Talk:Magyarization: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hungary This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Serbia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Romania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovakia B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

I don't think writing this article was of any use. Why are you going on about the so-called "magyarization". Obviously, in Hungary, people hardly can pronounce foreign place names, so in Hungary, you can't use foreign place names officially. But in private, everybody calls everything as they like, don't they?! So I think a name's origin is not a question, because nobody cares about that. I wouldn't want the French to call Paris Párizs officially because that's more convenient for me, would I? So in my opinion, do not care about "magyarized" or "non-magyarized" words, use any word you like! Vargamate (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is necessary .magyarisation happened and it`s well documented. even today in romania some hungarian parties are using the process of magyarisation on the romanian communities especially in parts of romania where hungarians are the majority denying people of other enticity their basic rights unless they accept to learn hungarian .another example is the so called "csangos" (religious catholic minority in eastern romania some of them speak hungarian and others are indoctrinated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd of speaking of "magyarisation" in Romania, and "Hungarians denying people of other ethnicity their basic rights". Such a statement ignores history, and in fact represent gross revisionism. Translyvania has always been populated by mostly Hungarians, especially before WWI. It has only become a part of Romania because of the Trianon Treaty. Much has been said about that treaty, it's worth doing some research on it instead of twisting the truth. What succeeded the annexation of Transylvania to Romania can best be labeled "romanisation" of Transylvanian cities and villages, many of which were outright bulldozed. Romanians were transplanted and moved into the region specifically to overwhelm the native Hungarian population. Sound familiar? Just for a second, consider what would happen if Alaska were all of a sudden ripped from the U.S. and annexed to Russia? Would one consider "americanisation" the inhabitants of Alaska attempting to continue speaking English and live like they had before? How would an American majority in Alaska even have the power to deny rights to anyone when they were under the authority of the Russian government? It simply doesn't make sense. "Magyarisation", as presented in this Wikipedia article, comes across as some strange, distorted smear campaign conducted against Hungarians for reasons that still elude me. And none of it is "well documented". Simply saying that it is doesn't make it so. On the contrary, there are more and more documents being uncovered that provide an insight into how and why the Trianon Treaty resulted in Central Europe being carved up the way it was, and what happened to the various regions inhabited by Hungarians that were annexed to various different countries as a result of the Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.186.162 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your comment is atlest biased. " Translyvania has always been populated by mostly Hungarians, especially before WWI" - starting from this statement and so on. It is well-referenced that Romanians have always represented the majority in the region of Transylvania. If you want to contribute to the article please find some contrustive way to do so, not like this. And this article is certainly needed, since magyarisation had a big impact on many nations surrounding Hungary, not to mention that we have so many examples of this and it is well-documented as well. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays criticism of societies of the past is sometimes based on the novel and modern philosophy. This article, and another opinions and historical point of views related to ethnic policy often do this kind of mistake. It's a bad approach, because they doesn't examine the phenomenon it the proper historical context. According to the Enlightenment, people should have to be politically equal. But this ideology formed in France with nationalism, avoiding the problem of living ethnics close together. Only in Central-European region the reformers had to face this problem. The nowadays ethnic policy was unknown in that days, and the first trials were in Hungary in 1949/1868: giving the same political rights to the citizens. "all citizens of Hungary form, politically, one nation, the indivisible unitary Hungarian nation (nemzet), of which every citizen of the country, whatever his personal nationality (nemzetiség), is a member equal in rights." I think it was a forward-looking policy, in spite of the fact that the gowernment ignored the nationalist ambitions of the ethnics. We can't blame them for the elementary practice of law, alike we don't blame people in the middle-age not using trains for transportation.Lynxof (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Sándor Petőfi as an example of how Magyarization could turn an originally non-Hungarian person into a speaker of Hungarian national identity is totally fake: Hungarian replaced German (and previously Latin) as the official language of Hungary in 1844 - 21/20 years after the suspected "State-driven Magyarization" of the poet. Petőfi's choice was only a result of a mixed-language family where the son adopted the fathers language instead of the mother's (Slovakian). User:bmagyarkuti

I think if he thought that he was a Hungarian then we should respect it. I am also of tot ('slovak') origin but I think I'm Hungarian. Nobody forced me to feel like this and it was the same with Petofi. H-Vergilius 10:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And by this, you are the perfect example of magyarization. Propaganda is also one way how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, because he says he voluntarily decided to consider himself a Hungarian, nobody forced him to. Squash Racket (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I say. Propaganda is not about violence, but about convincing people. Yet it is still magyarization.

Basically, magyar historians try to spread propaganda all the time, often ignoring historical facts. For example the myths, that Magyars are descendants of Avars, Huns or Sumers. Or tha myth, that Magyars were in Hungary since ancient times. Or the myths about the Stephen's crown. Great summarization of this is in the book of Benda K. and Fügedi E.: "This belief was establishing over centuries. Historians can do nothing but accept it: In this case, it is not important, whether the crown really belonged to Stephen I. Important is the absolute faith, that it belonged to him."147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the one doing propaganda here is you. There are many arguments about history written by Romanian or Slovakian historians being more myth than reality, too, but let's not go into this. As for Petőfi, his father being a Serb is a myth in the first place, as Petrovics István was Slovak. :See e.g. http://www.geographic.hu/index.php?act=napi&rov=6&id=5533. So both his father and mother were Slovak: all the family was of Slovakian origin. Moreover, there was no Magyarizing propaganda in the 1820s; before the Reform Era, this is just an era of utter German (and, because of the official language, Latin) domination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.221.172 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Petőfi isn't a good example for a central and intentional magyarisation. Hungaran Kingdom was gowerned (as the article says) from Vienna, so before the national revolution in 1848 the ethnic policy wasn't controlled by hungarian offices. Moreover the austrian kaiser's gowernment did germanisation in Hungary (and in other countries as well). They moved german settlers to Hungary. It was faworable them to decrease the hungarian national integrity.

So there is no sense suggesting Petőfi was a victim of magyarisation. His self-identification was autonomus.Lynxof (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petőfi especially learnt for 2 years in a german secondary school, and wrote a patriotic poem in 1842 when the latin was the official language in the country. Csokyspite (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell would Petőfi have been forced to change his name to Hungarian?! If he were such a great Serb, he wouldn't have considered writing '12 pont' or 'Nemzeti dal', let alone dying for Hungary.Adam vg (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jewish people claim to be Hungarian, they should be counted as Hungarians. Squash Racket 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 1910 census did not recorded nationality, but only language and religion, thus the Jews never said are they Jews or Hungarians by nationality. The fact is that Jews are much older people than Hungarians (they had their independent country 2000 years ago, in the time when Hungarians still lived as barbarians), thus claiming that Jews are not an ethnic group is clear example of anti-semitism. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1910 census did not record nationality, only Jews' language (Hungarian) and their religion (Jewish or Christian) why is that a proof of 'Magyarizing'? Why is it in the article? Can we remove it? And stop making personal attacks based on that 'information', OK? Squash Racket 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is very good proof of magyarization: the native language of the Jews was Hebrew and the basic fact that they did not spoke Hebrew but Hungarian in 1910 means that they were magyarized. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Europe did Jews speak Hebrew outside of the synagogue these times? Squash Racket 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak about times before "these times"... PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the Jews in Hungary are not treated as national minority, and this is not antisemitism. I cite: "2005 októberében a Társaság a Magyarországi Zsidó Kisebbségért érvényes népi kezdeményezést nyújtott be az Országgyűléshez a zsidó nemzetiség elismerését kérve. 2006. július 3-ig azonban a szervezetnek nem sikerült összegyűjtenie az ehhez szükséges legalább ezer aláírást." (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g_nemzetis%C3%A9gei) Translation: "In October 2005 the Association for the Hungarian Jew Minority passed in a civil initiative to the Hungarian Parliament in order to ask to recognize the Jews as national minority. Up to 3rd July, 2006. this organization wasn't able to collect at least 1000 signatures which is necessary for that." According to http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g#Etnikai_.C3.A9s_nyelvi_megoszl.C3.A1s, "a magyarországi zsidóság nagyobb része nem nemzetiségként határozza meg magát", meaning "the biggest part of the Jews in Hungary don't identify themselves as national minority". Fcsaba 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is exactly proof of their magyarization and it is also proof that Hungary did not changed much its policy towards national minorities since 1910 (Bunjevci are also not recognized as minority by Hungary no matter that they collected enough signatures). PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1910 Jews in Germany were Germans, Jews in Galicia were Poles it was not germanization or polishization just assimilation. May be it was sucsessful because in these places the jews were emancipated an there were no antisemitic laws against them. In 1880 60% of the Jews had Hungarian mother language so they weren't magyarized. (Until 1878 it wasn't compulsory to learn Hungarian language in Hungary)Csokyspite (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you do not want to assume that the situation in 1910 and 2006 is the same, do you? I guess the fact that the Hungarian Jews were not able to collect 1,000 signatures for their petition in 2006 has something to do with the extermination of the 600,000 Jews in Hungary during WWII. Let us focus on what the article actually deal with (the pre-WWI period). Tankred 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Jewish people say about 400000 Hungarian Jews (History of the Jews in Hungary) were killed by the Germans during WWII. Jews and nationality have a unique connection in Hungary and the article does not reflect that. Read Neolog for example. Squash Racket 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof of magyarization, I would say... PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you would say that after reading those two articles, haha. Squash Racket 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that after reading your words: "Jews and nationality have a unique connection in Hungary" - I just wonder why... PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the adoption of other languages by the Jews a uniformal trend in Europe throughout the past centuries? I'm not expressing problems with this article (that is kind of eye-opening, since it expresses historical facts that are recognized by everyone, but Hungarians. we simply forgot these things), so I'm just curious, because I don't really know. I'm sure about the German trends, but not that of the French, Italians, etc. Hunmihaly 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, “the adoption of other languages by the Jews in other countries” are subject of other “ization” articles, not of this one. PANONIAN 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

132.77.4.129 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Speaking as a Israeli Jew of Non-Hungarian origin (Father's mother from Transcarpatia, evryone else from Galicia or U.S): One thing that always struck me about Jews who immigrated from Modern Transylvania (that is western Rumania) is that they ALWAYS identified them as Hungarian rather than Rumanian. Jews who Immigrated from Slovakia ALWAYS identified themselves as Czechs or Czechoslovaks rather than Slovaks or Hungarians. Likewise, Jews immigrating from Central Asia or the Caucaus always identified themselves as "Russian"- even if they were Bukharan (Jews who lived in Central Asia since 600 C.E rather than immigrants who came during Russian/Soviet period).[reply]

I think this has absolutely nothing to do with "National identification", Magyarization or Russification. Jews simply preferred to identify with the portion of the population which was more "advanced" and cultual- regardless of the political conditions at the time. Thus, Jews living in Transylvania continued to Identify themselves as "hungarians" during 70 years of Rumanian rule because Rumania and the Rumanian population were poorer and less educated than the Hungarians. Jews living in Slovakia/Czechoslovakia quickly switched to being Czechs because the Czechs were better educated and richer than either the Hungarians or the Slovaks.132.77.4.129 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the Treaty of Trianon hundreds of Hungarian placenames were changed to Slovakian, Romanian etc. You're talking about 'Magyarization'? Maybe a bit misleading?

I do not see connection between two issues. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. ('Pannonia' (mostly Western Hungary in Roman times) is written with two N letters). Squash Racket 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then tell me what that connection is. Regarding Pannonia, it also included much of former Yugoslavia and more important: it was inhabited by Indo-European (not Finno-Ugric) peoples. Regarding two "n" letters, you are right of course, but I did not know that in the time when I registered my nickname. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you (the first poster) are referring to what we in Hungary call an aspect of "reslovakization" in the post 1920 years, and I think they refer to it in the neighbouring countries as well. Magyarization is attributed mainly to the Dual Monarchy era. But there was a good reason behind the "re-" prefix after WW1, even if - in my opinion - other aspects of the "re-zation" against Hungarians and Germans in the Basin were mainly driven vengeance (apart from practical reasons and need to create homogenic populations), not democratization and in a way it made Hungary's neighbours as opressing as we were before 1918. But of course, that's the past, it's been 50 years and EU's 'border-policy' will probably help solving the remaining disputes. Hunmihaly 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention, that most of the names were changed back to Slovak and Romanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that that is obviously not true, a lot of new names were invented in that period. Squash Racket (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what period? In the period 1848-1918? Or before? Give me a few examples in Slovakia please.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. if you answer something, indent your comment.

"Examples of places where original non-Hungarian names were replaced with newly invented Hungarian names: Szvidnik - Felsővízköz (in Slovak Svidník, now Slovakia), Najdás - Néranádas (in Romanian Naidǎş, now Romania), Sztarcsova - Tárcsó (in Serbian Starčevo, now Serbia), Lyutta - Havasköz (in Ruthenian Lyuta, now Ukraine), Bruck - Királyhida (now Bruck an der Leitha, Austria)[citation needed]."

I think this is completely misleading and should be removed as most settlements in the course of history had/obtained Hungarian names in the historical Hungary. Most of the magyarization examples are translations. I would consider Magyarization if a town would gain a new official name, name of a Hungarian national hero(one that was even hostile with the people living there). There are good examples of national"izations" in settlement names: The village with the name "Zoltán" (a first name), or "Szentmihály" (Saint Michael) was translated as Mihai Viteazu (Mihai the heroic), or the town "Párkány"(the name has turkish origin, 68.7% of the inhabitants being ethnic Hungarian) is named after the 19th century Slovak national leader, Ľudovít Štúr.. I believe the Serb, Slovac and Romanian nationalist interest would regret to dispute the origin of settlement names and fooling around with who was where first.

I just looked up a single village "Tárcsó" and found a site telling that:

"Az 1717. évi összeírás szerint 50 házból állt. 1764-ben határőrvidéki szerbeket és németeket telepítettek. A horvátok telepítése 1773-1774-ben kezdődhetett. A II. világháború után a németek helyére 160 szerb családot telepítettek, de azok több mint harmada visszatért szülőhelyére. A betelepülés a következő években is folytatódott, mára szinte csak szerbek lakják." http://vajdasag.netoktato.hu/T%C3%A1rcs%C3%B3 (site about the settelments of Vojvodina in hungarian language)

Which means that: In the census of 1717 the village had 50 houses. Beginning with 1764 Serb and German military frontiers were established. After WII in the place of Germans 160 Serb family was settled, though most of these families returned to their native place the settlement of Serbs continued and today is a village with an almost completely Serb population."

For those with too strong national feelings: make justice and judge first your own nation, and when you say everything is fine there then you are probably not telling the truth.81.181.70.7 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)surfer[reply]

Please refrain from removing references to the academic literature from this article. And please do not delete the paragraphs you do not like without proposing such a big change on this talk page. Tankred 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there English version of your 'academic literature' or will we all learn Slovakian? If that is so, Hungarian sources are accepted too, right?

I also found a lie about Petőfi having Serb ancestors. The article needs serious amount of rewriting, the changes I made are only the most necessary. Squash Racket 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not lie, his father was Serb, which can be easily proved by sources. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petőfi's father CLAIMED to be Hungarian which can be easily proved by sources. Squash Racket 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His father was magyarized Serb, but even magyarized Serbs are Serbs. See: http://www.rtv.co.yu/sr/vesti/vremeplov/2007_07_31/vest_26526.jsp Quote: "U bici kod Šegešvara poginuo je mađarski pisac i revolucionar srpskog porekla, major mađarske revolucionarne vojske Šandor Petefi. Rođen je 1823. kao Aleksandar Petrović, od oca Srbina i majke Slovakinje." (English translation: "In the battle near Šegešvar, Šandor Petefi, Hungarian writer and revolutionary of Serb origin, major of Hungarian revolutionary army, has died. He was born in 1823 as Aleksandar Petrović, from Serb father and Slovak mother") - so much about sources. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see that you actually like this kind of discussion. What you want to hear is this: you can make changes to articles as long as they are referenced. If there are conflicting references to academic sources you should deal until concensus is reached, OK? That is the bottomline, right? Squash Racket 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me that I don't wanna end up like that USER, OK? Squash Racket 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is problem with reference that I presented? PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I've never heard of the term 'Magyarization' before, but I am aware that the Austro-Hungarian empire did have a lot of influence over many countries in terms of culture, particularly the Slavs of the Balkans. Second, there is an image located here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Redmap.jpg . The description under the image on the article page says that Croats aren't included. I would like to correct this, as the name being used by the Magyars to describe the Croatians is "Horvats". Horvat is the most common Surname in Croatia and the name Croats use to identify themselves is Hrvat or Hrvati. A translation of the word can be provided at this location: http://translate.google.com/#hu%7Cen%7Chorvat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.128.102 (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses at least three definitions of Magyarisation, let's decide which one is correct, which one is not.

• 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".

We need a clear definition in the lead, otherwise it's POV. Squash Racket 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Could someone upload and add the Austro-Hungarian banknote from this link? [1] I am not registered and am not going to register just because of this... There is a multi-lingual banknote image in this article, so there also should be a bi-lingual banknote. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[2]

Therefore, the revert [3] was not justified. For the same reason, the edit comment in the edit summary [4] is misleading.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hobartimus, could you please explain why are you insisting in deleting/modifying the following things:

• 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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[5]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :)

• "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

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about this extensive source? --Wizzard (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable, this is a family site. Please check it yourself next time. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tell me about nationalist lies dear 1 hour Asdfghjkl123456789 account. --Bizso (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

Even if you had sources for this strange info [6], 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

"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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your sources are not credible one by one, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox).--Nmate (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can not judge what sources are credible. This is only your opinion with no value.--Omen1229 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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), let's 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And to your portrayal of MS as an extremist organization - they distanced themselves from Kotleba's party [7], then he managed to become a member of a local branch [8] and because of that the local branch was disbanded [9]. 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)[reply]

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 [10]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide relevant arguments disputing the sources. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]