Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations/Archive 2

Suggestions to improve the article
Please list your suggestions below:


 * Again, I am not saying that Slota's quotes should not be mentioned, they just should not be copied verbatim with every single quote being given a specific subsection. Instead, the grounds and the scope of the problem should be described with a link to a list of quotes or the Slota article. Also, the impact of the quotes on the interstate relations should be evaluated if possible. Past relationship development should be described with the focus on the political and interstate aspect. It should be also a summary of as elaborate analyses as possible and not a mix of newspaper snippets as it is today.
 * Also, a balanced list of the actions of the both sides and both types ("good" and "bad") should be set as a goal, to list only negative steps of one side of the dispute, is a blatant POV, therefore the tempalte is clearly deserved. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understand you think there are a lot of "good" actions of the Fico-Slota government towards Hungarians, Hungary that are missing from the article? Is talking about "war with Hungary" (Slota) or other comments currently not in the article good or bad? Well it depends in every case the same comment can be viewed differently. Anyway why don't you list a few ideas about what you call "good" by the Slota-Fico government that is missing currently from the article just to see what you mean by "good". Maybe there were a lot of good coming from Slota, Fico, etc etc it's just not that well publicized? Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response only underscores why the POV is extremely merited here. Please, look at the title of the article and tell me, if it clearly deals with the Fico-slota govt. only. It is not possible, that the 16 years of bilateral relations can be summarized in a few Slota's quotes and the Language law debate. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)h
 * You did not answer the question. What positive steps, what "good" was taken towards Hungarians or Hungary. You said the "good" has to be balanced out with "bad". I am waiting to hear what do you mean by "good". And the article already states that relations started to worsen after the Slota and Fico created their coalition before that relations were much better (apart from Meciar era chauvinism). The fact that 16 years passed does not mean a lot of content as you think. Just look at any random bilateral article. Say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian-Slovak_relations  that's what you get during 16 years of bilateral relations. But once again what do you feel is missing, from the article, if anything. Once you bring it up others can search on it who read this talkpage.Hobartimus (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another bad article does not justify this one being bad. What about the foreign hungarian ids issue, what about the bilateral treaty, what about the detente during the dzurinda govts. etc etc., there's a lot to cover. And as I have written already, the slota's quotes are given way too much space in a way too much manipulative a manner.
 * Oh, and btw., why is building double crosses a negative political step, but unveiling a statue of Szt.Istvan a mere cultural event?Wladthemlat (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Building double crosses I don't think can be viewed as negative by anyone as the double cross is part of the Coat of arms of Hungary. What can be negative is if someone would say "we are building them against the Hungarians and their Turul" or something like that. And even then it's not the building what is problematic but if hate speech surrounds it. And the famous words of Szt. Istvan "because a kingdom with only one language and having only one custom is weak and frail." sounds like they are not about hate or being against anyone but the tolerance of multiple traditions multiple cultures. I agree that the article can be expanded with other topics such as relations in the past during Dzurinda gvt etc, the article is still fairly young by no means final or complete. Hobartimus (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The pity is, that that Istvan's sentence got totally negated in the late KoHU, that is why any Hungarian (meaning Uhorsko) symbolic is not too welcome in Slovakia. Anyway, yes, the article is young, but that doesn't justify its content being unbalanced, so please, leave the template in place for the time being. I would also like the Slota section overhauled, for the reasons mentioned. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between the St. Stephans statutue and the SNS's dounble crosses is that the Staphans st. is in Komarno based on the decision of the people of Komarno funded by and placed in accordance with the wishes of the people, and there is absolutely no political idea behind, but pure tradition. The slota crucifixes are built everywhere but mainly on the Hungarian border with a logo of the SNS...this is a present from Ziliona - mostly not requested - of the slovak nationalist party, that means its a symbol of the presence of the slovak nacionalists party in that village...I hope this helps You to catch the difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsx (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

EllsworthSK's soapboxing
I had to remove all recent changes EllsworthSK had made because -to my big surprising- he has been using Hungary–Slovakia relations‎ solely for soapboxing. --Nmate (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that this whole page is from 90 percent nothing more than yours and Horbatimus, as you called it, soapboxing (see "wise historian" section which has nothign to do with Hungary-Slovakia relations, so called disrimination of state language or half page of Slota´s quotation - I just used your precedens) you have no right to speak. I changed it back to normal and till you give here at least something what could be accepted as argument than I will revert your or another reverses until I can. Thank you --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Nmate edited the article a lot less than you. What you inserted belongs to the History section as it concerns history, it was moved there. However be careful as not to falsify sources, for example writing "abc" is in book "XY" and then not writing the page number. Without the page number. In case you want to cite a foreign language offline source (when you don't give a link) you should also give the original text that you cite in the ref commented out. Hope this helps. Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that your version is the best one. Note that the text witch is sourced with book only is taken from sk:Slováci v Uhorsku, the rest are books which are quoted on the given link. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: And I think that the you shouldn´t delete the czechoslovak estimation and also mentioning of magyarization. At least the part which says that more than 400 000 Slovaks applied for exchange of population should remain in it´s form in the article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You added the text that said that there were 104 000 Slovaks in Hungary this seems contradictory with 400 000 applying. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, guess you didn´t understand what I ment. I also wrote that thanks to ongoing magyarization there were cca 100 000 Slovaks in official census and than next 250 000 "Hungarians" which spoke Slovak considering the situation in which the language was banned and the name had to be hungarized and due to Czechoslovak estimation real number of Slovaks was up to 600 000. That and the thing about 400 000 peoples applied for exchange. I don´t say that all should be included but at least a mention about Czechoslovak goverment estimation should. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Slota's quotes - undue weight
I repeat what I have stated above - the section about the Slota's quotes gives them undue weight by copying them verbatim and at length, even giving each one of them a separate subsection. The section should be slimmed down with the quotes paraphrased and shortened. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this has been done, and I came to this article (and remain) a neutral Englishman. I think it is reasonably balanced, but does probably give it more from a Slovakian persepctive than a Hungarian one. I only have a Hungarian girlfriend and I know nothing at all about it, so that is good and bad I can't attempot to fic it but I come with fresh eyes. It is, I think, very very careful to be NPOV but the Hungarian POV could be, I think, better represented by someone who knew more than I do.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you only skimmed the article, because this "does probably give it more from a Slovakian persepctive than a Hungarian one" is simply false. Yes, there's a lengthy list of what has been done in Slovakia, but always with and even more lengthy citation of Hungarian commentaries. Would you mind pointing me to the section that in your opinion lacks the Hungarian perspective? Moreover, this specific section of the talk is about the way Slota should be quoted and you did not bring in any opinion about that. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wise historism
The sources of Wise historism section are hell of a disputed. At first it mixes "Fico´s declaration of some wise historism concept" or whatever and as sourced is used book published in 2005 (!) while Fico is in office since 2006. Next sources are article from Slovak spectator from July 1996 (!!!), hence 13 years old article. For example:

''Since deputy prime minister Robert Fico declared the "wise historism" concept, the history books are getting rewritten in a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride". This "spirit of national pride" is determined by Matica Slovenská, [91] which Krekovič, Mannová and Krekovičováare claim are mainly nothing else, but history falsifications.''

And as source is used the mentioned book and article. Author of this text took something what has been, according to him - unsorouced bytheway, declarated between years 2006 and 09 and put it together with quotation of book which was written before this happened and gave it in context in which it seems that quotation of that book was an answer on that so-called declaration, not two non-interfering subjects. Let me add that all quotation used by authors of the book are response on acts of minister Eva Slávkovská during second Mečiar goverment which ended more than 11 years ago and since then history books were rewritten several times. Next sources are hungarian, more or less boulvar, magazines Magyar Nemzeth and Nepszabatsag which are hardly to be taken as reliable and unbaised sources and they are published in non-english language which can be hardly used in ENGLISH version of wikipedia as direct source. Whole section should be rewritten or deleted because of these reasons. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is absurd to say the least. Should I qoute all the different times you inserted Slovak language sources to articles? You are perfectly aware of the countless Slovak and other language sources all over wikipedia, should we just remove them all? You can do it if you convince enough people that non-English sources are to be banned and they enact it as policy. By attacking sources for the race or ethnicity of the author, while inserting non-English Slovak sources yourself (so we KNOW you don't have a problem with non-English in general) you just expose your own thought process for all to see... And statements like "more or less boulvar (sic!)". I wonder how do you know so much about these newspapers to make statements on them, when you can't even spell their name? And you yourself freely admit that history books were "rewritten several times". Did the available information suddenly change? Did new research come to light regarding all of history? There is a Slovak source in the article (the Slovak Spectator) that describes a push for Slovak history to be based on not facts but "in a spirit of national pride". This is a unique concept in today's Europe in that the stated job of this type of history is not reporting true facts, but the enhancement of "Slovak pride". But this is a more general issue. History falsification for national pride is an old and very dangerous concept and it may result in un-educated fanatics believing tall tales and myths and devoid of real information. Hobartimus (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Your only source which actually has to do something with the article (which considers some kind of Fico decalration of god knows what) are those two articles from those two hungarian newspapers. So, you´re whole article is baised on two non-english articles which represent opinion of author. And you call that NOPV? Na-ah.
 * To the rest of your post - I don´t know if you got me for an idiot (guess I don´t want to know either) or if it is just your style, but please next time don´t try this absurdities on me.
 * Should I qoute all the different times you inserted Slovak language sources to articles?
 * I beg you to quote me all the different times I used as my only source of some fact opinion of one writer of some Slovak newspaper. Good luck
 * blah,blah,blah
 * You should learn the difference between one of the sources and the only source. Than it will be worth my time to discuss about it with you again.
 * I wonder how do you know so much about these newspapers to make statements on them, when you can't even spell their name?
 * Let me tell it like this - let´s say that these two newspapers are known to me since one of our newspapers (SME) is gladly using their translated articles in the foreign section so I read a thing or two from them and if that ain´t boulvar than I´m second coming of Jesus Christ.
 * when you can't even spell their name?
 * Now you crushed all of my argument like the pair of the ants...What a buta tót I am, mispelling their names.
 * And you yourself freely admit that history books were "rewritten several times". Did the available information suddenly change? Did new research come to light regarding all of history? There is a Slovak source in the article (the Slovak Spectator) that describes a push for Slovak history to be based on not facts but "in a spirit of national pride". This is a unique concept in today's Europe in that the stated job of this type of history is not reporting true facts, but the enhancement of "Slovak pride".
 * Yes, they were. Believe it or not, history books are beeing rewritten probably everywhere, except North Korea - actualisation, new foundings, new authors, new reaserches etc. This is one of the reason why nowday kids don´t use same books as your grandfather did. How can you possibly even use that as argument for god sake? Till now I thought your problem is with how they were rewritten not if.
 * And about Slovak spectator. I would suggest you to check the calendar because now it´s year 2009, not 1996. And you know when that article was written? I guess yes so why are you even asking me that? Or maybe you don´t know that Slávkovská isn´t minister for 11 years now, article is about current situation and you are using your sources from 1996. Where does that makes sence to you because it just does not maky any sence to me at all. So either deal in that article of yours with situation which was during second Mečiar goverment and use that Slovak spectator article from all I care, or deal with current situation and stop mixing apples with pears. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder who inserted L'udové noviny  and  www.exil.sk into the article as sources.  These are still in the article currently.  It seems they don't have the notability for an article on their own. We both know you inserted them and even mass cited one in a fashion that is prohibited, it's all currently in the article, whatever.  That was your only source per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - Anything else you cited was improper without page numbers etc. Say you read it on a website that book xy contains "The moon is made of cheese" without reading the actual book, your source is the website. And all books must be cited with page number. And history books can be updated all over the world but not "rewritten in a spirit of national pride" for example the history of the Middle Ages will not change (due to new findings) to the tune of whole books on it has to be rewritten. But I don't know what you are debating, you know very well that this history modification exists in Slovakia. You know very well that it is now a Government level policy by Fico to rewrite history. Further sources on wise historism :  . Do you deny that wise historism exists? And by the way the so called "Hungarian articles" actually reference Slovak sources for example Miroslav Kusý the former rector of Comenius University. Believe it or not not everyone in Slovakia agrees that history should be rewritten according to myths or wishes of politicians (Fico for example is not a historian, he never had a degree in history and he wants to rule on what history is taught at shcools? Show me another country where that is possible). Again, do you deny that wise historism exists? You said, you read SME, I'm sure it would be few seconds to find something in it's archives regarding Fico and wise historism. Hobartimus (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Car of the Slovak ambassador to Hungary forced to the roadside
Surely this was the 27th August, not 28th? Small matter, but my Slovak is quite poor, and my Hungarian non-existent, could somebody check? THanks Hrcolyer (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it. CyberDragon777 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Added POV
Although the quotes are very offending and the man is clearly a ultra-nationalist, it is not written in an encyclopaedical style and is very pro-Hungarian biased. For correctness, similar quotes from Hungarian nationalists against Slovakia should also be quoted and the text should be limited to a style more fitting for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the addition of Hungarian names to towns without a significant (>10%) Hungarian minority is also very biased and thus not neutral. (I am not Hungarian, nor Slovak, I just came across this article after reading in a Dutch newspaper on the Slovak-Hunagrian relations, I have no personal interest in either side).Knorrepoes (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a Hungarian-Slovak related article it can not be biased to name the towns also in Hungarian in parenthesis. Qorilla (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed your POV tag because:
 * 1, I have no clue what you intend "encyclopaedical style" to mean.
 * 2, feel free to expand the article if you think "similar quotes from Hungarian nationalists against Slovakia should also be quoted".
 * 3, Lučenec has a population of 13.11% Hungarians and as far as I know 13.11% is more than 10%.
 * --Nmate (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "and the man is clearly a ultra-nationalist" It's not about "a man" he is one of the most powerful politicians in Slovakia today leader of one of the strongest parties that makes up the current government. In fact he created the government himself with written agreement with his coalition partners Fico and Meciar. If you can find a Government Party head, head of state or someone similarly powerful and influential as Slota spewing hate speech against Slovaks by all means include it. Of course you need to find it first not just assume there is anything like that. NPOV means staying true to reality, not creating an alternate universe where everything is balanced 50-50 (h. example President of X says "We will destroy country Y and wipe it off the map" then what would you do? Balance it with country Y president saying about X? What if he said no such thing? Find a truckdriver or minor opposition politician who has no power in Y saying some bad thing about X? Hobartimus (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias
Though I am not going to slap a big ugly "bias" tag on this page, it is not far from it. Scare quotes and weasel terms are used rather often, there is a blatantly one-sided coverage, the notability of some of these incidents are dubious at best, and I would also question the reliability of the sources - many of which seem to be in Hungarian. — what a crazy random happenstance 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should add it and you will see it will immediately be removed by Hungarians, as has happened already several times befoer...Knorrepoes (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If several users challenge that an article is biased, it would necessitate a discussion; template-warring is never acceptable. — what a crazy random happenstance 09:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is because you poke your nose(s) into those kind of things, which you know nothing about. And seriously, Knorrepoes, you are definitely a difficult editor to deal with. I really don't want to make any comment at all about the correctness of any actions of you. I whish you good look in Netherland and I hope that someday you will be substantially able to contribute on this very article as soon as you have gleaned some more information on Hungary–Slovakia relations. But as far as I can see you have yet been very far from it.--Nmate (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias
I just happened to stumble across this "article". I cannot believe what I read. The only correct terms to evaluate this article is Hungarian bias, and we call this propaganda and extremism in professional jargon and that is a very mild statement on my part. Every single chapter could be written just from the exactly opposite perspective and filled with opposite "quotes". I do not understand why this article exists in the first place (since when are "relations between two countries" an encyclopaedia topic?). But when it exists, why does nobody care that it be balanced before it is allowed to be published in the first place, why does nobody arrange that Hungarian nationalists are not the only authors, why does it quote irrelevant sources, why etc....Is everybody blind here or what? Parkapproach (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note This is the only edit of the above new account/WP:SPA, and his only contribution to Wikipedia under this name. Hobartimus (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

separate article: History of Hungarian-Slovakian Relations
Maybe one solution to the ongoing problems with this article would be to create a separate History of Hungarian-Slovakian Relations article, or History of Hungarian-Slovakian disputes, or something with a similar name. That way, some of the sections of this article - for example, the current extensive history section - could be moved there, and this article could focus more on Hungary–Slovakia relations in the present. Honestly, the article as it is now is kind of lacking in this regard. Someone reading the article with no prior knowledge of the subject would imagine the two countries are on the brink of war. Emika22 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the relationship was described as a "mini cold-war" not that long ago. So if you had the idea that relations are very bad you got an accurate impression. Ján Slota of the Slovak Governing Coalition actually made several threats of war against Hungary so there again you are very accurate with your assesment. . I think trying to mislead readers into thinking that relations are very good would be a disservice. Instead a detailed explanation of why relations are so bad is warranted.Hobartimus (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the two countries don't exactly have a friendly relationship. But an article titled Hungary–Slovakia relations should contain information about both sides of the relationship - both positive and negative. There is absolutely nothing positive in this article. It should also contain events which pertain to the relationship before the last few years - as it is now, it is almost completely centered on recent events. Emika22 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some, that could be seen as positives, the 1995 Basic Treaty talks and results. Good relations during the period 1998-2006 Orbán-Medgyessy-Gyurcsány were Hungarian PM-s. And Dzurinda were the Slovak PM. Economic relationships, improving travel possibilities by (re)building bridges, economic cooperation etc. You are very correct that a LOT is missing. But it is tough work to add anything. Sourcing is constantly attacked, even well sourced info is deleted, so it is not easy to add a paragraph without supporting sources even if you know relations were pretty good before 2006. Hobartimus (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortening
This is an attempt to centralize the discussion over the shape of the article.

I still don't see what seems to be such a big problem here, no information gets deleted, it's only re-written and shortened. The majority of the sourced info is just quotes from foreign-language media, they aren't too reliable and significant.

moreover, Wikipedia is not a quotation aggregator, it is an encyclopedia. Please provide an example of an article in say Britannica, that looks like the version you are reverting to, that is almost exclusively based on direct quotes from media sources.

Furthemore, the amount of content you are constantly putting into the article is simply humongous. Slota's quotes can be put on a separate page, the Komarno incident, history and language law already have specialised articles, therefore only a short description is necessary and the wikilings can take the reader to the source of a more detailed info.

You also clearly demonstrate your bias (well, at least Hobartimus does) as quotes from "head of a governing party" (i.e. not even a public official) are deemed *very* important and an attack on the Slovak ambassador (i.e. a public official) is dismissed as 'ahouting'. Feel free to add a few more lines to the Slota section and describe the quotes a little more, but do not put direct quotes back. We've already been over this and you agreed that this form of quoting is not good. Why you keep reverting to it is beyond me. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the shortened version, it is readable now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think Fico and Slota who are heads of their respective Government parties are less important than an ambassador? They make all the decisions on what happens in Slovakia, no law can pass without their approval, and a lot more is deleted than just quotes. Almost all of the article was attempted to be deleted, and that's just not acceptable. And to be honest about the incident is not even "shouting" is "alleged shouting". But what I don't understand why do you keep bringing it up? Did I remove it? Did I ever remove it? Did I propose that it be removed? What's important is what action is described in the section. Unidentified person allegedly shouted at the ambassador on the road. Did that never happen to you? There are traffic altercations all the time. Anyway it's in the article however bogus it may be. And I can't understand your mentioning of foreign language sources, when it was you and Ellsworth who inserted many of these sources was it not? Again there is a process question here. If I would go to the Obama article and delete 60% of it for whatever reason it would be reverted in a short time. In fact it would be the same in any article that's being watched. I suggest we try going a section at a time. Is the SNS views section that seems to be your issue? And btw you earlier said you have withdrawn one of your edits but I didn't see it actually removed from the article. Hobartimus (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit is not in the new version, it concerned the 'Hungary borders with Poland, not slovakia' remark.
 * "Is the SNS views section that seems to be your issue?" you are once again playing the man instead of the ball. I explained my reasons above.
 * So you think Fico and Slota who are heads of their respective Government parties are less important than an ambassador? actually yes, when international relations are considered. And a physical attack is more important than speeches.
 * Obama article could not become as monstrous and ugly as this one has, bad example. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remove your edit from the original article as well,(and only that!) what is the current version. Since you withdrawn it will have to be done sooner or later. There was no physical attack, please stop with that nonsense. Where are the medical records of injuries? Where are the photographed bruises? Where is the proof that physical attack happened? Hobartimus (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism from WP:Vandalism
After reading the page describe vandalism, we can find the section where it describes the different types of vandalism. Vandalism, here we can read the description of blanking.

Blanking

''Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.''

''An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. or Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you., as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.''

this is why indiscriminate and undiscussed blanking is unacceptable and will be reverted. The process is someone proposes a change and we discuss it and not blanking the article. The starting point is the original article. Hobartimus (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the new version, it is a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of 107 sources it has 47. What if someone else does not like the remaining content and deletes another 40 sources and content? If we allow deletion of 60 sources how do we say no to the next person when he "only" wants to delete 40? There is a process here. Discussion, consensus on the new version, then edit. Not the other way around, with brute force method. Hobartimus (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, the reverting is over, a good faith attempt to improve the article is not really vandalism, so I prefer the shorter more consise version, I really didn't like the quote boxes, isn't there a wway we link to them if they are notable on wiki quote? Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quantity != quality. Longer != better. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, you never added anything to this article, not a source, not a sentence. Your contribution here is nothing, Why not try contributing sometimes by studying the subject, looking up sources, putting in the time necessary to learn something new about the topic and adding new information. Hobartimus (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This coming from someone who prided himself in his ignorance of the field of international relations on my talk; rich. I spent several hours making my initial edit, selecting which content to keep and to remove, moving sources to preserve them. That's several hours more of bias-free academically-aware editing than you've ever put in. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see now. You think this is Citizendium and you are a registered named expert in his field, who is writing under his own name and identified himself and his qualifications to the Citizendium community. Exactly what qualifies you to be an expert on Hungary-Slovakia from the distant land of Australia? Is it some extensive personal knowledge gained, from the time when you identified yourself as a "proud Czech"? Or did you specialize in the topic of Central European foreign relations and got a degree int the field? We are anxious to see the proof of your "verifiable special knowledge". I'm not sure if you know of the Essjay controversy where a user claimed to have two Phd-s but had in fact dropped out from even community college. It takes a lot more to impress me than unverified claims of "academically-aware" editing. Hobartimus (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have verifiably demonstrated an awareness of the field far beyond that of your own. I have not once mentioned academic qualification. It is you who is demanding my qualifications, it would seem, and thus you who mistakes Wikipedia for Citizendium. I don't believe you have to be qualified to be able to contribute constructively, but you do have to understand the field, which you do not. International relations is an academic discipline just like any other, with acknowledged conventions, rules, nomenclature and approaches. I have twice (or thrice) pointed you to a book you may read to expand your knowledge in the field, which you have failed to do so. Incidentally, I know of the Essjay controversy, no need to be flippant. In fact I knew Essjay. He was a fantastic editor who made the same mistake you seem eager for me to make - he felt the need to 'impress'. Your words. I have no such intention, and I feel no such need. I am on the side of academia, you are on the side of nationalism. My time as a 'proud Czech', as you are quick to categorise me, taught me one thing - veritas vincit. — what a crazy random happenstance 08:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous attempts to delete this article at Afd
In understanding the mass blanking of sourced information that is going on here we should look at an Afd that was filed previously to get rid of this article. Articles_for_deletion/Hungary%E2%80%93Slovakia_relations We can see that a short while ago the whole article was proposed for deletion with all content and sources. So it's not that surprising that now during the blanking, an attempt was made to delete 60 sources and most of the content. However this exact proposal failed already and garnered no consensus. So the time at brute force deletion proposals is past, it was tried once and failed. Note how it's the same proposal, at the Afd, 1) delete the article and recreate it with minimal content that's liked by the nominator. 2)Through edits, delete all or most of the article, and leave minimal content that's liked by the nominator. It's the exact same proposal now tried again through brute force methods. Note that the original proposal failed with NO SUPPORTING VOTES, so we can safely assume that there is no consensus whatsoever for this solution. Hobartimus (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which changes the reality that the article today is bloated with semi notable controversies and those quote boxes, does it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is "semi notable" in your estimation? Remember that according to WP:GNG, the threshold of notability is, "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think what the article lacks is information on many subtopics that are missing (elaborated in a thread above). However instead of working towards adding them it seems the sole focus on deleting what little we have to begin with. And the deletion does not go hand in hand with adding anything in the place of the deleted material. If it were really other content added it could be called a new version but there is nothing new here, unfortunately. Hobartimus (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we write for an international audience, why not consider trimming the less notable controversies and the quote boxes, actually I like to imagine I am a high school studant interested in the subject and what I am looking for is a good all round historic and up to date informative article that is full of content worthy of reviewing, why not if you are interested in the topic nominate the article for a good article review and get some feedback that way. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with small trimmings, but it should be coupled with adding new and relevant content. What the article needs is broadening it's scope to cover economic relations and also large periods between 1998-2006 about which almost nothing is available. Hobartimus (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, any educational improvement for the independent reader is great. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through this. To recap, the nomination was an attempt to garner interest. Almost all of the voters noted significant problems with the article as was, I attempted to resolve said problems. Most of what was removed has abosolutely nada to do with international relations, as we discussed at length on my talk page, and your definition of blanking is quite simply erroneous, and no matter how often you repeat it is isn't getting any more correct. If you wish to expand the article to cover more, fantastic, as long as it's relevant to international relations. I greatly doubt you'll be able to do so, you seemed to revel in your ignorance of the field on my talk. Forgive the bluntness, it's quite out of character for me, but after so much debate you've yet to outline a single argument for why the older version is better, other than that it is older and bigger and has more sources. Those aren't valid arguments. Unless you conceive one your reverts seem like a simple nationalistic ego trip, and to be perfectly frank I have no doubt that is what they are. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ALL voters REJECTED your proposal to delete the article and rewrite it from scratch. And now you try to apply brute force reverts to get your way anyway. It's really simple, you are trying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again and hope suddenly it will work. Well guess what it does not work, and I don't see the point of you trying to brute force here without consensus just so your "version" stays up a few minutes every day. Please see reason and stop this disruption. Mass deletion mass blanking without consensus and against an established status quo is not allowed per policy. You were bold now it didnt work time to try something else then reverting to the same version that was rejected a hundred times over. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The AfD voters by and large agreed that though the article is bad in its then-current state, deleting the article is not the answer. I agree. The AfD nomination was an attempt to garner interest, I don't see why that sentence is so difficult for you to comprehend. I was hoping someone would arrive and help rewrite the article, that help did not materialise, and I rewrote it myself. The article was not deleted, but edited. Irrelevant, biased and libellous content is removed. This happens all the time. If you haven't seen it before you must be quite new - what else do you think we do with invalid content? "Oh, this section is god-awful, but it pushes up the number of sources and article length, so we'll keep it?" Nuh-uh. You have yet to present a single argument as to why the removed content should be kept. Until you do so, you haven't a leg to stand on. Misquoting non-applicable policy isn't going to get this dispute any further along. I'd like to know how you believe calling my edits vandalism is going to get me to acquiesce. I have offered to compromise and debate countless times, you resist because you know your stance is baseless. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You agree, that deletion is not the answer, yet you try to delete the article and rewrite it from scratch you said it yourself that this mass blanking is an intended "first step" after which you will readily delete even more content. We both know that this approach was rejected at Afd, and was rejected here on article talk on your talk, in the article itself etc etc. You can improve the article here no question but you have to put in the time neccessary. You have to discuss the changes you want to make get some sort of consensus behind them and then make them. The fact that mass blanking is rejected does not mean that every other suggestion coming from you would be rejected as well. I would most certainly love to learn for example where is the "libellous" and "BLP violating" content in the article so it could be fixed already, however you are unwilling to point out the sentences. In any case your present approach will get us nowhere and instead you should be willing to discuss the article if you think parts of it need to be changed, you know as per the wiki process. First we discuss, then we agree THEN we make the changes not the other way around. You don't impose your own personal version by dictat without consulting with anyone else and then try to justify it after the fact. Because let's make one thing clear you didn't discuss the content of your revision by anybody before making it. Hobartimus (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also general statements are meaningless. Such as "the article is bad" "The sources are unreliable". For an ability to fix these things we need to know WHICH sources are unreliable and WHY. And also why the same sources are reliable in other articles if not here? So the sections need to be discussed one by one, and especially sources. And again and again I would like to point out that many things are missing from the article which would broaden it's scope and generally make it a better article, and work and time and effort should be put into adding these topics with great, reliable sources, instead of what's going on right now. Hobartimus (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to decide whether you're maliciously being obstinate, or if you simply lack the faculties to grasp my responses. I'm going to make this very, very simple. I have removed the bits I want gone, every single one of which was either biased/libellous or irrelevant. What I want gone was made abundantly clear from my first edit. If you disagree, the onus is on you to speak up. You must list the sections you want kept and explain why. You are fully within your rights to ask me specifically why a section was removed, I will gladly tell you. We can then discuss the merits of the section. If debating content is what you truly wish, as you insist, there is nothing stopping you from commencing. This is my line in the sand, and unless this is how you proceed, I am left to assume your interest lies solely in personal attacks and vein edit warring, and I won't bother making a continued effort to get through to you, which I have been doing on my talk for a good while now. I have tried to be patient and open, it's simply not working. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to tell you how Wikipedia works. It's a collaborative process it's not who can brute force their own undiscussed version through. You propose something it gets discussed, it gets consensus then boom it's in the article. We've yet to see an explanation a justification from you for which sources are unreliable and why and how they are reliable in other articles. Or any other statements you usually make. Until a real section by section explanation happens and proper discussion we can't get anywhere with statements like "sources are unreliable". That's just how it is I don't know what else to tell you. Hobartimus (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it this is confirmation that you have no intention of directly debating content, since you did not do so when prompted to. Would this assumption be correct? — what a crazy random happenstance 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your constant refusal to discuss your changes is unfortunate. Your constant inablity to answer simple questions about hyperbole such as "BLP violating sentences" problematic. I ask once again, do you intend to follow the policies of Wikipedia and Wikipedia processes or not? Are you willing to discuss your proposals and changes BEFORE making them? If you are unwilling to discuss your changes and proposals I don't see how can we move forward. You will need to put in the time and make your proposals, and argue for them so consensus can form there is no other way to make changes. Hobartimus (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you plan to make headway by mimicking me. That doesn't work for six-year-olds, let alone adults. I'm going to repeat myself, have you any interest in solving this dispute? If so, please begin debating content. If not, as seems to be the case, I fail to see what you wish to accomplish by continued aimless tête-à-tête. — what a crazy random happenstance 08:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please inform yourself about Wikipedia policy. If you continue to willfully and persistently over long periods, ignore Wikipedia policy then I have no role here. Then you will have to have a debate between you and the admins who are tasked with enforcing policy. Hobartimus (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't care about Wikipedia policy, you already invoked WP:IAR almost immediately, anyway even then you should realize that I can't prove or argue for your claims. You claim something you should prove it and argue for it. You claim that the "sources are unreliable" no proof, no argument, no quotations from the reliable sources policy. You claim that there is "BLP violation in the article" no proof no argument, no quotations from the BLP policy there is nothing to discuss until you elaborate. I don't state any of this, you do so how do you expect others to do your work for you? Hobartimus (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything apart from good faith attempts to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing for certain as I have seen at wikipedia is change, the reverting is not helping so look at it one by one and bring the individual issues here one at a time and see if anything can be agreed on, perhaps start with the football incident which to me is not worthy of inclusion under this article title, as I said, I would also get the article independently reviewed to help create a road map for improvements to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should there be a separate section below where the football incident is discussed? So we don't clutter this section? Hobartimus (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well.. the editors who want to reduce the article content to present their issues one by one and try to find some middle ground for agreement. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All I ever wanted, and the only thing I have been asking for all along. The fact that Hobartimus instantly listened to you in creating a content discussion section and childishly resisted when I proposed several times in a row it speaks volumes. Incidentally, Hobartimus, rules describe usage, they do not proscribe it, there is a reason why we keep IAR around. Invoking it is by definition not an admission of fault. In attempting to garner interest in improving the article I had attempted to do more for it than you ever have. Oh, and I'm fairly sure I have a firmer grasp on policy than you, given your continued flippant misuse and misunderstanding of it. — what a crazy random happenstance 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Football incident discussion
Some of the current text: Police attack in Dunajská Streda On November 1, 2008 in Dunajská Streda (Dunaszerdahely), Slovakia was a football game fought between the DAC and Slovan where Hungarian viewers were beaten by Slovak policemen, after only 15 minutes of gameplay, injuring more than 60 people, many of whom lost consciousness or suffered injuries including concussion and broken jaws. Amongst the injured were citizens of Hungary as well, who were at the game to support the home team (DAC) and to protest the burning of a Hungarian flag at an earlier game. 

So some contend that the above is not relevant to the topic of Hungary-Slovakia relations? Is this correct? Hobartimus (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is irrelevant. It may be relevant to the interpersonal relations between the Hungarian people and the Slovak people - feel free to create said article - however it is not relevant to international relations between the two states, being especially irrelevant in the predominant international relations paradigm - realism, which we discussed on my talk page. — what a crazy random happenstance 10:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's look at some sources that might help judge it's relevance. This link describes the official reactions from state actor (foreign minister). It's the first link I found. It's a very short article, yet it has 2 important points. "Goncz called it absurd the Slovak claim that Hungarian Secret Service provoked the incident" and "the police intervention did not help the meeting of the prime ministers". So there was an expressed harm to high level talks, and accusation of Hungary as a state actor in just this short article. Or here is this English language article ( I had to fix it's link it was broken in the article) Spontaneous demonstrations were held in Budapest at the embassy and the consulate of Slovakia on the night of the incident. Here it's not only the incident itself that's significant but the subsequent high level state actions(comments by prime ministers, foreign ministers, formal requests of proof etc). I will search for more sources a later when I have more time.  Hobartimus (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, Happenstance asked if I would be willing to help mediate a dispute here. I indicated that I would, if other parties were interested in my help. Looking through this page, i'm seeing a lot of heat and a little light. If you actually are interested in resolving this dispute (which I assume you all are, could somebody please offer a neutrally-worded summary of the dispute? The Wordsmith Communicate 17:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a crack. On 23 March I nominated this version of the article for deletion. EllsworthSK's comment was typical of the response: "Though my opinion on the quality of the article is rather low, deletion of it does not solve anything". I closed the AfD on the 28th, and commented it was never my intention to delete the article permanently, rather encourage a rewrite. That day I rewrote the article, removing content that I found to be either horrendously biased, or that in my understanding of the field of international relations was irrelevant, which amounted to a significant percentage of the article. User:Emika22 commented on my talk expressing disapproval of the AfD but support of the changes, and a hope that "rational minds will prevail and they won't be reverted back". User:Hobartimus appended his own comment, claiming that I violated several policies, and a discussion about my perceived biases and the applicability of the invoked policies ensued on my and Emika22's talks, alongside edit warring. User:Nmate dug through my userspace and editing history (going back several years) and declared I am not to be trusted, both to me and to Emika22. Edit warring continued and a discussion on my talk developed discussing the field of international relations and the realist paradigm, which I nor User:Wladthemlat were able to explain to Hobartimus or User:CoolKoon. I was continually reassured of my horrendous biases towards all and sundry, and seeing the debate go nowhere I requested mediation from an uninvolved WP:MEDCAB admin, User:The Wordsmith. Some more edit warring followed before you were able to begin mediating, alongside the discussion on this talk-page, above, in which Hobartimus actively resisted all my attempts at generating discussion of the rewrite rather than the rewriter, until prompted to do exactly that a third party - User:Off2riorob. The section just above is the very first attempt at discussing content.
 * The above was the neutral run-down, now this is me talking: The 'discussion' was laden with personal attacks, questions about my credibility and even demands for my academic credentials. It was initially assumed I must be Slovak, which after my sound denial was followed by assumptions of Slovak ancestry. This was followed by assertions I must have been influenced by a 'Slovak girlfriend', which despite their humour value are again untrue. I stated I was Australian. When it was 'discovered' I spoke Czech (by Nmate, who remarked: "So nothing is possible for you to believe. Good to know this."), bias was inherently assumed because of who I was seen to be rather than how I acted or who I was - I speak Czech and thus it was rather curiously assumed I must be a Slovak nationalist. I was quick to remark I also speak Japanese, with no inherent biases towards Korea. From the very beginning of the dispute I continued to encourage discussion of the changes themselves (rather than me and my motives/supposed policy violations) to no avail, Hobartimus refused to discuss what his problems with my changes were even when unambiguously instructed to, continuing to refer to various pieces of largely unrelated policy and suggesting that absolutely any removal of content for whatever reason is completely verboten and he will be 'forced' to deal with me as a vandal. Hobartimus' behaviour and tone remained condescending and confrontational despite me trying to patiently explain the concepts behind my rewrite to him on my talk, and he took care never to approach discussing the actual changes, preferring to focus on my biases and the policies I had supposedly violated, often entirely ignoring my replies altogether. Even now I still don't know quite where Hobartimus' problem with my rewrite lies, other than that it is more succinct than the original. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a...wall of text. Anyway, though, I think i've got enough information to begin mediating, if all parties are agreeable to such. The first thing I will require is that we focus on the content, not the users involved. Any personal attacks or insinuations about editors' motives (from anybody involved here) will be met with warnings to redact, followed swiftly by blocks. What we need to remember is that we're all here for the good of the encyclopedia, and that we just have different ideas on what that means. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I cannot agree to any mediation until conduct issues are resolved at the appropriate forums. Thank you. Hobartimus (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By blocking the resolution process you are simply demonstrating that you have no interest in improving the article, and that this has become a petty personal dispute for you. It has not become one for me. An article's talk page is for discussing the article, if you have nothing more to say about it I suggest you take any problems you may have with me elsewhere. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my right to reject the mediation and indeed I have done so. I warn you to follow Wikipedia policies and not to make personal attacks as you have done above ("petty personal dispute"). Hobartimus (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "better, new, improved article"
After the deletion of this article failed, many historical facts, which may be touchy toward Slovakia had been removed from the article under the spirit of "let's make the article better and neutral", while mock, and anti-Hungarian informations had been added. Examples from the "new and neutral" article: "The arrangement left a Hungarian minority residing on the territory of Slovakia, analogous (Analogous? The editor of this sentence had forgotten to mention that more than 800000 Hungarians were forced to became Czechoslovak citizens, thus creating a sizeable minority in Slovakia, (30% of the population) while only 100000 remained in Hungary (1.8% of the population) and only to the German minority in the Czech lands, and a much smaller Slovak minority in Hungary, who were forcefully assimilated.[3] (Although the forced deportation, assimilation and persecution of the Hungarian community had been also erased from the article, the fate (i.e their forced assimilation) of the "sizeable" Slovak community is still represented and referenced with an unreliable source). Other -referenced- events, (almost the whole history section) which still influance modern Slovak-Hungarian relationship had been also removed:


 * "When Slovaks became a distinct people is not precisely known"
 * The Treaty of Trianon and the development of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. (The new borders were mostly drawn through areas of ethnic Hungarian majority, leaving 30% of the Hungarians (about 3,300,000 people) outside Hungary.)
 * Slovakization and deportation of the Hungarian population. +population exchanges ([Hungarian population] has been reduced over the years from over 31% (1910) to today's less than 10% (2001, )
 * The Beneš decrees
 * The 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs

Why?--  B@xter 9 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "When Slovaks became a distinct people is not precisely known" is unnecessary and POV, because this is true about any nation in the world, as nation forming is a long and also a very recent process. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of the article, it may have its place in a thorough article on history. The fact that you miss one exact sentence borderlining POV, not content and/or principle, actually tells a lot about your real motivation. Rephrasing is normal on Wikipedia.
 * I have to disagree with you. Of course, if there are (and there are) contradictious theories, they should be mentioned to sustain the neutrality of the article. However dont forget that Ján Slota often talks about the 'spiritual heritage of Cyril and Methodius’ or 'we were here first' and he accused the Hungarians many times for the 'millennium long opression'.--  B@xter 9 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The new borders - again, you are missing an exact wording, the principle is included in the section and the details can be found in an article on the Trianon treaty.
 * The presence of the sizeable Hungarian minority in Slovakia often breeds tensions between Slovakia and Hungary. As Mr. Slota said: Hungarian minority "is a tumour in the body of the Slovak nation." So I think it is worth enough to mention the evolvement (i.e. The borders cut deeply into territories inhabited by ethnic Hungarians) of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia.--  B@xter 9 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Benes decrees are mentioned in a header of a whole subsection and then explained, with wikiling attached. Charging happenstance with 'deleting upleasant content' is therefore out of place.
 * I missed that link, sorry.--  B@xter 9 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are reading the sentence with 'analogous' in a wrong way, it actually compares the German minority in Czech lands with the Hungarian one in Slovakia. A fair comparison by any standard.
 * Oh.. You are right! The comparison is ok. BTW, you had forgotten to respond to the Slovakization, deportation part. "The forced assimilation" of the Slovak minority in Hungary is mentioned, while the fate of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia is not mentioned with a single word. I am not charging happenstance, I dont know who added this info. But until these events are not mentioned the theory of the removal of 'upleasant content' is not out of place.--  B@xter 9 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, IMO the wikiling to the 2006 diplomatic issues can be added, but that does not merit reverts. Add the link to the read more section and everuthing's ok. The new version is not regarded as final anyway. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You act like there's nobody influencing the relations, just Slota. You used him as THE argument and I say, I don't care what he said and neither should wikipedia. The article deals with interstate relations of which Slota is just a tiny part. And to OR a sentence just because Slota said something is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a place for you to persuade Slota's sympathizers of your truth, it's an encyclopedia.
 * You have just admitted that almost everything you were missing is actually in the article yet you pertain the POV charges because of the Slovakization thing. I think that the assimilation part could be done better, other than that, the article's good and no reverts merited. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr Slota was elected by the Slovak people so he represents the thoughts of many Slovaks.(furthermore he and his party is the member of the current Slovak government). Therefore, if Mr. Slota states something (like "the destruction of the capital of Hungary by Slovak tanks", or "the Hungarian minority is a tumour in the body of the Slovak nation") it will get international attention and will manipulate relationships. Furthermore, it will have consequences (i.e. it will appear somewhere). As I said, this article is imperfect and yes, the assimilation section should be improved.--  B@xter 9 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s."You have just admitted that almost everything you were missing is actually in the article" I have only checked the "History" section. I did not read further, but I can tell you that I agree with you that the Slota quotations should be moved to a separate article or to wikiquotes and linked from there.--  B@xter 9 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree. I would also welcome a draft of the history section the way you wish to see it (along any other improvements); I tried to keep it very brief and it is indeed possible I may have omitted something that I oughtn't have. I also operated under the assumption that if a fact is disputable and isn't too significant it should probably be removed. There really is no reason to have a "he claims[1][2][3][4], she claims[5][6][7][8]"-type dispute occurring which isn't even relevant to the topic, especially not in the history section which should be an extremely factual, non-controversial and succinct summary. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both countries have a 1000 years long common history so I think the history section should be a little bigger. Unfortunately the present form skips centuries, while the older one focused too much upon the "bad memories" (i.e. deportation of Hungarians). The "good memories", like important persons with mixed Slovak-Hungarian background (Matthias Bel, Sándor Petőfi (?), Lajos Kossuth were not mentioned.--  B@xter 9 09:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that naming people with mixed origin is what this article needs. It is supposed to be about the relations between Slovakia and Hungary, which means 1993-onwards predominantly. I don't see how Bell's or Petofi's presence fits. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, as you wish. (I thought that this article will contain informations regarding the Slovak-Hungarian relationship too...) Then delete the whole history section, since Slovakia exists only from 1993. (or write a new one which contains information exclusively from 1993).--  B@xter 9 11:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it's strictly kept succinct and neutral, I personally wouldn't mind keeping the section. — what a crazy random happenstance 12:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the removal of the Slota quotes and place them on his page (where they ar emore relevant), as I proposed already twice...Knorrepoes (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the opinion of Knorrepoes. A voice of the Government (SNS's views) is always relevant. Just as the Hungarian MSZP-SZDSZ and now FIDESZ government is relevant the SNS-SMER government is and the next one elected in Slovakia will be relevant as well. The government is always relevant. Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, hate to say it, but you're alone in this. We all agree that although Slota's quotes are connected with the topic, their place is not in this article. Wikilinking should suffice. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said it before: the best solution would be to i) create a separate article like: "Statements of Ján Slota" or something like this, ii) create a wikiquote page.

--  B@xter 9 11:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 I would like to say, that even the admins support our opinion, to quote EdJohnston:

'''"The version of this article that was nominated for deletion on 26 March looks truly scary. (See Sections 12 and 13 of the article). If this were a BLP, admins would be taking drastic action. " - therefore I think we can finally conclude that this version indeed is a starter and should be gradually improved. But a slip to the previous quality should be very strictly avoided. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)'''

This is completely false, Wladthemlat. If you look at the template on the article it says on it very clearly that the protection is not an endorsement of the then current version that was protected. Why that version was protected is due to disruptive edit warring in which YOU made four reverts in 26 hours and by this brute force method that your version happened to be protected. This is not an endorsement of that version nor the brute force mass reverts which achieved it. And please do not take things out of context, the above sentence was a reply to a 3RR report about your violation:

Previous version reverted to: 

* 1st revert: 12:32, 10 April 2010
 *  2nd revert: 13:32, 10 April 2010
 *  3rd revert: 07:58, 11 April 2010
 *  4th revert: 14:57, 11 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: much familiar with the rules

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Comments:

''Here he have a user, who is very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, yet continues to break them repeatedly. It seems that after 5 blocks all for 3RR and edit warring related He continues to edit war some more. All of his edits here remove over 36 000 bytes of content, double the size of our average articles, and over 60 sources also. It is highly evident that this mass deletion of sourced information and blanking has no consensus, but Wladthemat keeps making the same edit over and over again. All the edits are within 26 hours, yet with the other factors (such as past violations) and the repeated blanking which is highly disruptive, I ask that admin action is taken. ''

The report clearly shows edit warring behavior and disruption from none other than YOU Wladthemat. So I would not bring this up very much as evidence or justification of your actions. It is exactly the opposite. Hobartimus (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I know that very well. I did not say, that the current protection is endorsement of anything. I just reposted an admin's opinion on the version that has been here before. It is not common for the admins to express their opinion in such a blunt way, and no context you try to put this into changes the fact that EdJohnston called it "truly scary". It's the very version you are currently reverting to. And btw. my "violation" was no 3RR violation, and you know it. You are edit-warring at least as vigorously as I am here, the difference being that I have asked for dispute resolution (instead of abusing the 3RR noticeboard as you did with me and with Knorrepoes). And the other difference being that I am debating substance and the principle of the article, whereas you are constantly hiding behind misinterpretation of various policies. Remember, WP:BURO and WP:IAR. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the same version, and this can be easily verified. I invite everyone to look at the history of the article and check The pre-Afd version it's around 50 000 bytes, while the current version is 57 000. Accounting for other changes (I personnaly fixed a lot of stuff since then so again it's not the same) it is proven to be not the same version. The fact that it was mentioned at all, means unfortunately that the soapboxing and the theatrics and abuse at the Afd process worked to some extent. Meaning granting an unfair advantage by abuse of policy in a content dispute, when someone doesn't have the time to check everything in detail that shouldn't have happened. Anyway protection is not an endorsement. The biggest problem I see that through all the abuse, a false choice was given between this version and that version, when small steps should have been made in which we all agree on. And all this could have been avoided if just a normal wikipedia process is applied like a normal editor who seeks to improve an article. The only section discussion here is the football incident one and that's after weeks of edit warring without consensus. That is not normal. I never heard anyone claim that there was consensus once. I never heard Happenstance say that he got consensus for the edits he made I never heard you say it. So that's either highly problematic making so many repeated edits against consensus, or I missed that part where Happenstance claimed he had consensus for his edit. In fact in your case, in the beggining you added more information. You were for adding even more things before you were against it. Hobartimus (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was always for shortening and cleaning up this article substantially, but since you and your crew (meatpuppets, maybe?) have privatized this article, there's not much a single editor can do to change it. Your tactics is always to point to technicalities and intentionally ignore the big picture. 7000 chars is not a substantial difference, it is safe to conclude that it's the version you are fighting for, what's the problem.
 * Moreover, you are still attacking the technicalities of the process by which the new version came about, instead of honestly debating content and whether or not it helps the article. Once again, WP:BURO, please stop twisting the meaning of policies (such as claiming that this is blanking, which it most certainly is not) and guidelines. You are encountering increased resistance, where it's not just previously involved editors who is expressing their discontent with the article you have conceived, the most rational step would be to evaluate pros and cons of both versions.
 * Happenstance engaged in a discussion repeatedly, you did not even bother to point out what you are missing in the new version. After his numerous attempts it is safe to assume that you are unable to provide anything of substance and your current behaviour is just obstructions to prevent someone else edit "your" article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rarely do I see so many bad faith attacks in a single post. I was never married to a single version of the article, and now we discuss it at length. The problem was that were very few suggestions on how to improve the article, what to do with it what sources to use, what's missing. Once the false choice was made even you were not interested in improving the original version (before you added things to it, edited it) after that the only interest was reverting. The counter to this would have been never to "start" a process like this but start with a suggestion, a post to the talk page, something constructive. If I watch over the talk page history I see no such a thing. Anyway the only section discussion I see were the football incident one and that's typical of the problem. Sources clearly say(in the article, the ones I brought, and more can be found) that the incident was important, relevant and affected bilateral relations. Then along comes someone with no knowledge of the topic and comes up not with countering sources or Wikipedia policies, but his own unverified "expert opinion" "the sources are wrong, I know better because I read about this in a book". How do you edit wikipedia like that, based on personal preferences and not based on sources? What if that editor leaves wikipedia after a time and a new person comes with different personal thoughts, he read different books, he prefers other things. Should we rewrite the articles every time someone new comes along with a different preference? The whole process seems like something that can be brute forced in a few cases but which will never work on a bigger scale. Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. Really, Wladthemlat, don't. If he has valid points about the article he is free to make them - that's what this page is for, if he continues to make nothing but malicious and far-fetched accusations against other editors, he isn't worthy of responding to. A promising discussion about content has now been needlessly derailed, which is exactly what Hobartimus wanted. A forests' worth of olive branches have been extended and mediation offered - he has no interest in seeing this dispute solved. — what a crazy random happenstance 11:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Still missing from the article

 * Agreements
 * Economic relations
 * Cultural and scientific links
 * Diplomatic relations--  B@xter 9 12:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly, this should be the focus from now on. I also agree with moving Slota's quotes on wikiquote (I am not familiar with it though, so I am not sure if moving so many of them is feasible. Anyway, the alternative option is to create a separate wikipedia article) Wladthemlat (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Country comparison: (?)--  B@xter 9 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, where do you plan to put it? It needs to be sourced, just grabbing the refs from the main country articles is fine. The 'Ethnic groups' need percentages for Slovakia too, and I don't think the language section is really necessary - especially considering it could be disputable (eg. regional languages, etc.). The GDP per capita could go on a separate row, though that's not vital. — what a crazy random happenstance 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the languages can stay as the row says 'official languages' which are easy to determine, the local percentage-conditioned official use is not regarded as an 'official language' per se, but I'd better check and come back to you later with it. Other than that the table looks nice, and yes, the refs are needed. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we don't really need the language field altogether, it is discussed under the 'language laws' heading in better detail. Also, 'Republic of Slovakia' should be 'Slovak Republic'. — what a crazy random happenstance 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do we reckon? It still needs the sources for each of those figures though. — what a crazy random happenstance 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me likeyWladthemlat (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominal GDP in $ changes, when the exchange rate moves so a date or something is needed for that. Hobartimus (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The GDP is calculated only once every year, and it's assumed that we're using the most recent data. The ref, when added, should have the year. — what a crazy random happenstance 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Added references as requested. The US work is in the Public Domain.--  B@xter 9 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The minorities section has become inconsistent and a little bloated - minimalism is better here, we should cut it back to majority group, one minority group and Others. I don't think more are really necessary. The GDP could be shortened to, for example: "$124.241 billion USD (2009)" or "US$124.241 billion (2009)", it is understood to be an estimate. Good job on the sourcing. — what a crazy random happenstance 09:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The minorities section is false outright in the case of Hungary. There never was 2% (200 000) Serbs in Hungary on the area within it's present borders as that source claims. The numbers in that source are so wrong it's not even funny they are completely made up numbers and it's total comes to 100%, apparently according to that nonsense there is not 0.1% of all other nationalities combined. Just for fun I checked the 2001 census and it recorded 7,350 or 0.07% Serbs not the 2% (200 000) which is just unexplainable. I wouldn't even put this data in a talk page much less an article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find the US Department of State quite trustworthy. Is there a possible reason for the discrepancy? — what a crazy random happenstance 08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just as surprised. As it is admitted in the case of Roma it is an estimate. What I don't understand how can only 1 data point be an estimate and the others hard data, yet the sum still be exactly 100%. It seems that this is all some sort of estimate, or a combination of an estimate and some sort of data from unknown source. The number of Germans is pretty close to usual numbers, the number of Roma pretty close to usual estimates, Romanians Slovaks bit overstated to what's usual but not by that much, and the number of Serbs is just much much more, It's not clear where that number comes from. Also there is a lack of an "other" category. Anyway since this is not the main topic of the article I won't waste more comments on this, that Serb's number just stood out too much not to mention it. Hobartimus (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the data from the link Hobartimus provided (the statistic bureau), but I agree with Happenstance that the largest minority groups should mentioned and the rest shoved under 'other', the table isn't really that important, it doesn't have to be bloated. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with using the census data, it seems to more accurate. — what a crazy random happenstance 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All good? It should be right-aligned in the article, but I'm not sure where to place it. Renaming the 'History' section to 'Background' and putting it in place of the map there would seem best. — what a crazy random happenstance 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Overview section, right under the map seems to be the best place. Nice table, bytheway. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no room there as far as I can see. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)