were Hungarians in southern Slovakia in more than a few settlements in the 15th century, so that is an explicit lie. The last book on Hungarians in Slovakia written by a Hungarian explicitely says this. Next, if you are going to start with such ridiculous arguments, than in fact in the beginning there were no Hungarians at all in Slovakia, they only arrived in the Middle Ages - in other words at the beginning there was "Magyarisation" or "Deslovakization". And in fact their percentage was constantly increasing since the 16th century, so even here the exact opposite holds. But actually, if you consider such developments "-ization", then I will expand the Magyarisation article both to the Middle Ages (no Magyars and then Magyars implies "Magyarisation" according to you) and to present-day Hungary. And it would be also interesting if you could inform us about the Slovak "government" which has "organized" these things centuries ago. Also, it is interesting that until recently you were claiming that Slovaks did not exist before the 19th century, but now you are claiming that there was "Slovakization" in the 15 century???? Next, irrespective of this, picking out three randomly chosen numbers for 1000 years of history, when the situation was changing in many cases each decades, is wrong, stupid, ridiculous and primitive. Next, the 1910 census was a manipulated census (showing Slovaks and Jews as Hungarians) and you know that because you have been told this several times. As a matter of fact, if you look at all numbers, the number of Hungarians decreased only trough the departure of clerks after 1918 and through the international population exchange after WWII and then it increased after WII - actually a unique phenomenon in Europe of the 20th century, especially given that (as I already mentioned above) the number of Hungarians in Hungary itself and elsewhere decreased during the same period. On the other hand, southern Slovakia was "deslovakized" when 100 000 Czechs and Slovaks were expelled by the Hungarian government from there during WII. Juro 11:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, "you're lying" is not very convincing, not to mention the fact that ad 1.: you fail to prove with any credible source that what I am saying is incorrect, whereas I have always come up with exact references ad 2.: "you're lying" sounds like a personal attack which is hardly tolerated in Wikipedia. Also, the first Hungarians moved all the way up to the Carpathians under the leadership of Chieftain Bors as I have said it several times (most of the area consisted of uninhabited forest land at the time). The data I have quoted originated from research by the Research Institute of Ethnic and National Minorities of the Hungarian Academy of Science (would you also call them a fascist institution??)As for the late middle ages, the enthnic boundary was along the Nagyszombat - Nyitra - Léva - Losonc - Rimaszombat - Rozsnyó - Kassa line with Hungarian ethnic islands around Homonna, Eperjes, Turócszentmárton, Liptószentmiklós (called as Zenthmiklos) most towns being predominantly German. On the other hand, don't misquote me, I said "Slovakia" as such did not exist but never denied that there was a considerable Slavic-speaking population referred to as "Slovieni" or Gens Sclavus by contemporary documents that may or may not be referred to as Slovaks. Furthermore, you have not supplied any proof that the 1910 census was manipulated (the majority of Jewish population adopted the Hungarian language and identity willingly). As for 1918, about 100000 ethnic Hungarians were expelled or fled from Czechoslovakia and approximately 70 000 Czechs moved to the territory. And by the way, the territory awarded to Hungary in Vienna had altogether about 100 000 Slovaks so if this is true, the area had no Slovaks remaining between 1938 and 1945 (of course members of the Czech administrative personnel were repatriated - those who moved to the area after the Trianon treaty - but this cannot be compared to the scale or the severity of the Benes Decrees. Árpád 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are lying again, because you have not come up with any references above, so what are talking about???. You are lying is a fact, and postcards and fascist texts (which you frequently cite as sources) are no reference. You also use to name a source but do not write what it contains and invent your own text instead (see Second Vienna Award). And I do not believe you that you have a text about an ethnic line for the 15th century, because these things are completely unresearched for that particular period until today (I will find the name of the recent Hungarian book for you), and if someone cites a "line" for that period, it is only pure speculation (which is typical of Hungarian texts regarding ethnic issues). The same way I could cite a fully official "line" (I have even a detailed map) of Slovak settlements in southern Hungary for the Middle Ages from one of the best known Slavists that ever lived, but I still consider that a speculation and I do not do that. Secondly, I do not misquote you, you are again lying: You have said several times explicitely here that the Slovaks did not exist until the 19th century, so have at least the honesty to admit that. I have responded to you that you have to explain how they fell from the space (I remember that very well). Next, not a single Hungarian was expelled after 1918, they all lost their jobs (quite naturally given the change) or moved voluntarily to what they considered their actual home country. I have not checked the number, but 10000 sounds like a reasonable estimate (even too low). Next, as for Vienna Awards - the 100 000 (quite sure not exactly this number) result directly from the difference of two contemporary official Hungarian censi, so this cannot be contested and is the lowest estimate. And finally, as I already mentioned, I have no problems if someone writes a resovakization article about the specific post-WWII period. But remember that whatever happened after 1945, it was related to WII and above all it was cancelled and reverted in 1948 for Hungarians (unlike for the Germans, btw) and that is a very important factor, which you always try to hide. The problem for me is that if you write such an article, I will have to read in detail some those 1000-pages books that have been written on the post-WWII period containing lots of contradictory information, which I would prefer not to do, because WWII is not my favorite topic (actually the opposite). Juro 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If this period of history is not your favourite and you would prefer not to do any research after references, then at least stop making unwarranted statements. Whatever else you are stating, you are just repeating yourself, estimates for ethnic structure in the Middle Ages can be readily made from tax censuses and urbaria. I have quoted the reference by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. What's more, maps, postcards and newspapers deliver important photographic evidence of a town (street signs, store owners' names) as well as the change of historical monuments and street names. Finally, those Hungarians expelled from the Felvidék after 1919 had long historical roots there and anyway, mass expulsion of the population is ethnic cleansing no matter how you cut it. Árpád 13:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not making an "unwarranted" statement, and I will repeat myself until you get that. You are lying even with respect to recent books written by Hungarians, there is no known ethnic line for the 15th century, and you have been told that you are lying when "citing" texts already in the Second Vienna Award article - actually, you should have been banned from any activities in this wikipedia months ago for this, but unfortunately others do not watch you. Secondly, the fact that I do not like that period does not mean that I do not know what happened then and does not change anything from what I have said above (ergo, you have lied again and again). Next, postcards and novels (because you have also cited novels in the past) are completely irrelevant (only an insane person can claim the opposite), and even if they were not, I have different "postcards" and different "novels". Finally, I repeat, not a single person was expelled (you are lying) - see what I have said above. And to use your way of fascist "argumentation": the Slovaks in southern Slovakia have at least 500 years older "roots" there, so their expelling during WWII (in direct violation even of the Vienna Award) was "ethnic cleansing". Also, expelling Slovak students or priests from schools in Slovakia just because they spoke their mother language or owned Slovak books around 1900 was "ethnic cleansing", the (completely unmotivated) deportation of 60 000 Slovak chlidren to the south at the end of the 19th century was ethnic cleansing in the strictest sense of the word etc., violant preventing of non-Magyars from voting in the late 19th century was ethnic cleansing, shutting down of all Slovak schools was ethnic cleansing, denial of the existence of a Slovak nation by the Hungarian prime minister was ethnic cleansing, sending deliberately non-Magyars to fight for Hungary during WWII with the official comment that it is good that they are no Magyars when they die is ethnic cleansing in the strictest sense of the word etc. etc., I can fill the whole page with such basic facts (not to mention local incidents and statements of less promininet persons), and when I have the time, actually, I will add them to the Magyarisation article (you constantly insist on these fascict ethnic issues, OK then, let us be fascist and ethnic). Juro 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you are quoting was written by Seton-Watson's Racial problems in Hungary which is essentially a propaganda piece. Btw, how come you are not out celebrating the great Slovak king, St. Stephen? (Král Stefan):) 81.183.183.153 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, what I am saying can be found for example in the currently standard synthetic work "History of Slovakia" in 6 volumes of the Academy of Sciences, which was even written at the end of Communism as a typical marxist "internationalist" work (i.e. it tries to avoid any nationalism and one can see that when reading it). So, I really wonder what you would say if I (like you) used a modern or nationalist work. Secondly, I do not understand your second question (which after all is no real question, is it?). Juro 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.:And Racial problems in Hungary is NOT a propaganda piece, it is just one of many works of the best contemporary English expert on Austria-Hungary cited by virtually every source until today (for example by the 1911 Britannica) and containing pure facts and tables. I also cannot imagine for whom he should write the "propaganda", because there was no Slovak state, not even an administrative unit, at that time. I understand that you do not like the text, but that does not change anything regarding the content. Juro 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Publication during Communism does not really contradict the possibility of nationalism, see for instance the Ceausescu regime which was one of the most nationalist regimes that ever existed in Europe even if it was communist. You may feel free to quote any source from the Slovak Academy of Sciences in the worst case scenario, we will end up establishing that Hungarian and Slovak official sources contradict in several points. As for my last question: don't you know that today it is St. Stephen's day?? You know he was a king who was helped to the throne by some great Slovak warriors and whose crown is regularly displayed at the coronation processions in the ancient Slovak coronation center, BratislavaÁrpád 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

It does not contradict that possibility in general, but in this case the work is like I have described it above. I have never celebrated a St. Stephen's day and he was not an ethnic Slovak king. And I still do not understand the question. If this was supposed to be a joke, I am not laughing. Juro 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

St. Stephen was not a Slovak king but Thurzó, Balassa, Forgách, Jakusich, Rozgonyi, Amadé were Slovak nobles? Aren't you doing a bit of cherry-picking here? Incidentally, St. Stephen can be credited with a lot even in those territories which are not part of today's Hungary (christianization, creation of feudal state in the Carpathian Basin, etc.)Árpád 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Elementary thinking, Arpad: Noble families are FAMILIES consisting of hundreds of persons. There was virtually no noble family in KoH which had not some Slovak, semi-Slovak members and many families were Slovak in origin (the Thurzos were a Slovak-German family for example, and in the 16th century they were Slovak nationalists, the Balassa had Slovak members etc. etc.). But you do not know that anymore in Hungary, because you have generally linguistically Magyarised the first names of these people and even today one can find the purely Magyar version of their family trees on the internet.... And a king, on the other hand, is ONE PERSON with concrete parents and a concrete mother language. As for the rest, I still do not understand the point in discussing a king here. If the point was to inform me that you have an important day today, I am fine with that. Juro 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But as we know, the term "Slovak" does not only include ethnic Slovaks, but people of significance to Slovakia, as well and who would deny that St. Stephen was significant to Slovakia? Árpád 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

?? Arpad, I simply do not understand what you are saying: It is you who has opened the Stephen issue, not me, so please answer it for yourself. He was important, if that's what you want you want to hear. Juro 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Last removal

• The author is another sockpuppet of user Arpad alias HunTomy alias XY.
• Read my comment on the deletion talk page to this article.
• Nobody was "expelled" after WWI, they lost their jobs.
• The story of individual persons is irrelevant. Opinions of individual persons are irrelevant. Quotes from revisionist webpages (50% of Hungarian webpages are such) are irrelevant.
• If you are going to call this "Slovakization" we will have to add a section about how the whole administrative staff and schools were previously Magyarised without any special motivation (no creation of a new country, no world war etc.), how all Slovak-language schools were shut down (without any special motivation) etc. etc.
• The whole Slota part was firstly an insane lie, secondly even if it was not, it is again out of place and irrelevant. And as for the video, you can be sure there are 10 000s of such videos on the internet (I mean worldwide). Also, the nationalist SMK cannot be in the government forever, because no party can be in the government forever.
• I still have not been answered the question how one can speak of Slovakization of Hungarians, when their number increased while their number in Hungary itself decreased. Juro 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have removed sourced information. Once again I'm asking to stop doing so. User:Angr 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have said my reasons. Can you provide arguments? The topic is Slovakization, not anti-Hungarian quotes. Juro 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons do not justify the removal of sourced statements. If you disagree with them, then find sourced statements that argue the contrary, add them, and cite the sources. If you blank a section of this page again, I will block you for disruption. User:Angr 11:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Could you explain - in detail - why my arguments do not justify the removal. Secondly, could you explain what the current quotes of one person have to do with the title and definition of this article. Thirdly, could you explain why it is acceptable that Arpad creates a sockpuppet (alphy...) and you have no problem with that? Fourtly, a general question: Do you REALLY want me to start quoting nationalist webpages and texts containing mostly crap - just like Arpad does? Because that is "sourced" information. This is the last time I am asking this, because I would prefer not to do that, but if the name of any source is an argument for you, I will really start to do that. So, this is the last time I am asking this. Juro 11:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your arguments do not justify the removal because your arguments are unsupported. Simply saying "This is all lies!" isn't a sound argument. Secondly, the material you removed was clearly related to the concept of "Slovakization", though Zello's NPOV rewrite is a clear improvement. Thirdly, I don't know whether or not User:Alphysikist is a sockpuppet of User:Árpád, and until there is a request for CheckUser, neither do you. Fourthly, no, I want you to start citing reliable, neutrally written sources by authors with no ethnic stake in the matter at all. User:Angr 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But Arpad can cite any webpage he finds, of course..."Well" done... Juro 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Plus a question: Can RCU identify whether he is the same user if his IP changes? Because he is identical - among others - with User:HunTomy, who had a constantly changing IP. Juro 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Current state

The article is still far from complete, I have only corrected the basic errors. Juro 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I propose the deletion of the article as it is absolutely senseless in the current form. There is no need for a second article about Magyarization and a praise of the Slovak minority policy. Hungarians know the truth anyway. I finished editing this absurd article. Zello 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you make some more chauvinist edits and statements like the last ones and this one, the others here will finally understand, what kind of Hungarian user we have here. The article contains pure facts, it could not be more neutral than it is. Juro 14:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it couldn't be more neutral. Zello 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zello, but we shouldn't delete it, we should fix the problems that we have now. Just because the page now is filled with bullshit doesn't mean that it's always going to be like that. I'm sure we can fix things up. —Khoikhoi 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I listed the article on Request for Comment. Zello 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The removed paragraph

(1) Slovakization is often rationalized as a response to forced magyarization, which happened mainly after the Ausgleich (Compromise of 1867). While no one now considers magyarization a positive trend, for several reasons the rationalization of slovakization as a response to it is questionable: magyarization happened during the times of the monarchy, and it happened in a time period when human rights were not considered nearly as universal as now. Slovakization is happening since then and it was as severe under communist dictatorship as it is now in democratic

I have removed this paragraph, not because I would necessarily disagree, but because this is a speculative formulation (a "POV" in wikipedia terminology) not suitable for an encyclopaedia. If this was an undisputed topic, maybe such formulations could work, but since that is not the case, it is definitely better to stick to pure sourced data. Juro 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(2) "due to strategic and economic reasons". This is not fully correct, there were also ethnic reasons (in the eastern part), and I see absolutely no point in discussing such issues in this article. The only important point is that the border was not identical with the ethnic line.

(3) "fully Hungarian". The "fully" is not correct, either. Most of the area, actually 100% of it (correct me if I am wrong), was not and is not "fully" Hungarian. The area had mixed Slovak-Hungarian-Roma-Jewish population. Juro 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakization according to Unesco

Two remarks according to an UNESCO reference are as follows:

"Since slovakization is often "rationalized" as a response to magyarization, a few words about the latter are in order: magyarization was intense in the second half of the nineteenth century. According to UNESCO sources: during this time slovaks were viewed as a minority instead of a nation and as such they suffered disadvantages in education and in politics. Slovaks were allowed limited representation in the Hungarian parliament, but had no right to autonomy. The use of the Slovak language was allowed in the churches and in elementary or intermediary schools, but not in secondary schools or above, nor in interaction with political institutions. For more details see magyarization.

While magyarization was a form of discrimination, rationalizing slovakization as a response to magyarization is highly questionable. Magyarization was a nineteenth century issue, whereas slovakization is happening in the twentieth. A UNESCO report on the issue concludes as: "The crucial question is whether or not Slovak policy-makers recognize that the Hungarian governments' language policies toward minorities existed at the end of the nineteenth and in the early part of the twentieth century, while Slovak language policies toward its minorities are in force at the end of the twentieth. Moral principles have changed over the last century.""

They are very relevant to the article, but they keep getting removed and replaced by info on magyarization which is a different article.

Alphysikist 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can repeat it for a third time: The relevant parts are your personal words (another lie on your part, the third such lie in this single article), not quotes, and the real quotes are philosophy about Magyarisation and belong to that article. Secondly, nobody tries to "rationalize" anything here, Zello got the point in the paragraph: to only point was to show why there were Hungarian officers and not Slovak ones - you do not have to call that Magyarisation, the result is the same. Thirdly - but this will be dealt with in the Magyaristion article - the above UNESCO text is just factually wrong - as an example, the Slovaks frequently had exactly 0 deputies in the parliament, which is no "weak" representation etc. (but that is not the topic of this article). Forthly, "by concidence" you "happened" to remove a second paragraph of text - do you really think they everybody here is an idiot and nobody notices that?? Juro 19:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from III.C.4 of the UNesco source:

"One aspect of this policy at the turn of the last century was educational and cultural: minorities, including Slovaks, were to speak Hungarian and to be educated in the culture of the Hungarian majority. The other aspect of Magyarization was political: Slovaks, like other minorities, were allowed limited representation in the Hungarian Parliament but had no right to autonomy. Individual rights were guaranteed, in that the use of the various languages was allowed by members of minorities in Church, in elementary and intermediary schools, but not in high-schools and above, and not in interactions with government agencies. All in all, Hungarian leaders considered Hungary to be a Hungarian national State, while other peoples within Hungary were not seen by them as nationalities but as minorities."

That's all that needs to be known about magyarization in an article in Slovakization.Alphysikist 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because these are clear speculations (philosophy without the provision of any numbers, facts etc.) hardly acceptable even for the Magyarisation article (because some parts are factually wrong as I have demonstrated above). And I repeat: You interprete things into the current text which are not there: The point is to show that there were Hungarian officers in Slovak speaking areas, not to "rationalize" or "justify" anything. And be patient, the Magyarisation article will be dealt with, too (And actually it is your personal fault, originally I wanted to ignore that article)Juro 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That Magyarization paragraph is absolutely unacceptable in this article. Not because of its content - although that is also problematic, for example there wasn't any legal ethnic discrimination in Hungarian electoral laws. All of us know the obvious, behind-the-lines meaning of this paragraph: if the Slovakization article begins with a long lament of Slovak grievances under the KoH then every later fact about the oppression of Hungarians seems unimportant and almost justified. Nobody debated that Magyarization is an important background information for the events of 1919-20 but you can edit an article in such a way that it presents your POV without explicitly saying it. That's a typical case. To present an analogy: imagine the article about Armenian Holocaust with a long paragraph at its beginning how much problem did have the Turks with rebellious Armenians since centuries. That's not a question of factual accuracy or sources but editorial attitude. Zello 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph contains NO lamentation, it does not claim any LEGAL discrimination, it is just a list of very relevant facts (I could add further facts), the paragraph is NOT long (one sentence). Ii other words, you are not saying the truth and keep removing the paragraph just because you cannot support the content. That is inaceptable whatever you say. And actually, if the article will be extended in the future, I will extend that paragraph too. Juro 11:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I will copy long paragraphs about Slovakization in the Magyarization article. They are relevant as a comparison of state policies. Then both article will be confused, uninformative and badly edited. The topic of Magyarization is overrepresented in this article which mainly have to deal with Slovakization not other topics like the situation of minorities in Hungary (or South-Tyrol or anywhere), Magyarization etc. That comparisons are all tendentious and are against NPOV per se. Zello 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro, about legal discrimination, on one occasion you said "any minority in the world (maybe except in states like Canada) is - unfortunately - treated as a second-class citizen by most people of the majority population - but that's another question, what we are interested in are the officially created conditions" (emphasis by me). Do you remember? Have you changed your mind? (Actually, I'm for including information about both legal and legally unsupported de facto discrimination, but I what I dislike most is a double standard, so please stick to a single opinion in this matter.) KissL 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not play this game with me. I repeat, NO lamentation, it does not claim any LEGAL discrimination, it is just a list of very relevant facts (I could add further facts), the paragraph is NOT long (one sentence). Zello is repeatedly explicitely not telling the truth. You have not responded to this, the only thing I hear are attempts to remove any information that does not fit into the picture our nationalist Hungarian editors here would like to draw for the former Greater Hungary. To KissL: This paragraphs says, why there were technically so many Hungarians in Slovak speaking territories, i.o.w. from what the whole article starts. The details will be in the Magyarisation article. What you say above KissL, is absolutely not the topic here (nobody is jusging or evaluating anything).Juro 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not replying to my point. Do you want to (1) include information on discrimination other than legal in articles in general, or do you want to (2) stick to describing the legal situation?

• If your answer is (1), I am willing to accept your Magyarization paragraph here (though with preferably a less emotive and apologetic wording), but you will similarly have to put up with proper descriptions of facts regarding the conditions of Hungarians in Slovakia, legal or not.
• If your answer is (2) (and other editors agree that this complies with Wikipedia policy - I think it doesn't), your paragraph will need to be cut down or even removed, as appropriate when describing the legal conditions.
• If you choose not to answer, I'll conclude that you are using a double standard, therefore I was mistaken when I considered you a heavily biased but good-faith editor, and accordingly I'll start to collect evidence for an eventual RfC. (I'd be happier if I could strike this paragraph out, though.) "What you say is not the topic here" will not be considered an answer.

KissL 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: You're lucky that I only read this edit comment of yours after writing the above. This is your final warning: STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS. KissL 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S: Maybe a technical explanation will help: if you want to show how something was (allegedly) -ized (i.e. changed), you have to show both the starting situation and the final situation. And this article does not show the starting situation at all, and even the only one sentence is a "problem" for you. This is inacceptable from any point of view. Juro 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And I AM STILL WAITING FOR ONE NORMAL ARGUMENT WHY SUCH HIGHLY RELEVANT INFORMATION SHOULD BE REMOVED other than Hungarian propaganda. Juro 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok here: Your version of the Magyarization background is written like a court case - almost like a lawyer is discussing excuses for the Slovaks to do anything they please to Hungarians because of what happenend to them during in the KoH. There's too much information about it anyways. Perhaps a compromise would to be adding a little bit more information but not too much. —Khoikhoi 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, only one sentence is not unacceptable for anybody, together with a link to Magyarization article. Even two sentence is acceptable that states the most important fact - Magyars were overrepresented in the administraton of the KoH before 1918. But the disputed paragraph is long, too detailed and contains exaggerations and rethorics. IT IS NOT A NEUTRAL INTRODUCTION FOR THE SLOVAKIZATION ARTICLE. Zello 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just incredible. A sentence that literally lists the circumstances: no clerks, no judges, no schools, no use of language is "too rethoric" and "not neutral"? Since when is a list of facts not neutral??? Find a normal argument and do not lie, you know I do not like that. Juro 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The 0 schools is not true that's a typical exaggeration of Seton-Watson (I wouldn't be very proud of this source, the most infamous anti-Hungarian propaganda work of the age). In elementary schools the language of education was Slovak, even the hated lex Apponyi in 1912 prescibed only those condition that children should be able to speak fluently in Hungarian in the fourth grade. Educational rights were restricted (some faculties were only taught in Hungarian, like history and there weren't state sponsored Slovak secondary schools) but the sentence is only a rethorical propaganda statement. Zello 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seton-Watson does not say that, Slovak sources say that and it is true. Slovak schools means purely Slovak schools, of course. And I repeat, the rights are a topic for the Magyarisation article, this paragraph does not discuss them (it is YOU who is discussing them). Secondly, cite HERE the part of the sentence, which is "rhetoric", so that everybody can see that. I am waiting. Juro 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are playing with the words - 0 Slovak school means 0 Slovak schools in common speach not when schools are in reality bilingual (Slovak-Hungarian). You did the same in the case of bilingual Slovak minority schools in Hungary. That's pure rethoric. Zello 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against mentioning Seton-Watson as an objective, scientific source. I didn't bring here Beksics and other dubious authors like him. Zello 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will provide sources when I will write about this in the Magyarisation article. Btw., Slovak was thaught 1 hour a week at the "Slovak schools" before WWI, for your information. And 2 hours of Slovak a week at the "bilingual" schools after WII is also definitely no "Slovak school" (it is you who is playing with words). So much for plays with words. Irrespective of this, all state schools were purely Hungarian before WWI even officially (if you are so "interested" in the official conditions). But if you are objecting the number 0 (and calling a number "rhetoric" is more than out of place, btw), we can leave that out for the time being and I will readd it later when this has been dealt with in the Magyarisation article. Juro 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Elementary state schools were NOT purely Hungarians before 1918, even the 1868 minority law (never abolished) prescribed mother-language education for nationalities. In reality there were restrictions - the exact measure of them is a question of research. That sentence "The educational rights of Slovaks were restricted" - is certainly true, NPOV, and non-disputed. For the introduction of the Slovakization article that's absolutely enough information. Zello 20:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you have absolutely no idea (the 1868 for this??? that is a joke - to put it politely). A nice example how holocaust denial works in practice. OK, then, I will replace that part and readd it later. Juro 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: And again, the paragraph is NO introduction, it is an integral part of the text. Juro 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any joke in the 1868 minority law that was legally valid until 1918. Zello 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS VIATOR is a sockpuppet of Seton-Watson. Alphysikist 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

))) By the way I deleted the Seton-Watson reference. For this paragraph there are three other sources, and S-W doesn't makes any statemennt more trustworthy.Zello 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

I also propose to delete the comparisons with Slovak minority in Hungary. Not only because of the obvious content dispute which is hard to solve. The main reason for my proposal that every comparison in tendentious: If I can prove that Hungary was the Hell itself for Slovaks that justifies Slovakization, on the other hand if I can prove that Hungary was almost a Paradise for them then I suggest that Slovakization was even worse than itself. There is chance for other comparisons, similarly tendentious: Swedish in Finland, Südtyrol versus other nation states. I think instead of such dubious effort this article should concentrate on Slovakization. Data should be copied to a new article about Slovaks in Hungary where later content disputes can be solved. Zello 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the reason - comparisons are highly relevant in such cases - but, otherwise OK. My only problem is lack of time to write all these necessary "secondary" articles. Juro 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also dubious whether the number of Slovak representatives in the Hungarian parliament is of any relevanced at all, since it is not the fault of the Hungarians that the Slovaks voted for Hungarian representatives. Unless it can be demonstrated that legally there could not have been more.Alphysikist 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slovak Nationalist Party boycotted the elections for two decades. In the Magyarization article somebody added (not now) numbers about the percentage of every nationality and their percentage in the electorate. If the numbers are correct then the difference in the case of the Slovaks was minimal (10,7 - 10,4 %). It means they weren't restricted in their political rights by the high census (contrary to the Romanians, Serbs and Rusyns, where the difference was bigger). They would have to send about 40 MP in the Parliament, not 4 if they voted for Slovak parties. The reasons for this strange phenomenon arte certainly complicated, I don't know the exact situation. Zello 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

These are topics for the Magyarisation article. I see no point in discussing it here. But regarding the "boycott": the reason for the (not permanent) boycott was exactly Magyarisation, violance during elections, manipulation of election results etc. (all of which did not occur according to our "highly informed" users here, of course). And the number of representatives of a nation in the parliament is highly relevant, because they are the persons who should influence the laws regarding the (in this case) Slovak-speaking regions. Juro 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Slovakization

When speaking of Slovakization, the cultural aspect should not be neglected, like the destruction of the Hungarian education system (from the 3298 Hungarian elementary schools, only 727 remained, the rest was slovakized. The same happened to educational institutions in towns with Hungarian majority or significant Hungarian population like Besztercebánya, Kassa or Lőcse (where the great Hungarian writer, Szabó Dezső used to teach before WWI). As a result of cultural Slovakization, the Czechs had one high school for every 48,000 inhabitants, the Hungarians one high school for every 137,000 inhabitants. Cultural Slovakization encompassed the destruction or confiscation of cultural property such as the confiscation of theatres (like the City Theatre in Pozsony which is presently functioning as Slovak National Theatre), destruction or vandalization of monuments (like the Maria Theresa monument in Pozsony, the Millenary Monument in Dévény or the vandalization of the Petőfi Statue in Pozsony) and misrepresenting the predominantly German and Hungarian cultural history of the region (hence the expressions "Slovak Gothic architecture" or "Slovak baroque" or "Slovak heraldry".), whereas it is well visible that the historical city centres of present-day Slovak cities follow the general Hungarian architectural pattern (just compare Pozsony and Sopron, for example) found everywhere in the Carpathian Basin. Árpád 01:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like always, every sentence is a mess. See a doctor. Juro 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be right to delete this comment above, since it is nothing but a personal attack, but I would rather leave it be to show how nationalist extremists operate (no arguments, just personal attacks).Árpád 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Meciar

While it is appropriate to discuss Slota and the present situation, it would also be worthwhile to discuss Meciar and his reign in relation to this issue. He was also not exactly a champion of equality for the Hungarians... Alphysikist 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic clashes

There were no ethnic clashes between Slovaks and Hungarians in Hungary. There were two incidents: the graffiti on the embassy and the football protest. That's not the same as the three severe beatings and harassment that happened in Slovakia. Misleading to draw equality between the two. Zello 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Several name tables of the municipalities with a Slovak minority in Hungary, as well as the Slovak embassy and a statue were damaged. The cases of hate speech and threatening banners in the footbal stadium were not punished. Both countries should be mentioned, Zello. Tankred 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know only one such case in the Pilis. In the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article all cases are mentioned. But there is a real difference when people are beaten and such symbolic gestures (obviously provoked by the news of atrocities). What happened in Slovakia until now is much more serious than the Hungarian incidents. Hopefully no Slovak will be beaten in Hungary in the next days but if happens then we can really say that "ethnic clashes" happened in Hungary. Zello 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope no more Hungarians will be ever beaten in Slovakia and all crimes will be punished soon. But I would say that any attack against the integrity of the embassy is a very rare and serious incident. If you feel the word "clashes" is too strong, just change it. But I must insist on the inclusion of both countries in the sentence because this conflict has been escalating on both sides. Anyway, the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article covers it all. Tankred 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it covers we need only a short summary here. I think that summary should contain the essence of the conflict - and I think the essence was that Slota went into government and after that some Hungarians were immediately beaten. The Hungarian incidents were secondary in nature until now and nobody was physically hurt. Zello 18:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The first incident occurred in August, but the elections were held in June. The link between Slota and the attacks is just an assertion of Hungarian politicians and journalists, but there is no proof of the causality. I say this with regret because I am not a big fan of Slota and I would prefer to have SMK in the government instead of SNS. BTW, the Slovak embassy in Budapest was attacked before anyone had been actually beaten. Tankred 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The graffiti appeared after the flag burning video. But I think both are rather irrelevant. Three neo-fascists burning a flag or a graffiti on the pavement before an embassy - these are not really serious things. But the Slota connection wasn't only the assertion of Hungarians, as I heard, mainstream Slovak newspapers also blamed him for the whole conflict. Obviously Slota only says with his followers (10-15 %) would like to hear from him. Zello 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And in any case the graffiti read "slovaces eunt domus" when it really meant to read "slovaci ite domum".Alphysikist 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further important edits

At the beginning of the article, after "creation (or imposition) of Czechoslovakia", it would be important to mention that the German population was more numerous than the "state-forming" Slovak ethnic group, the latter did not even reach absolute majority in the region to be called Slovakia. It would be also important to mention that in pre-WWI Hungary, high-ranking officials, like the Catholic Primate (Csernoch János, he openly opposed the creation of Czechoslovakia) were of Slovak origin, which again contradicts to the charges of Magyarization. Another important point is that the Czech occupation of Felvidék was not uniformly greeted positively by the local inhabitants. Even Andrei Hlinka, who later took a fascist political course (see the Hlinka guards) said that Slovak suffered more during several month of Czech occupation than after long decades of Hungarian rule. As for the creation of Slovak schools, emphasis should be placed on the fact that instead of creating their own schools, the Slovaks simply confiscated previously flourishing Magyar schools in most towns of present-day Slovakia which had vibrant Hungarian cultural life (and the Slovak cultural life in those towns was negligible, being mostly restricted to villages). The same process took place in theatres, instead of building a Slovak theatre in Pozsony, they simply confiscated the Hungarian theatre, expelled the Hungarian director and theatrical company. For several years, using the old names of the city (like Pressburg or Pozsony) was a punishable offence and after 1945, people were even persecuted for speaking Hungarian on the streets. Some more important details will follow.Árpád 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us leave the situation before 1918. On the other hand the theater and the two statues are right points, and I think we should also mention the protest of local Hungarians against Czechoslovakian troops marching in Kassa and Pozsony. I think that in Pozsony the soldiers opened fire at the people. Zello 01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Miklós Duray

I do not understand why User:Chery deleted the information that Miklós Duray is a nationalistic politician. It was not meant as an offense. Nationalistic parties exist in almost all political systems with free elections. They are a legitimate and legal manifestation of ethnic cleavages within the system. The political program of SMK is clearly nationalistic, the demographic structure of its leadership and electoral support is determined by ethnicity, and Duray is the leader of the extremist wing of that party (in contrast to Bela Bugar, who leads the moderate wing). If you want to quote Duray, it is important to briefly describe who he is, especially when we have no article about him. What is wrong with that? I did not call him a fascist (fascist parties are illegal in Slovakia), I did not call him irredentist (though he has made irredentist statements). I just described his political affiliation. Both Duray and Slota are nationalistic politicians and this description should not be deleted just because some users like them. Please, do not delete this reference without offering any convincing argument. Nationalism is not a bad word, but a term from political science with a certain meaning. Tankred 18:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it has a scientific meaning, but in a general context, as Wikipedia is not Politopedia, it can be very ambiguous. Mentioning that he's member of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition should be enough here for the reader to learn about his political role in Slovakia. Saying that he's nationalist, well, whether or not true in a political scientific context, for many it can also mean fascist, as you mentioned that above. chery 19:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But an encyclopedia should use the correct meaning of words. Nationalism is not fascism and the word "nationalism" has very diverse connotations. Some of them are positive (almost all contemporary democratic states are nation-states and they provide protection, welfare, and political rights to their citizens), some of them are negative (nationalism has been used to justify organized violence). Wikipedia should not be crippled by incorrect popular beliefs and fluid trends in public opinion (such as the perception of nationalism as something intrinsically bad, liberalism as immoral, and conservatism as militaristic). Tankred 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but if possible, an encyclopaedia should avoid ambiguity (science vs. popular beliefs). Maybe we could find a more univocal synonym? chery 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism today is has negative connotations. What you talk about Tankred, is called patriotism. --195.56.12.121 13:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But Duray is not only nationalist, he is extreme chauvinist.

Cut out parts by me

They are in that article, this is about slovakization, so only these should be in here. It is a nonsense, that slovakization page talks about magyarization mainly. Pan Slavism was the reason why pro-hungarianism arose, but it soon stopped. Wasn't forced. If it was, bring the source, not here, but on the magyarization page. That page is full of nationalist bullshit right now. (if I speak patiently). --195.56.12.121 13:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What a joke

Half of the content of this page should be in the magyarization article, wich itself is a mess. --VinceB 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(still) NPOV dispute

Dear Tankred, don't think that I'll let you get away with this. In fact I'm gonna make a photo of an ID card which contains a distorted name indeed. You could deny those things, but I still know a LOT of people whose names were registered in their Slovak form or were refused to be registered at all when they were born (in fact this happened also to my uncle).CoolKoon 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Before resuming this edit war, could you please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources first? As an individual, I may or may not believe that your uncle was forced by the authorities to change his name. But if you want to include a general claim in an encyclopedia, you have to support it by reliable published sources. Tankred 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research. To verify it, please ask ANY Hungarian with Slovak nationality. Until I get the ID card's photo I'll search for some sources, but you bet that it'll support my POV (and no, those books/sites were not written by me or any of my affiliates). And BTW it wasn't my uncle who was forced by the authorities (since he was an infant), but my grandparents instead.

P.S. I wish you'd know some Hungarian and talk to someone in Hungarian in Žilina, Orava or Spiš..... CoolKoon 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I found something: [14]. This part is particularly interesting (sorry, the text is in Slovak):

Obmedzenie jazykových práv

Jazykový zákon prijatý v Slovenskej republike v októbri 1990, chráni slovenský jazyk voči neslovenským jazykom, nezabezpečuje ich rovnoprávnosť, teda ani právo ich použitia v úradnom styku a má diskriminačný charakter. Odvolávajúc sa na tento zákon nezapíšu napríklad ani maďarské krstné mená do matrík. Ministerstvo vnútra prehlási za neplatné výsledky plebiscitu v obciach o zmene miestnych názvov na pôvodný názov, dvojjazyčné tabule miestnych názvov, ktoré medzitým postavili, nahradzuje slovenskými tabuľami. Na viacerých miestach príslušné úrady nie sú ochotné vykonať svadobné a pohrebné obrady v maďarskom jazyku.

CoolKoon 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the text is not very reliable. Its subtitle is "political memorandum" and it starts by words "Sedemdesiatštyriročné trvanie Československa posúdi história. No už teraz, po rozpade tohto štátu, možno konštatovať, že pre Maďarov, ktorí boli spolu so svojou rodnou zemou bez opýtania pričlenení k Československu, to bolo obdobím nepretržitej právnej diskriminácie, majetkovej a duchovnej ujmy, ako aj duševného i telesného utrpenia." We can perhaps cite Futurist Manifesto as well:-) But, seriously, this article would surely benefit from citations of the legal acts or reports published by big international NGOs. I hope you will be able find some reliable sources of this kind. Tankred 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I request again a new deletion of this article.--87.236.196.63 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Relevant discussion was archived

Relevant and not-obsolete discussion was deleted from this page, justyfying it by archivation. Nevertheless, archivation should leave at least a summary of the archived discussion. 147.175.98.213 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A short summary of main topics of the archived discussion:

- Is the term "slovakization" historically justified?

- Is the information provided in this article relevant and true?

- Is this article POV?

- Should this article be deleted?

- The relation of magyarization and slovakization.

- The relation of slovakization and re-slovakization.

- The census from year 1910, which is the main factual base of this article, is disputed.

- Which towns/places had slovak/magyar/german names? And which of these names are original?

- Was a significant number of Magyars in present-day Slovakia in the 15th century?

- Nationalistic acts from from both sides?

147.175.98.213 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note:

• there was a sign at the top that read "this talk page is too long", archive was necessary
• 'Relevant and non-obsolete' discussion ended one and a half years ago
• I've never seen a summary of an archive on Wikipedia
• anyone can start a new discussion on any related topic on this talk page (at the bottom)

Squash Racket (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Note 2:

• I cannot find the sign saying "this talk page is too long". Could you please tell me, where to find it?
• 'Relevant and non-obsolete' is not mutually exclusive with 'old'
• Read the WP:ARCHIVE. There is a sentence:"It is also helpful to label your archives with dates and briefly summarize their main discussions." The simple fact, that you have never seen it, does not mean it does not exist.
• Summary belongs to the top. Just because it is a summary. Feel free to add other topics to the summary if you like.

147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of claims by IP 147.175.98.213

In your sudden arrival to this article you may have missed the reason for the removal of the IPs edit. Its not about slovakization rather a specific oppressive scheme between 1945-1948 re-slovakization, so it will never belong to the lead of an article about slovakization even if the IP slightly reprhased his edit adding further unsourced claims like "Great part of...". Re-slovakization already has its own (very short paragraph) which in addition directly contradicts claims made by the IP (for example: "Because of this, most re-Slovakized Hungarians gradually readopted their Hungarian nationality"). Further the source never claimed your and the IPs assumption only that "its intended aim was..." never says that it "reverted the effect of magyarization" as a statement of fact. Hobartimus (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed what you try to say that I claim: "reverted the effect of magyarization"

I wrote, that "reason was to revert the effect of magyarization" and that is a big difference.

Read what you are deleting and don't delete because of my IP.147.175.98.213 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Hobartimus already clarified this. Squash Racket (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is about slovakization. Slovakization, as generally understood, is the change of non-slovak (things or people)to slovak. re-slovakization is a part of this, therefore it is legitimate to include it into the article. Moreover, besides of the deportation after WWII, re-slovakization affected most people of all processes, which can be hidden under the header "slovakization"147.175.98.213 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Re-Slovakization should be included in this article. Tankred (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you realize Re-Slovakization is already included in the article with a whole section? It's just a name for putting pressure on ethnic Hungarians through a humiliating process for three years and there are enough sources about that. The lead is about Slovakization's definition in general, re-Slovakization is another thing.

You are partly right, the horror of re-Slovakization isn't explained enough in the article, it should be improved. Squash Racket (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a definition of reslovakization in English:

The German and Hungarian population living in the reborn Czechoslovak state were subjected to various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality and appointment of government managers to German and Hungarian owned businesses and farms, referred to euphemistically as “reslovakization.” [15]

Between 1945 and 1948, an endless list of discriminatory anti-German and anti-Hungarian presidential decrees, edicts, laws and statutes were proclaimed by the president of the republic, the Prague-based Czechoslovak Parliament, the Slovak National Council (parliament) in Bratislava (Pressburg) and by the Board of Slovak Commissioners (an appendage of the Czechoslovak government in Bratislava).[16]

You really think that belongs in the lead of the article? Squash Racket (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite is full of half-truths and expressive vocabulary. Under others, it praises the dissolution of Czechoslovakia by the Munich agreement, which was basically the begin of nazistic expansion in WWII.

I have no idea, how this project got funding from EU.

147.175.98.213 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

use of slovak or hungarian sources violation of WP:NPOV

I see, that some people use hungarian sources and make statemnt mnot covered with sources. wp:sources say: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. If news are important enough, you can find english sources published in Slovakia or Hungary or better in 3-rd country. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not Nina Charousek who decides which sources are acceptable, which are not. If you find an English source for the sentence, then add it. Removal of material referenced by Hungarian reliable sources is not OK even according to the above citation.

If news are important enough, you can find english sources published in Slovakia or Hungary or better in 3-rd country. That is the opinion of N. C., but NOT a reason for removal of well-referenced text.

You also added the "Slovak Spectator" as a reliable source, but here are their own words on the press code invented by Fico:

Fico may honestly believe he has done some great service to the nation by manufacturing a press code which opens the door to what is in fact a highly questionable concept: a complainant's right to have their reply published even when the original information printed about them was entirely correct. Newspapers will be legally obliged to print, in the same place as the original article, replies from those who feel offended or hurt - or perhaps even faintly dissatisfied - by anything a newspaper publishes about them.(...)

The major Slovak dailies which belong to the Association of Periodical Press Publishers have already listed their objections to the Press Code in a document, "Seven Sins of the Press Code," which they ran on the otherwise blank front pages of their publications on March 27.

I wouldn't criticize Hungarian newspapers and adding one that according to their own words lost its freedom because of the new press code. Squash Racket (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the article. What do you think? "The slovak authorities denied the registration of a Hungarian traditional folk art association, because they used the word Kárpát-medence ˙(Carpathian Basin). According to Dušan Čaplovič the word and the association is against the sovereignity of Slovakia, only one ethnic group lives in the country, and that is the Slovak, furthermore the word is fascist, it is familiar with the german Lebensraum, and Hungarians use it in this ideology. "Baxter9 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Problem is use of non english sources and with half-truth making a desinformation. That is not correct. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not deny the useage of non english sources. And what is "half truth" desinformation to you?Baxter9 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

if you give information not covered with sources and this information is subjectiv and simply not true. I thimh it is alway better to give less information, but this information shoul be 100 % OK. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I see a massive violation in this article (and in article about trianon too).--Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The information "was covered" with sources, but you just removed it.[17] Also, the information is true, you can check it (added english source). This is a free encyclopedia, so of course you can add information with reliable sources (as you said and as i told you at the trianon article before). The problem is that you are not doing this, you just remove reliable, academic sources (like in article trianon[18]), and you are talking about "mysterious massive violations and subjective informations" in the articles, but if i ask you to tell me the what is the problem: words, sentences, sections then you dont answer (like at article trianon[19])... So I ask again: what is the massive violation in this article?Baxter9 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortumately all article is a collection of halt-truth = desinformation, typical is the last sentence: it means only one ethnic group lives in Slovakia, but only atv.hu write Azt is kifogásolták, hogy a célok között több nemzet értékeinek megőrzése szerepel, pedig „Szlovákiában az alkotmány szerint csak egy nemzet él”. Az alkotmány Preambuluma csak a szlovák nemzetet említi, mely a kisebbségekkel és etnikai csoportokkal együtt él Szlovákia területén. Also typical only one ethnic group is a half-truth and desinformation. And it is a massiv violation of Neutral point of view. It would be better not to use own interpretation, only original sources and if you use hungarian sources please in spirit of wp:Sources: they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Look we need to be precise here, there is no problem with fixing up the sentence as to be as close to the original source as possible. How about you propose a better wording that's closer to the above qouted source if you think the current one is "half-truth". Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrected sentence to: "only one nation lives in the territory of the Republic of Slovakia, the Slovak nation".Baxter9 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Slovakization = poppycock

• Benes decrees - took hungarian assets, becouse there are pacts with Hitler and Horty, to same like with germans on other part in europe after WW II
• Re-slovakization - was voluntary for hungarian .. not required!!! .. hungarian in re-slovakization teached base of slovak/czech language for office life (when there are something carry out on offices) and nationals of people near hungaran border was (and there are) still disputed see Magyarization.
• SOMETHING LIKE SLOVAKIZATION never existed!! .. when you find some normal stistics you will see the hungarian people in slovakia year bye year borned still more and more .. just last decade hungatian had recession .. so no SLOVAKIZATION just normal asimilation like you can see everywhere on world in normal live.

• I agree with idea using just english source for this topic .. and we will read just some nazi-poppycock from hungaria. Afted just delete ;-)

Some people from Hunaria still dont accepted dark park of hungarian history ... in Magyarization dying people (Černová tragedy) .. school and culture institute was closed ... and after writing lay about Magyarization or makeing topics like this one.

Potocny

QWC

This article is based on total misinformations and false statemets.

For example: "Independence of Slovakia from the former Czecho-Slovakia increased the hardship faced by the Hungarian minority. The 1992 Slovak constitution is derived from the concept of the Slovak nation state[29], to the exclusion of minorities." Absolutly not true! The Slovak constitution (No. 460/1992)in its Preamble says: "We, Slovak nation... together with representavives of national minorities and ethnical groups living in Slvoakia.... adopt this constitution."

Duray is not a reliable source (IQWXC (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)n any case, believe me. :-) He is a good gay especailly as a company for drinking wine (I know him personally, but he has a tendency for dramatizing of situation.) )

"The Hungarian University in Bratislava/Pozsony was immediately closed after the Czechoslovak occupation of the town."

Yes, that is true- but after the teachetr of the university rejecter to swear an oath of loyality to the new Czechoslovak state. They moved to Pecs/Pätkostolie/Funfkirchen. QWXC (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Census.

"According to the 1910 census conducted by the Central Statistical Office of Hungary, there were 884,309 ethnic Hungarians, constituting 30.2% of the population, in what is now Slovakia compared to the 9.7% number recorded in the 2001 census, amounting to a 3 fold decrease in the percentage of Hungarians. The Czechoslovak census of 1930 recorded 571,952 Hungarians. All censuses from the period are disputed, and some give conflicting data for example in Kosice according to the Czechoslovak censuses 15-20% of the population was Hungarian. However during the parliamentary elections the Ethnic Hungarian parties got 35-45% of the total votes (excluding those Hungarians who voted for the Communists or the Social democrats)"

This is a diagra showing a development of the official representation of ethnical Hungariaons in Slovakia:

1880: 22.2% 1910: 30.3% 1921: 21.7% 1930: 17.6% 1950: 10.3% 1961: 12.4% 1970: 12.2% 1980: 11.2% 1991: 10.8% 2001: 9.7%

the high numbers of hungarioans in 1880 and 1910 were a result of th campaigbn of magyarisation and therefore do not correspondent toa real situation. After 1918these "statistical Hungarians" simply returned to their origianl Slovak ethnicity. (The rather low number in 1950 is a result of the temporal politicly motivated reslovakisation) But thThe real reprersentation of Hungarioans in Slovakia was always about 10-12 %. The decline of this representation afte 1961 is a result of two factors: a) lower natalitily of ethnical Hungarioans in comparison with Slovaks (it is visible also in a case of hungarioans in Hungary:-)) b) natural assimilation in dominantly Slovak country QWXC (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrative system governed by laws created in 1991, included 17 regions and 2 regions with a majority Hungarian population

In 1991 there was not simply any such adminsitrative reform. QWXC (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

SMK asked in vain for the creation of a Hungarian majority Komárno county. Although a territorial unit of this name existed before 1918

It must be some misnderstandig. The district of Komarna was established in 1960, it has existed till now, it has a Hungarioan majority and its borders are almost the same as the ancient county of Komarno had in the past.  :-) Look: [[20]] and [[21]] QWXC (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In the reorganized system only 2 districts (Dunajská Streda and Komárno) have a Hungarian majority population.

The reform from the 1996 left the borders of districts (11) in South Slovakia untached! Thea are the same as they were shaped in 1960! No slvoak government had a courage to do some changes there, becouse it would have meant a changes in a power and etnical balances in these regions. For example in the district of Nove Zamky the ethnic composition of inhabitans is about 50:50. A proposed division of this district to two smaller districts (Sturovo and Nove Zamky) would have ment that In nove Zamky Hungariaons would have become a real minority (20%) and thea would ahve complaned (I am sure) and in Stuove they would have forme majority over Slvoeks whio also would have complaned. :-) QWXC (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Therefore the districts i South slvoakia are bigger now than districts in the rest of the country.

Etc...

I am too tired to continue :-) QWXC (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Solution

Practically each statement in this article is contraversial. If this article is based only on arguments from Hungarioan propagandistic booklets and articles, it will be better to erase it. QWXC (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Slovakization from the Turkish wars

I guess this site should discuss that the Slovakization started from the Turkish wars in Kingdom of Hungary. In fact the first Slovakization appeared after battle of Mohacs because approximately 80-90 percent of Kingdom of Hungary population was Hungarian before the Turkish wars. When the Turkish wars ended the Hungarians constituted just approximately 50 percent of the population of Kingdom of Hungary and later that number indicated a massive reduction because of the new settlers from abroad. The native Hungarian population -which lived in north of Kingdom of Hungary from the Settlement of the Magyars- started to change identity because the Slavs were the majority in north of Kingdom of Hungary. That area could develop between relative peaceful circumstances while the ethnic area of Hungarians suffered. The ethnic of Slavs increased and a lot of ethnic Hungarian village altered to Slovak. It would be good if somebody made a perfect contribution with reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)