Talk:Magyarization/Archive 2

Definition
The article uses at least three definitions of Magyarisation, let's decide which one is correct, which one is not. We need a clear definition in the lead, otherwise it's POV. Squash Racket 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * policies applied
 * referring to geographical and personal names: renaming
 * "in broader sense": ethnic discrimination
 * "identity shift, which would compel someone to identify with the Hungarian ethnicity, while having no Hungarian ancestors".


 * The term Magyarization is also sometimes used to refer to broader ethnic discrimination, which was used as a rationale for Magyarization.
 * Sentence of the year, dudes. Squash Racket 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent question - How can it be understood in an NPOV sense as anything but a series of policies? Other issues such as discrimination or renaming may or may not be "causes" or "results" of Magyarization; but the subject of the article is firstly "Magyarization".  KoH between 1867 and 1918 was politically very unique, by both modern and historical standards, and forcing POV via narrow modern context is misleading to most (esp. native) English-speaking people.  This article must take a more objective look at the exact laws within the scope of "Magyarization" and abide less spleen-venting POV. István 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Magyarization" includes all these things. Magyarization is the process of changing non-magyar things to magyar. There are many things how to do it, including those you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your NPOV comment, but the different definitions contradict each other in the article. Squash Racket (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, that the definition at the beginning of the article is OK. Except the dates, which should be removed or marked with something like "especially in the 19th ..."
 * The other "definitions" in this article are not definitions, but merely the tools used for magyarization.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

putting it all in context
At some point I'd like to see a bit more explanation of the historical events and political conditions that led to the Magyarization policies. I've always seen it as an unfortunate but perhaps inevitable backlash against several centuries of primarily Austro-German cultural dominance, the flames of which were obviously fanned by the ethnic fighting in 1848-49. From what I can tell there was a real sense of fear in those days that the Magyar people and Magyar culture were in danger of essentially vanishing, being swallowed up by a Germanic monolith to the west and a Slavic one to the east. And before you all jump on me, no, I'm not defending or trying to "excuse" the regrettable era of cultural chauvinism that ensued, but I think it deserves to be put in its proper historical context. K. Lásztocska 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That was probably this way, but could you get some sources for your theory? Until that it would be hard to change the article. Squash Racket 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there were some statements to this effect in The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat by Paul Lendvai (Princeton 2003, I believe) but I don't have the book with me anymore so I can't look for the exact statements and proper citations right now--sorry! Just wanted to put in my two cents and get the ball rolling. K. Lásztocska 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What you mention is the "attack is the best defense" or "preventive strike" system. This never led to good results, like it didn't give good results in the case of Magyarization (just my opinion, feel free to comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Emigration Figures
Before implying that Magyarization was responsible for the disproportionately higher percentage of non-Hungarian emigrants from the KoH one must also 1. consider Geography, and 2. keep an explicit distinction between the meanings of "emigrant" and "refugee". The article states (without reference) that the major sources of emigration were in the north of Slovakia and the southern Vojvodina provinces, both on the borders of Hungary, and both heavily populated by minorities. If true, this would skew figures, as sometimes people move home only a few km, even if only to the next town, and if the next town happens to be across the border then those people are technically emigrants (but not necessarily refugees). In the KoH, the border was only in one sense "national" (hence the KoH's unique political status) yet mostly still within the empire, and likely ethnically similar on one side as the other and thus not much disincentive to cross. Such a move is technically "emigration". Hungarians in the center would have to move home a much greater distance to cross a border. The article disingenuously uses "emigration" figures to imply that "Magyarization" generated "refugees". Whether this is true or not remains to be proven, only after one also addresses economic trends of the time, and the question of Geography. István 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the primary motivation must have been overwhelmingly economic. As to cross-border migration, it did not apply to the Kingdom's northern counties. The adjacent areas in Galicia had been poorer than the northern counties of the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries. Any traceable historical migration in the area took place from Galicia/Podhale to the Kingdom's more prosperous "Upland," not the other way round. Any such migration had become insignificant by the period under discussion. Carca220nne (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Election system
I have some difficulty in understanding the part on the election system, where it says "Transylvania had an even worse representation, the more Romanian a county was, the fewer voters did it possess. Out of the Transylvanian deputies sent to Budapest, 35 represented the 4 mostly Hungarian counties and the chief towns (together forming 20% of the population), whereas only 30 deputies represented another 72% of the population, which was predominantly Romanian. In other words, among Romanians there was an average of one deputy to every 60,000 inhabitants, while among the Hungarians one deputy to 4-5,000.[21][22]" I can't check the references, but 4,000 Hungarian inhabitants per deputy would make 140,000 Hungarians in Transylvania and (considering it refers to the whole of Parliament, with 413 deputies total) 1,652,000 in all KoH. This fails to work any way, either if we talk about Hungarians only or the whole population. Even if we suppose that all deputies of the Parliament were Hungarians (what obviously isn't true), this would set the number of all Hungarians in KoH only to 1,652,000, and this figure gets even more unrealistic with every minority deputy that you subtract from the total 413 deputies. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many deputies there were in the whole Parliament, but if you say that there were 413 in total, then you are right, those proportions cannot really work. And from the text, it's not clear what is the regional scale they were applied to. It would certainly help if we could get the actual list with the deputies. This would clarify everything. But at least for me, that's impossible. However, for a History enthusiast in Budapest who can access the Archives, this might be an interesting task. But until we get some more information on the issue, I agree with you that the proportions should be eliminated from the article, as they seem wrong. Alexrap (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find the number of deputies in the KoH parliament in a number of sources, e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsz%C3%A1ggy%C5%B1l%C3%A9s (453 total, of which 43 were delegates from Croatia, 413 from Hungary proper). I don't have much time these days to clarify what the real proportions could have been, but I'll have a look at the issue when I get to a library. At least, I put the task on my agenda... Zigomer trubahin (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The commander of the hungarian gendarmarie troop shooting in Cernova was not Slovak
The commander of the hungarian gendarmarie troop in Cernova was underofficer Pereszlényi, an ethnic Hungarian. This information is verified, among others, by an eye-witness, mister Cernovski from Cernova.

Therefore, the revert was not justified. For the same reason, the edit comment in the edit summary is misleading.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The shoot command was given by Ján Ladiczky after Pereszlényi repeatedly ordered the coach to advance through a mass of people. He and other members of the troop are said to be ethnic Slovaks (i.e. people identifying them with Slovakia), but this information is verified by a newspaper from 2008 only, so a more relevant source should be found, preferably a record from the state registry archive. The name "Ladiczky" looks like a magyarized version of the name "Ladický", so I have my doubts.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text
Hobartimus, could you please explain why are you insisting in deleting/modifying the following things: The only reason you gave so far was that Olahus inserted that text in the first place. So what? Is he not allowed to contribute? Alexrap (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you seem not to like the fact that Romanians were a majority in Transylvania. For some strange reason you are saying that Romanians were a majority in Southern Transylvania only. And you also put a 'citation needed' tag in there, too. Well, there is no need for any citation in there, just have a look on the official Hungarian censuses, that you can check for example in the History of Transylvania article. And stop implying that the Romanian majority was a characteristic of the Southern Transylvania only. It was for all of it.
 * the fact that John Hunyadi's father was Vlach is included even in the article about John Hunyadi. Why would you delete that from here?
 * you also delete the text discussing the change in the ethnic composition between 1869 and 1910. That text uses information recorded by Hungarian censuses. What do you have against it?
 * why do we need the 'citation needed' tag for the phrase: Romanian name "Ion Negru" would become "János Fekete", or the Slavic name "Novo Selo" would become "Újfalu"? These are just translations. Shall we cite a dictionary in there?
 * you also deleted the text talking about the Greek-catholic people in Hungary. Again, why?


 * Alex I don't know if you have trouble understanding but I actually did not write any of this stuff that you accuse me of. If you read the edit summary it will be clear that it's only a revert (return to a previous version) of undiscussed changes. Also János Hunyadi's ancestry has nothing to do with this article which deals with mainly 19th century topic. You might address your questions to ppl who actually wrote the previous version. Hobartimus (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I wasn't saying that you wrote that text in the first place. I was only against some modifications you made to it. Alexrap (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some serious problems with this text:
 * the simply horrible English
 * the first reference doesn't prove what the text claims to prove (I don't understand the second, Romanian one)
 * the diocesan homepage history section claims that the Greek rite was continous among some Hungarian groups from the early Middle Ages and other Rusyn and Romanian groups who moved to the Alföld assimilated into Magyars during the 13-18th centuries.

This story about the origin of Greek-Catholic Magyars is totally different from what Olahus presented here, ie. they were created by forceful Magyarization in the 19th century. Zello (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know much about this issue, but, from what I can see, the first reference explicitly says that the eparchy was seen (even by its founders) as an instrument of Magyarizing Greek Catholics. The second reference says the same thing (on page 18). Unfortunately I cannot read the diocesan homepage that you make reference to, but I take your word for it. Anyway, these 3 references don't necessarily contradict each other. In 1912 when the eparchy was founded, there could well have been Greek rite Magyars (some originally Magyars and others Rusyns Magyarized before 1912) and Greek rite non-Magyars (Romanians and Rusyns). The point was to get all these under the same roof and to promote Hungarian in the liturgy. Which is why the subject is relevant to this article. And I guess the "horrible English" can always be improved. Alexrap (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first reference claims to prove that Greek Catholic Hungarians had mostly Rusyn "descendants" (obviously ancestors). I don't see this statement in the referenced text. I think you are absolutely right that in 1912 Greek Catholics were a diverse group with different ethnic background. But Olahus claimed that every living Greek Catolic Hungarian is a product of modern Magyarization policy. The two statements are contradictory. In my point of view the Hajdúdorog movement was not a tool of Magyarization but an expression of the natural wishes of people to hear the sermons on their mother language instead of Greek. Hungarian was certainly the mother language of the majority of this community in 1912 although some subgroups adopted it only in the 19th century while others centuries before. Zello (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The sins of the J...Magyars
This article is like a "list of the Sins of the Magyars" to me, and not the description of Magyarization. The artile could be simply renamed to "The Protocols of the Elders of Pannonia" in this form, since it has long long conspiracy theories mixed with reality and popular beliefs to prove, that Magyars conspired to raid and destroy her ethnicities. This is an anti-magyar essay (just see language, for example: "We have to poin it out" - Who are those "we"?) And so on.

This is so huge and massive, that I hardly believe it would be possible to clean it up, since deleting and rewrinting would be a lot easier. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced numbers
User:Csokyspite added a lot of unsourced numbers to the article. Regarding the 1910 census data all the numbers were changed citing a false reference which only gives numbers about the counties but not the whole country. This reference fails to prove the new numbers but gives the false impression the reader that the numbers are sourced. I don't know whether the numbers are correct or not but this behaviour seriously undermines the credibility of wikipedia, even more than the previous, unsourced version. The other numbers about the Jews are totally unreferenced. Although I think the edits of Csokyspite constitute vandalism I wouldn't like to break the three revert rule. User:Csokyspite should give us his credible, scientific source for the new numbers or the edits should be undone by other users. Zello (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not abort the official census results of 1910. Total population was 20.8 million (Including Croatia) 2.9 million Romanians-14.1% 2 million Germans-9.7% 1.96 mill. Slovak-9.4%. Only 80% of the Jews were Hungarian in 1910.Csokyspite (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How many times should I type the correct figueres???
 * without Croatia: Hun 54.5% Rom 16.1%
 * with Croatia Hun 48.2% Rom 14.1%
 * Is it really so difficult to understand??Csokyspite (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you type them without giving a source for them. The source you given doesn't prove anything, it is misleading. There is still no source for the Jews that you also changed. Zello (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ip, Treznea
I see mention of these two events (1940) has been removed. I don't know if that's correct, so let's discuss it and see what we conclude. My position: of course the phenomenon mainly covers 1848/67-1918, but the Hungarian administration in N. Transylvania (1940-44) actively tried to re-Magyarize. On the other hand, that mainly took the form of driving out the Romanians (and, in a few instances, killing them), quite unlike the earlier phase. So I think probably the article should stop at 1918, unless we can find reliable sources labelling 1940-44 as a sort of "second wave" of Magyarization. Thoughts? Biruitorul Talk 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition in the lead says "until the beginning of the 20th century". Do you have (possibly English language) reliable sources describing World War II events as Magyarization? Squash Racket (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No - as I said, "the article should stop at 1918". Should sources turn up, however, we should reconsider that. Biruitorul Talk 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "setonwatson1911" :
 * R.W. Seton-Watson, Corruption and reform in Hungary, London, 1911
 * R.W. Seton-Watson, Corruption and reform in Hungary, London, 1911, pp.403

New image
Can you somebody fix this image on page (mi english is not very got for description it :) ) thx This tablet is on building: International house of art for children in Bratislava(Slovakia)



Potocny


 * I added that picture to the article. --Wizzard (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A memorial is not a reference. Please provide a reliable source for what the text says. Especially the part about "tens of thousands of Slovak children deported" is hard to believe, a reliable reference is needed. Squash Racket (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the official Slovak point of view there were deported tens of thousands of Slovak children. So, I don't see where the problem is. We can mention in the description of the picture that this is the Slovak point of view. We can also mention something about the official Hungarian point of view (if there is something to say). --Olahus (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If the official Slovak POV states that "tens of thousands of Slovak children were deported", then I don't think it will be difficult to find a reliable reference for that. This picture would be an illustration, not the source itself. Squash Racket (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about this extensive source? --Wizzard (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, this is a family site. Please check it yourself next time. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a Slovak POV, but whay shouldn't we represent it? Because Squash Racket doesn't want it? The source is official. --Olahus (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "official" source is a family site. Haven't even heard Slovaks talking about "deportation of tens of thousands of children". Squash Racket (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What family site are you talking about? Even so, we cannot interpret the sources anyhow with our personal points of view. The fact that you personally didn't hear Slovaks talking about is not a reliable argument. Why don't you better bring a serious counter-argument? --Olahus (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, guys. It is not anyone's POV, it is a fact. Why should the Slovak ministry of culture lie about this? It was not only a few thousands children. It is only a top of the iceberg. Where are those 300 000 Slovaks that lived in Hungary at the beginning of the 20th century? Which nationality they belong to now? --Wizzard (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The family site is a family site, the government memorial is not a third, neutral party. I'm still waiting for a neutral, reliable source for this, I hope "tens of thousands of deported Slovak children" didn't go unnoticed. Squash Racket (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You may require a "third party" only after you presented a counter-argument with a similar value than the one rejected by you. The picture is a reliable source, because the source is official. Do you have any source for your statement? You can't just say that "the source istn't good" - it's not a serious argument. --Olahus (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you talking about Squash Racket the minister of culture is not good source? And what is good source? some side from hungaria? Hungaria was aggressor but everything what said somebody from romania, serbia, slovakia ... (victims of magyarization) is lie. Just hungarian now what is thrue or not. Potocny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.232.186.99 (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not Olahus who decides when the community (not me) may require a neutral source. When it comes to controversial issues, governmental sources are not accepted for obvious reasons (neutrality). Squash Racket (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hungary and Slovakia are not enemies, so we cannot have the suspicion that Slovakia would try to denigrate Hungary. Slovakia and Hungary are today democratic countries, members of EU and NATO. Both countries are allies today. However, nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say the the picture is a source for something. --Olahus (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This photograph indicates that a monument makes the statement engraved on it. It doesn't tell us that the statement is true, or even that the current government officials agree with it. While it can be used as a source for the contents of the monument, it shouldn't be a sole source for historical events. Better to find a regularly printed source for the basic assertions and then add that a monument to makes these claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And whyt did you expect to read on this monument? An additional text that says "It's not an April Fool's joke" ? --Olahus (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please respect WP:CIV. Will Beback is an admin also dealing with reliability of sources.
 * If "tens of thousands of children" really were "deported to Hungarian territory", then presenting a reliable source confirming that won't be too difficult. The relations between Hungary and Slovakia are considered the worst in the European Union, so a Slovak memorial is simply not enough to prove the reliability of such a controversial text. Squash Racket (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Irony is not incivility. But let's return to our discussion: as I already said above, nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say the the picture is a source for an unquoted and disputed sentece. But sure, request an administrator if it is necessary. --Olahus (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you're still looking for a source, take here one. As I read in your userpage, you are an advanced speaker of German. --Olahus (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be contributed by a secondary school in POZSONY . More reliable source please.
 * I already requested help at WP:RSN and I have to repeat my above comment: Will Beback is an admin also dealing with reliability of sources. Hope you'll read it this time.
 * Squash Racket (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Let an administrator decide about it. But, as I already said: nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say that the picture is or should be reagarded as a source for something. The picture shows an official Slovak point of view. It is official and therefore it is very reliable. Besides I never read anything about an possible objection from the Hungarian officials regarding this point of view. The only persons that dispute this point of view are Squash Racket (a Hungarian user that often tries to glorify Hungary) and some other Hungarian fellows of him. But remember WP:NPOV: your personal point of view regarding the official Slovak point of view about something that happened in the territory of present-day Slovakia is not an argument to remove this official statement of this country from the artice. --Olahus (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. The inclusion of the memorial without a printed reference was opposed by an administrator too despite what you said, partly because:"(...) However plaques and memorials are poor sources for facts. They are typically erected by partisans and cannot be corrected easily if there is an error. Further, the text is not attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)"
 * I think User:Olahus, who is currently banned from editing a number of Romania/Moldova related articles should NOT judge other editors who remain civil during this discussion. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? What does Romania's relationship with Moldova has to do with the article Magyarisation? Is your suggestion a personal attack against me? Are you trying to create a stereotype about me? Do you try to influence the administrators decision by presenting my dispute/edit-warring with Xasha? My temporary topic ban was caused because I was stupid and I lets myself get provoked very easily by the user Xasha, this user is a frequent issue for discussion on Administrators' noticeboard. Squash Racket, try better to remain consequentially and read the rules of this encyclopaedia. Thank you. --Olahus (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asking for a reliable source (like the one below), you added your opinion about me and "my fellows". The talk page is for discussing reliable sources and their content. BTW the reference below clearly confirms what the admin said about memorials being "poor sources for facts" and that these "are typically erected by partisans and cannot be corrected easily if there is an error". Squash Racket (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this will put an end to a lot of confusion: (use '1462' as a search keyword) http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no9_ses/13_swain.pdf --fz22 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Than it should be added in the description of the picture that this forced Magyarisation of Slovak children (pretended by the Slovak state) didn't took place. --Olahus (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Slovaks are manufacturing things like this "monument" just to brainwash the minds of Slovak people. Minorities and Hungarians lived and worked togeather for Centuries. Share a lot. Why is the Slovakian goverment doing this? I just realy hope that a lot of Slovaks dont eat this junk. I am a Hungarian, but from my fathers family tree Im German. The family name is Schmidthausern. Did my family change it? NO! Because nationalities were not forced to do so, my great grandfather told us that when I was a child. Something else->proto-slovak history is just made up. Everyone who can open a history book will see that Svatopluk had nothing to do with the people why live now in Slovakia. Not like King Stephen. Schmidthauser David. munka.racz@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.227.16 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is written from the slav point of view
This page is written from the slav point of view. Magyarization was not violent. Those executions in 1848 were in the middle of a revolution where the slavs allied the oppressive Habsburg empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.78.250 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Černová massacre happened in 1907 - long time after the revolution. And it was not the only case. Saying that Magyarization was not violent is like saying, that shooting and imprisoning people is a peaceful conflict solution.


 * Andrej Hlinka has been a controversial figure even among Slovak people, so the Cernova event alone is not a really good proof of the violent side of Magyarization. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the policemen shooting were Slovakians. So much for violent Hungarians.

Yes, this page is indeed very partial. In 1849 each citizen of Hungary had the same rights, while black people could not take the seat they wanted in a bus over one hundred years later! Undoubtedly there was an administrative struggle during the Austro-Hungarian period to make Hungarian language and culture more widespread, but the number of Slovak schools were diminished because people considered themselves more and more Hungarians due to economic and cultural welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.64.82 (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Magyarization in polish
I thought that Polish would have been one of the languages effected by Magyarization, Many of the accents and symbols are the same, E.g - Sz. Polish and Hungarian look closely related, which is un-usual because Polish is a Slavic based language and Hungarian is an Uralic language. user: Falcon-eagle2007, 7:53 GMT


 * Basically, this is not unusual if you realise, that the magyar language took many things from slavic languages. According to some sources, more than 10% of magyar word roots have slavic origin.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, it is more than 20%91.127.191.74 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, Hungarian diacritical marks mostly derive from the Hussite alphabet. I don't think any "Magyarization" of Polish could have occurred during history - when and how could it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.221.172 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely there was a direct influence on the Habsburgs' Polish territories because they lay in the "Austrian half" (Cisleithania) of the empire, rather than the "Hungarian half" (transleithania). Trouser34 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are a lot of Hungarian words in Polish (szereg, rokosz, ...) Arguing with an administrarive division to support the idea of language isolation is not a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.64.82 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization
If we include the sentence about "the European public being shocked", we will also have some info on the background of the event. As a proof of the violence of Magyarization as presented now, it is POV, misleading and unencyclopedic. Either we change the wording in a NPOV way or we have to really describe what happened there and why. Squash Racket (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So tell us your POV, what happened there and why?147.175.98.213 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pls check who gave orders and who was exactly shooting. It is true that the Hungarian csendor was giving the order, but the actual shooting was done by Slovaks. Abdulka (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Magyarization
I never heard about magyarization before finding this article, although I live in Hungary. Is it because they all lie to us in the school? Why is it that magyarization has no Hungarian name? What are its Slovakian, Romanian, etc. names? 81.182.236.155 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read same historical books (hungarian books - translate to czech language) from this part of our history .. and i think hungarian sources are untrustworthy (when i compare it with poland, czech, slovak, romanian .. sources). Problem is in ambition of part hungarian peoples (from academic field .. usualy) ... present history of Hungaria kingdom .........

''(i mean Hungaria before 1918 .. becouse in many languages Hungaria before and after 1918 is not to same .. Hungaria-Maďarsko existing from 1918 for czech, slovak, croat people etc. .. and "Hungaria kingdom" befor 1918 was mutli-etnic kingdom-Uhorsko) '' ....... like nice story with out same dark part - everything what is bad is "bunkum" (ideological or political history .. and there are working on enforce this historical view to other languages) - and this is so sad. I am from Slovakia and about Magyarization-Maďarizacia we are learning on school (Magyarization was presence on Slovakia longer like 1. century). And is not so far history .. so we can listen some authentic story from our grandparents (them parents lived during Magyarization) ........ prisons, denationalizing, ban on using other languages .... etc.

(actually i think .. when i watching TV ..hungarian people didnt know many things about Hungaria kingdom (before 1918) .. when i listening something abouth Slovak, Serbia, Romania living in Hungaria country .. there are steal ou country .. etc.)

see least:

Great Moravia (see nice map of Moravia on hungaria Wiki :) and compare)

Principality of Nitra

Balaton Principality (this topic dont exist on Hungaria Wiki) .. and btw: it was Slavic principal so for this reason .. Blatenske Principal (like Blatenské jazero-Clarts lake), Balaton is modificated slavic name (untranslated)

--Potocny (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course you also learn about slovakization and romanianization am i right? "When i watching TV ..slovakian people didnt know many things about slovakia before 1918, (Hungarian persons born in Slovakia in 1700(!) etc. in slovak wiki) .. when i listening something abouth Hungarians living in Slovakia, Serbia, Romania country .. there are steal ou country .. etc." See those articles: they dont exist on Slovakian/Romanian Wiki. Also: what is the meaning of presov and oradea? Baxter9 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but i dont understand you .. what hungarian people in 1700? (i have no idea what did you talking about) and what happened with Prešov? and what i have to looking for on Slovak wiki?


 * AD slovakization/romanianization (maybe serbization .. in future :-) .. when somebody make this articel): look on left side and you can see some translates of this articel (Magyarization). So Magyarization is historical fact for many peoples on world .. slovakization/romanianization are products of same angry peoples (and articel slovakization/romanianization existing only here on eng. wiki .. and meaby on HU wiki).


 * ps. and i living in Rožňava (city with 25% hungarian population) and i have many hungarians friends and there are never listened about slovakization :) .. them gradparents never listened about slovakization etc. .. you know why? Becouse this topic is just reaction on this articel (Magyarization) .. FOR MORE INFORMATIOM SEE: Talk:Slovakization (topic: Slovakization = poppycock)
 * and pls dont be angry (and biased) and try to be constructive .. thx --Potocny (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I learnt about Magyarization at school, so if you care to read some history books, you will learn about it too. As for Great Moravia map, the english wiki map was created by a Slovak nationalist wikipedia user, and the hungarian wiki map was created by a Hungarian linguist and historian...--143.167.235.164 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a nationalist lie hidden by an IP. The Slovak map is the same as in any modern Slovak map textbook, schoolbook etc., the Hungarian map contradicts archeaology, facts, written documents and is a simple nationalist propaganda picture trying to eradicate Slavs and Romanians from history (and it does not matter who the author is, 50 % of Hungarina historical texts are hypernationalists crap and everybody to the west and east of Hungary knows that, only the users of this wikipedia unfortunately do not). So please if you want to lie write a blog...And if you read the discussion of Slovakization and look at the history, it turns out that the article is a simple retaliation article created as a revenge for the creation of this article and that there is no other article or book in the world dealing with something like "slovakization" as its topic. And if anybody reads the article, there is no single correct sentence (at least) in the part concerning the last decades, no one single correct sentence, and even quoted sentences are taken out of context. Goebbels would be a greenhorn here, shame on you. Fghji526 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me about nationalist lies dear 1 hour Asdfghjkl123456789 account. --Bizso (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New text
We have a well-referenced text, which i checked personally (because of it`s size i was skeptic), everything is referenced by English sources therefore it should be included in the article. If some part presents the problem, let`s discuss it please.iadrian (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to see that referenced text is inane gibberish.iadrian (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Templates
I've removed some old templates that I consider to be unnecessary. Anyone who thinks they should be still kept is invited to present his arguments here (Iaaasi (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC))

Note
Though I'm not reverting back the undo made on my "corrections" (not without the correct source indications not have been made yet indeed) but this article in its current way is anti-hungarian. The main problem is that its goal is clearly to convict all living hungarians because of a historical fact magnified 1000 times larger by nowadays chauvinistic slovakians (mainly politicians) only recently, to explain (as if it could :-p) why exist the so called Benes decrees in Slovakia, which accuse germans and hungarians even today being collectively guilty, and why exist a punitive law against using hungarian language, or taking hungarian citizenship. We are in the 21st century.. Looks like Slovakia wants to live in times before it was even established..

Also in the 19th century the ethnic policy of Hungarian Kingdom was the best for minorities (also bad things had reasons, and without POVing it was not that bad as this article recalls it - with POV not even close..). If you search for what happened and still happens to ethnic or religous minorities in western Europe (France, GB) and to the east, you can easily find out, that you with the torn apart Hungarian Kingdoms countryparts, on which you've made (with a big outer help - because of economic reasons) your countries (the prototype great-pink-panslavic-dream-nightmare countries are over today) can be thankful for Hungarian Kingdom not following back there the "civilized", now "democratic" countries' way of caring about ethnicities. Outside Hungary they could chose to have been wiped out or just totally assimilated.. (Wikidtor (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Even if you had sources for this strange info, I don`t think that it is written according to the NPOV. Statements like
 * "(especially) by nationalist and chauvinist slovakians since the end of 20th century, after the independent Slovakia (on previous northern territories of Hungarian Kingdom) " 
 * "But never reached the rate of "slovacization" of the nowadays capitol of Slovakia, Pozsony (shamefully named Bratislava instead of f.e. Poson, which was the "original" slavic renaming of this city of the Hungarian Kingdom - also known by germans as Pressburg.) where the slavic people were never in majority. In order of nationalities: 1. Germans, 2. Hungarians, 3. Slavics."
 * Denying that magyariazation even took place - But in many cases it happened either way. Hungarians never forced someone to be hungarian. Those who (by slovakians sadly tend to name the "victims" of "magyarization") chose their identity freely. (It was not compulsory to write poems in hungarian! And also one without loving the Hungarian Kingdom, the nation, without advanced knowing of hungarian language never could have written any!)
 * And if someone is doubting that the "wandering of the large romanian mass" has not been happenning, just look population maps! In the last 60 years 2,5 million(!) romanians moved to Transylvania to be 400 kms closer to italian streets, restaurants and striptese bars. 
 * Humorous statements like this have no place in a wikipedia article. Please read WP:ISNOT. Please don`t treat wiki talk pages as some kind of forum. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Adrian I am aware of the fact I was not replenishing this article in a neutral way. I was not intended to that, because of the fact this article especially in its current state has never been "NPOV"! (For some of the facts I have mentioned I will add correct sources (when I have time for that), but slovak nationalist POV is going to be still significant afterwards in the article. I am denying just one thing: the so called magyarization (19th century) was not a shameful sin comitted by nowadays hungarians. The goal of this article (in the form it is now) is obviously to prove that it is rightful f.e in nowadays Slovakia that Benes Decrees and Language Law exist accusing hungarians collectively guilty, and punishing them (with fines and abstraction of rights) because of using their mothertongue in their birthplace, which was not always Slovakia /as it was established only in the 20th century (from the 1000 year old Hungarian Kingdom)/..

Not denying "magyarization", surely it took place once, (at the time when hungarians were also oppressed by the Habsburg rulers) but not in that way as slovakian nationalists refer to it recently. Just look outside the Hungarian Kingdom's borders and you will find massacres throughout history in many now "democratic" "homogeneous" countries against ethnic, religious minorities.. Hungarian Kingdom was not perfect but it was not the limbo but a shelter to people of all kind, who fled to HK to avoid wars (f.e. from territories of Ottoman Empire).

To sum up: this article especially in its current state is POV and very far from neutrality. I am going to add the sources to some of the facts (without "humorous statements", which I have been only used to show how controversial and POV this article is), but it will be still not neutral because the way and why it was written relying on nationalist and even chauvinistic slovakian point of view. Bests. (Wikidtor (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC))


 * That is your opinion and apparently other editors disagree. I don`t want to discuss other concerning statements I saw but this article has a balanced POV. Many editors worked on it and you can`t call an article biased for no reasons. You can add data and references of course, but I advise you to be careful when adding it because it is a sensitive article. Please avoid statements like "written relying on nationalist and even chauvinistic slovakian point of view" because this article is also edited by many Hungarian editors and it`s POV is not the problem here. I don`t know if you are familiar with wikipedia guild-lines, but please read the NPOV and WP:BATTLE. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"this article has a balanced POV" vs. "and it`s POV is not the problem here". So it is a POV.. (If it has a POV it means the article is unbalanced.) The Article is not the place to clash POVs (and I say, and you can tell that in its current state its not even clashing POVs, just using slovakian POV in interpreting facts how they know. It's just one side, but not the only one!). "it is a sensitive article." Sure it is. But not the 19th century HK minorities are the only victims, but also nowadays hungarians. The "magyarization" as a term has always been used by chauvinistic slovakian politicians and (from 1990's /especially from 1998/) nationalists, to prove hungarians are collectively guilty and it is rightful to punish them.. Bests. (Wikidtor (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I would like to ask you to stop using words like "chauvinistic slovakian politicians" and similar. This is a sensetive subject so please avoid "name-calling" in any way. I don`t understand you? How do you mean that Hungarians are victims of Magyarization? You mean victims of (in this case) Slovakization?; Slovakization ? Adrian (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You probably think that I have been using the existing term chauvinistic to all slovakian politicians whats more to all slovakians. You are absolutely wrong! Chauvinistic attribute goes for only chauvinistic slovakian politicians. You deny that there is at least one among them? :-o (F.e. Ján Slota, head of the Real Slovak National Party who made such statements like this one: "Hungarian? No way! We will jump into our tanks, and we will go and flatten. Budapest... ", Slota's bio mentions the fact that he is chauvinist.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1n_Slota or Belusova, or Meciar.. /Like Tiso. He was fascist and also chauvinist./)

Hungarians are the victims of the term magyarization as how chauvinist politicians use it. See? Magyarization took place in 19th century. But chauvinistic slovakian politicians use the term in 21st century in such way that it "explains" (as if it could) why exist in nowadays Slovakia such law, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary%E2%80%93Slovakia_relations#Slovak_language_law, or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene%C5%A1_decrees against hungarian minority in Slovakia, and against all hungarians!

Hungarian Kingdom as I have already told you was not the hell not even the limbo. Actually Hungarian Kingdom never banned minorities' language usage, or tarriffed penalty because of using it. (In administration most of the ethnic languages were not used. True. But even hungarian was not used till 1840's! And what do you think ethnic minorities or even hungarians could write down to "administrate"? Under feudal conditions the peasents were not really involved in any kind of administration.. Also "modern" official administration just had been started that time! By the way even in 1910 the illiteracy among ethnic minorities was over 70%! And it was not the fault of hungarians (among them 80% could read and write): not counting romaninas fled to Hungarian Kingdom, where they have lived as a minority the romanians illiteracy in the Romanian Kingdom was 77%!)

France, Russia, and others got rid of hundreds of ethnic minorites at the same time when magyarization occured! And it was only a response to the Habsburgs' oppression of hungarians, and to "answer" what most members of the ethnic minorities have done during 1848/49 hungarian revolution /Habsburgs "promised" ethnic minorites more rights (than even the hungarians in the empire had), so most of them - if at least fought against someone - fought against hungarians. After the revolution the Habsburgs naturally not kept their promises, and hungarians were clearly not in the "mood" to give more rights to ethnic minorities.. But Hungarian Kingdom, hungarians never fined the ethnic language usage, or wiped out whole minorities like kingdoms and empires in the west and in the east had done!

Isn't it weird that every single minority of the Hungarian Kingdom is now living in independent countries (most of them - like Slovakia - were established from Hungarian Kingdom's territories and a significant number of hungarians are still living (despite anachronistic laws like the slovakian language law, the Benes decrees or I could mention the Constitution of Romania, which states, that: "... there is one nation in Romania, the romanian..") as a minority near these new borders.)?? If the magyarization happened in the way like this article interprets it, the "victim ethnic minorities" could not exist today! Not even in Hungary (with the territories not torn apart from it)! (Wikidtor (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC))


 * On some point I agree with you, on some I don`t. The bottom line is, I think this talk that we are having is not appropriate for the wikipedia talk page. Please see WP:TALK. I quote from the rule: all pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.. Don`t get me wrong, but this is not the place to express our opinions, whatever that might be. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(To Wikidtor): You would be right; if there hadn't been WWI, all of these languages would have been now Hungarian. Writing about Slota and Fico is equivalent to writing about Jobbik and their plans to revise borders. And about that illiteracy thing. Of course, it is not fault of Hungarians. Oh, wait:

- Although at the time of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 there were more than one thousand Slovak elementary schools, their number was gradually reduced to 322 by 1918.

- 1874 - All Slovak secondary schools (created in 1860) were closed.

- 1907 - The Apponyi educational law made Hungarian a compulsory subject in all schools in the Kingdom of Hungary. This also extended to confessional and communal schools, which had the right to provide instruction in a minority language as well. "All pupils regardless of their native language must be able to express their thoughts in Hungarian both in spoken and in written form at the end of fourth grade [~ at the age of 10 or 11]"

(from Wiki)

Recent edits
It would be exceedingly good if Omnen1226 would desist from adding sources like Matica Sloveska to the article.--Nmate (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reason? After we can delete all Magyar sources. You deleted also another sources by the way. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not credible one by one, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox).--Nmate (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can not judge what sources are credible. This is only your opinion with no value.--Omen1229 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Author: Gilbert Lawrence Oddo, Publisher: R. Speller, 1960, Source of origina: University of Michigan. My sources are not credible :-D --Omen1229 (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[]Matica slovenská]] is an extremist nationalist organization which even has ties to fascists according to it's article. More specifically Matica slovenská recently started to publish its newspaper "Matičné zvesti" as an annex of a newspaper published by Slovenské hnutie obrody, an association praising the WWII Slovak Republic and its fascist leader Jozef Tiso.[5][6][7] I don't think we should touch any sources connected with these types of persons. Hobartimus (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only your original research, propagation of fascism is crime in Slovakia. Here is official page: http://www.matica.sk


 * You deleted also another sources by the way.--Omen1229 (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No the other deletions were not related to the sources but the fact that the topic had nothing to do with the topic of the article as was explained to you in the edit summary. We know each other for a long long time let's not try to confuse each other. Hobartimus (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but you started with deletions missing information. My sources are not false, that is realistic history and 100% related to the article. We can not undo from article the deportation of children, because you do not like it.--Omen1229 (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not because of that, but that has yet to prove with a lot other scientific sources as well on the grounds that if you would like to write about children deportation, then that should be well sourced.--Nmate (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: we ALL know that stuff published by Matica Slovenská is anything BUT a reliable source. It's been like that ever since, but especially since it was infiltrated by all those false scientists whose only purpose in life seems to be spreading myths as facts and wholly confabulated (and totally unsubstantiated) stories as "the true history of the Slovak nation". All these "historians" supported by MS are condemned by the rest of the academics, yet you keep pushing their sources. So please stop doing this, since adding POV material is NOT acceptable in WP. Also please note that I did NOT remove properly sourced material and even left your claims (supported by the unscientific publications of MS) intact. I've only removed the MS sources, because they're totally unacceptable. Please take this as a hint for finding another (a reliable) source when trying to support the content you'd like to add. Any admin would say the same too.
 * Takze este raz: nerob to! Mozes si byt isty, ze ja napr. skontrolujem VSETKY zdroje, ktore niekto odcituje pri kontroverznych temach (najma ked ide o podozrenie, ze nejde o fakty). No a najdu sa aj admini, ktori slovenskemu textu rozumeju, takze byt tebou by som maticovske texty naozaj nechal bokom..... -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To si mal urobit uz davno, ze skontrolujes vsetky zdroje. Kludne to urob, je to tam napisane najmenej 10x, ale nabuduce najprv nieco skontroluj a az potom vymazavaj informacie. A tvoje nelogicke ohovaranie co si napisal tu a kde ma spajas s nejakou Ceskou IP adresou je normalne smiesne :-D--Omen1229 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So again. Propagation of fascism is crime in Slovakia. Your words about Matica Slovenská are only libel, defamation and original research.


 * You wrote "all those false scientists" and "All these "historians"...". You deleted References of historian Ladislav Deák 1. He is member of Historical institute of SAV. He is also member of Historical commission with Hungary.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ja pochybne "zdroje" kontrolujem neustale. A ja mam teda vsetky fakty overene na rozdiel od maticiarskych "historikov". A mozes si zohnat meatpuppetov kolko len chces, proti pravde ti (chvalabohu) nepomozu.
 * Libelous?! Defamatory?! You mean stating FACTS about Matica Slovenská?! Since you fail to see the evil nature of the whole organization (along with SAV, but more about that later), lets just browse through some sources, shall we:


 * Mr Fico’s government seems to incline to the first view [the celebration of the Slovak puppet state of 1939-45]. It has raised fourfold the subsidy to Matica slovenska, a nationalist cultural outfit that condemns the execution in 1947 of Father Jozef Tiso, the wartime puppet state’s priest-president. Many Slovaks see him as a holy patriot. Others think his role in the deportation of more than 50,000 Jews to Nazi concentration camps damns him irretrievably. - The Economist (wow, that's a newspaper which's probably controlled by people who hate Slovaks, right?)


 * Pressures on his rehabilitation and acknowledgement as a national hero, martyr, or even for his benediction by Vatican are closely linked with propagation of fascism, which was symbolised by Tiso. Behind these trends are in addition to some citizens mislead by false propaganda above all the compromised "ludák" (=clerofascist) refugees from abroad and their brood , some circles of Catholic clergy and some political representatives, including persons in high positions , the Matica slovenská (=MS, a national cultural association sponsored by state) and specially established domestic and foreign societies grounded solely for glorifying him ( in this country = " Society of President J. Tiso´s Friends") - Prometheus society (a NPO that aims to promote freedom of expression, thinking and religion in Slovakia)


 * ''On 14 March, in connection with the commemorations of the fifty-seventh anniversary of the wartime Slovak puppet state, posters showing President Tiso making a Nazi salute appeared on walls in central Bratislava with the caption "Slovak men and women, fulfil your duty and come! The time has come. A meeting celebrating the anniversary of the first independent Slovak fascist state. 14 March at Slovak National Uprising Square at 16.00." Though the celebrations were unofficial, a Slovak flag appeared on that day at the government statistical office.


 * The principal celebration was organized by the publicly financed cultural foundation Matica slovenská in co-operation with the Association of Slovak Soldiers (a recently founded organization of wartime state veterans) in Bratislava's Istropolis house of culture. Among the participants were several members of the SNS. Protests against this meeting were widespread. President Kovác stated that he viewed with concern "the revival of the spirit of the wartime Slovak state" and the involvement in these celebrations of "important national institutions". He reaffirmed that the wartime state was "from the very beginning a puppet state depending on the Nazi protector" and added that the present-day Slovak Republic "will not be drawn into the vicious circle of those who are the spiritual inheritors of the wartime totalitarian regime". Protests were also made by organizations of Slovak officers and civilians persecuted under communism and by the Association of Former Concentration Camp Prisoners, founded in April 1996. - Antisemitism and Xenophobia Today (according to their site "AXT is an online examination of the manifestations of racism, xenophobia and, especially, antisemitism, against a backdrop of the more general social and political contexts in which such manifestations occur")


 * So once again this is the "scientific", "objective" and "unbiased" organization you're so protective of. And considering the quotes above it isn't hard to spot the double standard that surrounds MS and their "maternal organization", SNS. So regardless of the law that makes propagating fascism/denial of fascist crimes illegal etc. not a single high-profile fascist has been sentenced in Slovakia in its short history. Since people who view Tiso as a honorable leader have considerable power in the Slovak politics, punishment of propagation of fascism is quite unlikely in the foreseeable future.
 * A for the "scientific" work of Ladislav Deák and "historians" with similar attitude I'd like to bring a few of his articles into your attention (unfortunately they're in Slovak). They're both quoted by Sergej Chelemendik, a Russian-born MP for SNS (I have a feeling that this guy's a pan-Slavist as well). I really don't want to go into details, but this guy's (Deák's) work reeks of sketchiness (to say at least), half-truths, paranoia and outright confabulations. I don't know whether his heavy bias (and complete lack of objectiveness) stems from his Hungarian ancestry (those are usually the most hateful Slovak nationalists) or something else, but his work definitely isn't scientific at all.
 * If I were you I wouldn't argue by SAV either. Even though the organization has a "scientific disguise" (i.e. it's the "Slovak Academy of Sciences"), its work is anything BUT scientific. Actually if one knows the organization's history, then he doesn't find this surprising at all: its predecessor was founded in 1942 (at the height of Tiso's puppet state and the deportations), while the present-day organization was founded in 1953 (ath the height of Stalinism). These dates of the organization's foundation somewhat predestine the academy to the activities it performs up to this day: feigns research only to the extent that prevents the calls for its imminent closure. I've seen some of its annual reports regarding the research they've done in the given year (it's compulsory for them to publish this, but I fear I'm one of the VERY few people who dug through that report), and it's really nothing more than a load of crap. I mean there wasn't a SINGLE item on that list which anyone would consider cutting-edge (or at least RELEVANT for God's sake) research. And the same applies for essentially every other public institute in Slovakia as well: all the "universities", "research institutes" and of course Matica Slovenská as well. This latter's not only an organization with close ties to neofascism, but it also fails to do research that'd be REALLY beneficial for the Slovak nation as a whole (e.g. it'd be its "moral" duty to digitize all the important Slovak cultural artifacts, but it doesn't and won't in a thousand years). -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If Matica Slovenská is indeed an unreliable source then it should be removed.. but shouldn`t we have some evidence of this? Usually this kind of editions in Slavic countries ex: Matica srpska, Matica hrvatska, Slovenska matica (Slovenia), are some of the most reliable/respectable institutions. I can`t claim this in case of Slovakia, but should`t we have some evidence to categorize this source as unreliable and end this dispute? Or maybe say something "According to Matica Slovenská etc..". I must point out that I have no knowledge about this subject therefore if I am seeing this wrong please correct me. Adrian (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my quotes above for references. Also, I'm thinking of googling using keywords "Matica Slovenská Kotleba" and posting some of the the results here (that'd prove using some recent news that MS is STILL the very same fascist/nationalist organization as the one we got to know from the 90s). -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Matica Slovenská is not like other Matica societies in Slavic countries. I think that there could be an easy consensus here about this matter and solve this dispute. Adrian (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with that, considering that even Wladthemlat has reverted some edits just so that the Matica-published source can remain in the article (such a surprise, isn't it?), and because 99% of the Slovak editors will view your (and my) words regarding MS as heretic anyway, so they would never relent (unless sanctioned of course). -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven`t had any contact with User:Omen1229 therefore I don`t know nothing about him/her, but I have seen Wladthemlat "around" and I believe he is a reasonable editor. Adrian (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither have I, but what I meant is that any other Slovak editor that'd appear "out of the blue" would state unanimously with the rest of them that Matica Slovenská is a reliable source (although knowing the level of Slovak scientific research or lack thereof I'm not sure whether there's such thing as a reliable Slovak source, but I'm getting cynical :P). As for Wladthemlat his cynicism is quite spectacular as well. He's proven numerous times that he disregards sources, bends the truth and will go to great lengths to turn the Hungarians into the protagonists in as many articles as possible. If you check this article's edit history, you'll see that at least on one occasion he's made an edit whose only purpose was to reinsert the dubious source written by a heavily biased author and published by the aforementioned organization. This leads me to believe than when it comes to editing wikipedia articles, his (purported) objectivity goes down the drain. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try to be rational here. Deak is a historian, member of SAV, i.e. an expert. None of your SAV bashing based solely on your feelings, opinions and overall bias does change the fact. And although MS is controversial in many aspects, his qualification still counts making the book in question an expert publication. Not to mention that it is actually a compilation of primary sources, making your claim of bias even weaker. I don't expect you to agree with the content, but I do think it fits the definition of a reliable source.Wladthemlat (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And to your portrayal of MS as an extremist organization - they distanced themselves from Kotleba's party, then he managed to become a member of a local branch and because of that the local branch was disbanded . They are far from what they were in mid 90's (although, admittedly, still flawed in many ways). Wladthemlat (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deák MIGHT be an expert by Slovak standards (as low as those are), but his works lack ANY signs of scientific method. I mean when one starts to read his works, the first thing that'd strike him as odd (even for someone who's absolutely unacquainted in the whole thing) is the VERY strong anti-Hungarian bias. This alone would disqualify him from credible scientific organizations EVERYWHERE around the globe, but there's more: in the rare occasions when he lists some reliable sources (not the ones written by his co-conspirators -or "brothers in faith" as Slota would say-), he does this with the sole purpose of their intentional misinterpretation. Combine this with his "flexible handling" of truth and off-the-scale accusations derived from various sources and you get an ideal template which all the false historians (Hungarians and Slovaks alike) use to create their works. Sure, I've seen many examples of Hungarian "wise historism" as well (even totally absurd ones e.g. nutjobs who trace the Hungarian history back to around 10,000 BC and claim that Hungarian is a "modern descendant" of Sumerian, or the ones who claim that Mongols and even Japanese are related to Hungarians etc.), but there's a single cardinal difference between the two: mainstream Hungarian science completely rejects such claims, treat their authors as crooks and nutjobs (which they really are) and they're basically "excommunicated" from mainstream science (e.g. they aren't hired as university professors, aren't invited to scientific conferences, can't deliver speeches at universities etc.) and MTA (Hungarian Academy of Science) would never EVER take such people into its own ranks (since it strives to maintain its utmost respect). On the other hand such crooks (specifically their Slovak equivalents) are welcomed with open hands in the Slovak academics. They're hired by the "best" universities (many nationalistic Slovak historians -maybe even Deák himself- teach as the Comenius University, the country's most important science university), invited by Matica Slovenská to have their books published and many (especially their own clique) regard/look up to them as if they were some real scientists. And not only that, they're even admitted to SAV (Slovak Academy of Sciences) to show how respected they are. Sure, many people (especially the ones with the brains to recognize these frauds) condemn them and call for the dismissal of all of these crooks (and their disqualification from the scientific community). And the answer/reaction? Usually little more than a cynical pack of accusations where the community of these crooks stands up to support one of their kin ("brother in faith" :P) and call the critics "traitors", "haters of everything that's Slovak", "disloyal" (to the Slovak nation/people in general), "serving foreign interests" (which either translates to supporters of a "Hungarian cause", George Soros and his funds or both) i.e. they do everything in their power to defame the critics and hence avoid the burning need to replace these people. This has resulted in a society which doesn't know its own (truthful) history, doesn't want to know (i.e. it prefers the confabulated version) and doesn't have the brains nor the willpower for doing serious research (yes, there's NO such thing as R&D in Slovakia, especially in the public sector and there aren't any press releases that'd inform the public about some major Slovak scientific breakthroughs -how could there be if there's nothing to inform about-). Despite this the majority of the people (even some Slovaks who consider themselves to be intellectuals) thinks that everything's find and this isn't something to be worried about (perhaps even yourself, since you vehemently defend the status quo at times).
 * And as for MS, sure, they've distanced themselves from Kotleba and his acquaintances and disbanded the local branch that's been infiltrated by them, but only after the scandal broke out (i.e. after this fact has been brought into the public's attention by those parasitic prostitutes "pesky journalists"). Nevertheless it's still the very same organization (with the same people in it) as the one which has made the calls for Tiso's rehabilitation during the 90s. And besides I've never heard them distancing themselves from SNS or ceasing their cooperation with them either. This might not strike you as odd, but in other countries (especially in Europe) government-funded organizations (especially scientific ones and except the political parties of course) are expected to be objective as a major external influence would introduce bias (which's the case with MS). Or tell me, have you ever heard of a government-funded organization in a democratic country performing political propaganda? I haven't for that matter. Still, I think that no matter how many times will I (or anyone else for that matter) repeat the fact that works published by MS are NOT reliable sources, you'll just keep re-adding them and say that they ARE reliable. And no, it's not from assuming bad faith, but from experience. You've done the same thing in other topics as well. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * these graphomaniac responses of yours are getting a bit tiresome. why not discuss to the point? I couldn't care less about your opinion on the quality of Slovak academic institutions, Deak IS an expert and even publication by MS is indeed an expert publication, thus an RS. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've tried to give some logical arguments, appeal on your reason etc. but be it. I can tell you in a non-graphomanic way that with your arrogant and totally ignorant answer you've proven that there's no point in arguing with you. Simply said the indoctrination's so strong that it keeps you captive like a cult: you'd just never relent as that'd be regarded by yourself (and your kin, the "brothers and sisters in faith") as complete and utter failure. So for the last time: Matica Slovenská is NOT a reliable source and Deák is NOT a reliable historian. Feel free to assist your comrades in reinserting the sources, but I shall warn you that there'll be consequences for inserting misleading (and lying) materials into articles on purpose. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on anything Slovak are well-known, epitomized here by your previous comment. But they are still just that - opinions. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing Deak's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. Moreover, he is even a member of the SK-POL-HU intergovernmental committee of historians - if Hungarian government is ok with him, so am I.  Wladthemlat (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, the same cliché over and over again: four legs good, two legs bad. It's also interesting to note that you've obviously run out of logical and rational arguments so you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. But two can play this game: my opinions on STUPIDITY are the ones which are well-known indeed. Even though the brainwashing from the area of your birthplace (the wider Banská Bystrica area) forces you to say (in between lines)/think that I hate everything that's Slovak, nothing could be further from truth. Once again I hate only stupidity and the annoyingly retarded kind of ignorance so prevalent among Slovak nationalists. So let me put it this way: I'd be overjoyed if Slovak cultural artifacts (e.g. the Zilina book or all the other important literary sources) would be digitized and reproduced (in high quality of course) so that enthusiasts from all over the country (and abroad) could study it and do their own research (guess what, the same thing has already happened in Hungary with most -if not all- medieval codices), which is what the damned MS COULD (and IS supposed to) do for all the money they get (so that we'd finally see that all that money which went into their funding didn't go down the drain). I'd also greatly enjoy if a wax museum would be opened in Bratislava with all the Slovak historical people in it (even if it'd include "gems" such as the famous "Slovak" composers "Belo" Bartók and "František List" provided ALL the wax figures would have a high artistic value) or if there'd be a REAL science museum (such as the Csodák palotája in Budapest or the OMSI in US, to name a few). But no, you (and Omen1229 and all the other "unnamed heroes" of the Slovak nationalistic effort on WP) still go by this muggy and quite grotesque definition of nationalism (which involves shouting "I'm the most Slovak" the loudest, badmouthing the Hungarians -the more the better- and attacking virtually anyone who questions the motives of this comedy gone awry). However you fail to realize that this sort of behavior gives EVERYONE (but your comrades of course) the creeps, which's kind of evidenced by your block log as well Oh wait! I forgot that that's all the result of the big anti-Hungarian conspiracy - sorry for that.
 * Once again, no matter his position (even his mixed commission membership), Deák is NOT a trustworthy/reliable historian. The fact that he's a renowned historian in Slovakia only proves the fact that if one has some good enough connections (along with a prominent communist past), he'll always get landed some good jobs, since his comrades will always be supportive of him. Without some extensive googling I've stumbled upon two sources condemning his actions: a Slovak article and a Hungarian one, though I'm sure that if I would've devoted some more time to it I would've come up with even juicier articles regarding his attitude (and lack of scientific method). Still, Deák is the finest example of the reason why Slovak historical research is in its current state (i.e. infancy). It's also quite sad that such radical anti-Hungarian is tasked with negotiating with Hungarians: he just won't make a compromise no matter what, which sooner or later brings any kind of negotiation to a halt. But regardless of this I'll repeat my stance: Matica Slovenská is NOT a reliable publishing house and Ladislav Deák is NOT a reliable historian. Therefore I'll have to treat such material just like any other biased/POVish/otherwise questionable one: remove it. And I shall once again warn you that pushing for such materials on a constant basis might have its consequences. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You really can't stick to the point, can you? Your links are not reliable, not even mainstream press outlets, just self-published websites. And the criticism within those articles does not go beyond "I disagree with their opinion". Hungarian government accepted Deák as a member of said committee without reservation, don't you think there would be at least a bit of a fuss if he were as unreliable as you claim? You also claimed that Matica can be linked to extremist Kotleba's party and that proves they have not changed. As I have proven to you, this is not the case and your arguments are stuck in early-to-mid 90's. And, please, refrain from ad hominem attacks like those in your last comment, intimidation doesn't work too well either. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Using material appearing on hate propaganda sites
I see there were recent attempts to use hate material lifted from various anti-Hungarian hate sites such as this by cleverly leaving out that the material came from a hate site and attempting to cite the book that was cited by the hate site. This is still hate propaganda related material and as such it has no place in wikipedia. It seems that the initial editor was expert in such material and was trying to deliberately push such material into wikipedia. Some of these fascist hate sites are so crazy that regarding the same case raised in this article, they talk about "orphans" being separated from their parents, you see "orphans" from their "parents". No doubt that Slovak fascist organizations and websites have an endless supply of such materials and quotes but they are completely inappropriate for wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That hate sites quote books can hardly be avoided, please be specific in what way the book itself is unreliable. Wladthemlat (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Paranoid schizophrenia? Deportations of children is reality, not any anti-Hungarian sentiment. Peace and take it easy. --Omen1229 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is described as anti Hungarian "A book that is otherwise anti-Hungarian, Slovakia and its People written by Prof. Gilbert L. Oddo and published under the auspices of the Slovak League of America in 1960". So it's no small wonder that anti-Hungarian fascist hate sites would proudly display the material from this anti-Hungarian book. Hobartimus (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is described as anti-Hungarian by a dubious pro-Hungarian site, yet it is a work of a university professor. Not enough for deletion.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hobartimus that the number of dubious, biased sources are increasing in this article. Therefore, it should contain warnings that this article may not include all significant viewpoints and it may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. -- Koertefa (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide relevant arguments disputing the sources. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that such "sources" and not only inappropriate, but they lack any credibility at all. You know it's pretty interesting that the only reliable source that supports this theory of "abducted Slovak orphans" is an otherwise reliable source (it's published by a respected American organization). However I sense some sort of mischief in that book: either the article's been written by a highly biased author or a (also highly biased and probably confabulating as well) dubious source has been used as the basis of that book too. Unfortunately I don't have the book nor do I have any chance of laying my hands on them (Slovak libraries are so ill-equipped -perhaps due to the book burnings that happened right after the treaty of Trianon came in action- that finding something worthy there is akin to a miracle; hence all the researchers go either to Vienna or Budapest to conduct research and find the appropriate reference materials) and the excerpts on Google books lack the crucial pages which would make this search possible. Also, I don't think that this book can cite some reliable sources that'd unambiguously prove this theory. For instance where's the list of these "abducted" children (orphans)? Interestingly enough we DO have a complete list of the victims of the Cernova affair and the deportations of Hungarians after 1945 as well. But if the "innocent Slovak children" were really deported then where's this recorded? Can you cite some of FEMKE's records for proof? And don't say that the reason you can't is because it's been locked up in a secret vault beneath Budapest and it's been classified for 200 years. If it DID happen indeed and it WAS organized by FEMKE then there MUST be some records of it as well.
 * Still, since this is the one and only source that (dubiously, but still) confirms this alleged abduction, it should be left as is. But despite that it's pretty pointless of Omen1229 and his meatpuppets (and recently even by ladrian yu) to insert/reinsert another note about this. Once is good enough. -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This paranoid user judges others by yourself. He hates all Slovaks, his edits (about Hungarian-Slovak articles) are evidence. This user is web programmer and I think CoolKoon, Hobartimus, Nmate, Fakirbakir... are same person. This is not only my opinion 1 2. --Omen1229 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This paranoid user? Which one? Me perhaps? I'm not schizophrenic you know. Also, the correct usage of the idiom in the sentence above is the following: this paranoid user judges others by himself/herself/itself (yep, no "yourself").
 * As for the accusation itself, it's always fun to get accused by a paranoid user of paranoia. So for the record: I don't hate all Slovaks and I'm certainly NOT Hobartimus, Nmate or Fakirbakir. You wanna know who do I hate? Uneducated, misled and lunatic provocateurs who perceive ANYONE who begs to differ from their retarded and illogical ideas as an "enemy of us all" (as stipulated by the not-so-great head comrade). These people seem to do everything in their power to avoid any logical thinking and when they're presented with facts they take it as a personal attack (fortunately such people tend to be the ones who expire first in battles, bar fights, street fights and basically any kind of fight). So to translate it to your case: yes, I DO hate people who present themselves as "proud", "genuine" and "real" Slovaks who in fact hurt the whole Slovak nation a LOT more than ALL the "bad" Hungarians combined. Obviously you seem to be one of them, but don't worry, Wladthemlat will probably support you at times (as he seems to share a LOT of your views too). This however does NOT mean that I hate every single Slovak out there. It's the ones proclaimed to be traitors by the Slovak nationalists (despite being Slovaks themselves) I tend to like the most. And no, not because of their "treason", but for the fact that they DO have a brain, know how to use it and are willing to use it. Since you don't and won't, let me point out a single discrepancy in your accusations: have you seen the above mentioned users' edit logs? Did you read their contributions to various discussions? Did you compare ANY of these users' actions with each other? I doubt that. And yes, I AM a web programmer, which is obvious to ANYONE who visits my userpage. I've clearly labeled myself as such almost since the beginning and I've never tried to delete any of such information from my userpage. You on the other hand look like you might've known your way around on WP before registering too (maybe even a long time). Don't you wanna tell us something about that?
 * But anyway: this is connected to the discussion which was in progress HOW? Or do you think that by ad hominem attacks you'll get your point through? Do you REALLY think that trying to convince everyone that every single Hungarian user is controlled by the same mastermind will work? Think again then. Or just THINK for God's sake! -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Omen1229 (typical sockpuppet name with plenty of numbers added) should be taken seriously at this point. Most likely it's a sockpuppet account of a banned user trying to return to editing. Per WP:BAN all of his edits can be reverted if that is indeed the case and he is revealed. But even disregarding that issue hate material insertion should be stopped. We can't allow wikipedia to degenerate and contain the same material which was shown that hate sites contain. Hobartimus (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File an SPI and wait for a result, your feeling is not enough.
 * The book itself is not a hate material and we cannot prevent any site from quoting anything. If a KKK website quoted Einstein, we wouldn't remove all references to him, would we? Wladthemlat (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have a point, yet you still have to admit that this is the only reputable source to confirm an event which (due to its nature) should've gotten a lot more attention (and the fact that there's a plaque near New Bridge in Bratislava -right next to the place where once the now demolished part of the historical center stood- that commemorates the event does hardly make any difference), so it's still fishy (to say the least). Perhaps you could resolve this by finding another reputable source which mentions these deportations. -- CoolKoon (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added two new sources on the topic, they got removed even though they have never appeared on a "hate website". Something else is fishy here. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And considering that this is the first edit you made to the article Magyarization, stalking Hobartimus, or me, or both of us. And that all or almost all of your contributions to Wikipedia is edit edit warring with Hungarian users over Hungarian related content on articles Hungarian users happen to edit,  and that your only one account outside the English Wikipedia is on the Hungarian Wikipedia ,even though you can't speak Hungarian at all, which was created solely for the purpose of inserting unintelligible Pov material into the Hungarian Wikipedia translated by google translator, anyway....    you definitely look as if you are keen to experience fishy events if  those occur around Hungarians.--Nmate (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent sockpuppet attack against the article, trying to insert anti-Hungarian material was reverted and the sockpuppet already blocked LastLion. This is just a note to watch out for sockpuppets because there may be more similar attacks in the future against this article. Hobartimus (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, the material is not anti hungarian and you are removing other sources as well, please stop.Wladthemlat (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is described as anti-Hungarian by the source as already demonstrated in the discussion above. It's also obvious to a reasonable observer that it's anti-Hungarian material (also appearing on anti-Hungarian hate sites, I guess that would make it pro-Hungarian, huh) This is beyond debate. However reverting sockpuppets does not constitute a revert and should not be described as "removing" anything as block evading sockpuppets had no right to place the material in the first place. This is why I noted in my edit summary that it does not constitute a revert. The sockpuppet's operator was also an anti-Hungarian extremist. I guess that also strengthens the case that the material which was pushed by him can be described "material is not anti hungarian". Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gilbert Lawrence Oddo was former professor of history and political science at Mount St. Mary’s College and St. Joseph’s College 1. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing Oddo's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. --Omen1229 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit by the site banned Daccono/Iaaasi
As pointed out by admin Swarm:, "reverting positive contributions to the encyclopedia just because a user is banned (or for any procedural reason, for that matter) is counterintuitive" and "blindly reverting any addition made by a banned user really doesn't help anyone". Therefore, your argument does not hold water. I restored the edit because I don't notice anything wrong at it. If you have other objections to the edit, please expose them here Daccono (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that SPI investigations later confirmed that the Daccono account was in fact the sitebanned user:Iaaasi, arguing in support of his earlier sockpuppets and edits. As a Result the Daccono account is now blocked.Abusing multiple accounts: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. So the above edit of the Daccono/Iaaasi account should be read with this in mind. Hobartimus (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason is the banning policy. WP:BAN "An editor who has been banned or has had their account blocked, and tries to evade this by creating a new account, is known as a reincarnation of the old account. Obvious reincarnations are easily dealt with — the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted" The account in this case fits this description 100% thus as the policy says. "the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted"" Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. WP:BAN Wladthemlat (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that the edit was a typo fix? That would be absurd. Please explain yourself. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a typo fix, but lead cleanup. You are wikilawyering. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's a lead cleanup, but you are clearly missing the point here. The edit by the banned user and sockpuppets contained content changes which banned users have no right to do. the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted"" as quoted above. What's unclear about the policy here to you? Hobartimus (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is unclear, I don't want to repeat myself, please read the quote from the very same policy above. Please explain what part of the edit is problematic and why. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read your quote it says "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I think you need to explain yourself, and that how this case would be unambiguous and fits under "obviously helpful such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism", please explain how the edit in question fits this definition? Is it a typo fix? Is it undoing vandalism? Because I can see no possible way this fits the definition. You need to also explain the fact that you are editing against policy. Why are you so committed to this particular edit that you are willing to go against the banning policy? Hobartimus (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Also please do not play word games. The policy says "presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" and you say something else completely that the sentence inserted by the banned user is not ambiguous. I trust that you know the difference between the two sentences and won't try to distort the meaning. Ambiguous cases in other words unclear cases, where people disagree about the edit. In other words cases like this exactly. The default is to revert and you have to explain your reasons, which so far you have refused to do. Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleaning the lead up is obviously helpful, so is adding direct quotes from a book, don't see how that can be ambiguous if the source is not apparently biased. Also - I think those quotes are valid, I will reinsert them into the article and any further discussion on them should be to the merit and not about who added them. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the issue of why pick these ones over any other random quotes from a thousand other books? Just because Iaaasi wanted them? Or do you have any other arguments in favor of these particular ones besides "they are valid, I will reinsert them". By the way the quotes are from a book that's about "a comprehensive survey of the peoples who speak Finno-Ugric languages and have titular republics or autonomous regions within the post-Soviet Russian federation." And unless I am badly mistaken Hungary is not inside the Russian Federation making it appear that it's only mentioned in passing. Anyway if you insist on using this book however we could keep it as source but change the quotes to other sentences from the book. Such as "The magyarizaton of the 1800s lacked an ideological-religious component present in both the tsarist and Soviet version of russification" (page 85). Or "Jews among others were accepted as Hungarians, once they had mastered the language and they eagerly seized on this rare opportunity to achieve first class citizenship"(page 84).   Hobartimus (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)