Talk:Slovakization

message: This part is completly missing? Especially after the effect of the turkish invasions and the Kurutzen Uprise. Decline of the prviosly german minning cities (Golden Schmenitz and Kremnitz, Neusohl).--2003:E5:3F21:6F00:2570:6B81:CDDC:75B9 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Slovakization of Germans

message: This article is biased against Slovaks. It is very picky as to the facts. Some statements are unsourced or based on a doubtful citation. I will conduct a thorough examination and remove any citations which are false, doubtful. Consequently, I will remove all statements which are unsourced and harmful/biased.
--18hangar18 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting enough that you have involved in editing articles like Miklós Horthy, Hungarization and Slovakization that (may) contain contentious pieces of POV information. Cosidering the collaborative nature of the project, you shall not remove any citations which you think are false without the consent of other editors who are also interested to edit those articles unless you want to give up editing Wikipedia. That is all what you need to etch in your memory--Nmate (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the notices because we have a comment. Dear 18hangar18, Could you please let me know which sentences and citations are biased? Because your comment is not too accurate in connection with them.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just placing a message that there are problems without actually highlighting (at least some of) them is not enough to keep the warnings. But, to demonstrate good intentions, we can keep the tags (POV, factual accuracy, etc.) for a few days to see whether the poster could identify his problems with the text (preferably backed up by reliable sources), otherwise, they should be removed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no specific problems were identified in the last month, I remove the tags. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are still remaining many issues which are presented from Hungarian viewpoint and are biased against Slovaks which is clear from the references cited. For example: "remaining Hungarian armies in 1919" were related to occupation of Slovakia territory by Hungarian Soviet Republic . There are many more of them and the article is based on repeating them more times like (2x closing the Elisabeth university). Success of Slovakization is showed just exactly in this article, when cities in Slovakia in 2014 are called by their Hungarian names like "Gúta (Kolárovo) ..., Czechoslovakia, February, 1947" . I am also wondering that "Nagylévárd (today's Veľké Leváre)" was the name of the city in the refereed 16th century (it was referred as Noglew in 1378). Is there any rule on wikipedia how to refer cities? Oldknee (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: problem citations, verification of citations, possible bias

message: # Cenzus vs. preferences of "ethnic" parties. "Ethnic" Hungarian party Provincial Christian-Socialist Party had 78 Slovak subsidiaries + newspaper in Slovak language (Vola ludu). E.g. in Presov party had 2000 Slovak members. Such comparisons between censuses and preferences of parties are meaningless with the goal to prove (or indicate) something what they really cannot. 
# Rapid decline of "mother tongue". What is a "mother tongue"? According to the latest Hungarian census from 1910, "mother tongue" is "a language preferably or the mostly spoken by person". It is obvious that during the peak of magyarization a lot of people had serious motivation to declare Hungarian language as their favorite, because of career or political reasons. After 1918, they simply lost motivation + Czechoslovak definition was different. Other aspects are in already in the article - bilingual population repeatedly decided for the most beneficial nationality.
# Teachers + state employees. Authors "forget" to mention marginal participation of Slovaks before 1918. E.g. in 1908-1909 less than 2% teachers were Slovaks (627 of 31 817) and they had similar share also in other positions. It is clear that it was not possible to maintain such "excellent" system created during magyarization, especially when banned Slovak high (but also other) schools were permitted again or changed back from Hungarian to Slovak.
# Elisabeth Science University in Bratislava. This university was transformed to Comenius University and was not closed due to reasons presented by authors, but for another very simple reason - in the whole Kingdom of Hungary there was none Slovak university and something had to be quickly converted to cover basic needs of 2 million nation in 20th century. On other levels of education system, Hungarian minority had more schools that all Slovaks before 1918. If Slovaks had own teachers they would not (obviously) replace Hungarian teachers on university by Czechs.
# Destruction of monuments. The source referenced by article (Pravda) clearly states that destruction of statue of Maria Theresa was not related to any "slovakization" but it was reaction of legionaries on trial to restore monarchy. "The millennium monuments" were build during extremely chauvinistic atmosphere of "millennium celebrations" and in many cases literally as symbols of Hungarian domination. I had no doubts that soldiers were not qualified historians and frequently removed whatever what looked like reference to monarchy (as a political system) or magyarization. However, we should strictly distinguish between actions motivated by resistance against monarchy or against magyarization and not to try present everything as slovakization and oppression of Hungarians.
# Shooting in Bratislava in 1919. Regardless of also social dimension of protests, shooting occurred after attack against local military commander Ricardo Barecca. More, he was obviously not Slovak.
# Political power. Czechoslovakia gave more political rights to Hungarians than Hungary in the same time and it is documented not only by Czech and Slovak authors, but also by Hungarians. E.g. Tilkovszky documents what kind of problems it caused after annexation of southern Slovakia by Hungary. Czechoslovakia de facto extended political rights of citizens (including Hungarians) and 90% of people in Slovakia (including Hungarians) voted for the first time. More, it guaranteed voting right for women (also Hungarian women), which did not exist Hungary. Nobody banned Hungarians to form coalitions with other parties to achieve their goals or to participate on government, like Slovak autonomists or Germans did.
# Jump to the end of WWII. This is an excellent example how the article is written - Hungarians did nothing bad before 1918, then they were oppressed, then some period is missing for "unknown" reason and then they were oppressed again.
I mean, Slovakization and postwar persecutions of Hungarians are well documented also by Slovak historians (e.g. works of Štefan_Šutaj are excellent source) and they frequently do research in cooperation with ethnic Hungarian authors. However, authors of this article did not focus on some serious description of events, but on one side presentation of facts, demonisation of real situation, ignorance of any historical context, list of all injustices (real or imaginated) in mutual relationships, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditinili (talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlos71, there is a list of concrete objections. Please, focus on them instead of making political statements or hate speech like "most Slovak historians are chauvinists and full of hatred, like quite a few Slovak people", "kulturkampf against Hungarians", etc.Ditinili (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:FORUM. I appreciate your interest in Jan Slota, he was expelled from his own (non-parliamentary) party 2 years ago. I am afraid that in the atmosphere of raising magyarization, millennium celebrations were not organized and realized just as a celebration of 1000y of existence, this is a very optimistic statement. Yes, we can agree that the majority of Hungarians was not happy with Czechoslovak citizenship for various reasons, like a shock that they became minority, intensive revisionistic propaganda spread by Hungarian governments, social and national demagogy of some Hungarian parties or mistakes of Czechoslovak governments. However, the information that mid-war Czechoslovakia guaranteed them higher political and social rights than Hungary is correct. Of course, Hungarian minority parties could participate in the Czechoslovak government like the Germans or Slovak autonomists did (along with Hungarian members of statewide parties). The fact that dominant German and Hungarian parties misused democratic freedoms to cooperate with enemies of the Czechoslovak state whose goal was her total elimination significantly (and temporarily) influenced post-war minority policy. Of course, not only Šutaj, but also other Slovak historians cooperate with (minority) Hungarian historians. Note, that particularly the older generation of Slovak historians was raised in Czechoslovak spirit and in the environment which could hardly tolerate any sharp Slovak nationalistic views. Obvious lies like "Hungarian doctor and a Hungarian patient have to speak Slovak otherwise they will be given a fine" can be easily refuted. Let's read the Law 270/1995 Z. z. paragraph 8. 4) "The administrative paperwork of healthcare facilities and social service facilities shall be kept in the state language. The staff of these facilities communicates with their patients or clients usually in the state language; if a patient´s or client´s mother tongue is different from the state language, the communication can be conducted in any language in which the patient or the client can be comprehended."Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Some Slovak historians who deal with the history of Slovakia in the 20th century - Ľubomír Lipták, Milan Zemko, Bohumila Ferenčuhová, Ferdinand Vrábel, already mentioned Roman Holec (19-20th), Slovak state e.g. Ivan Kamenec (including policy HSLS toward minorities), mid-war Hungarian policy toward Slovakia + persecutions of the Slovaks after the first Vienna award e.g. Ladislav Deák, position of Hungarian minority + postwar persecutions of Hungarians e.g. Štefan Šutaj, Milan Olejník, Soňa Gabzdilová, Mária Ďurkovská. Among ethnic Hungarian historians e.g. Katalin Vadkerty who received several awards for her works about post-war persecutions of Hungarians from the Slovak president, the chairman of the Slovak parliament, etc. Probably as a part of Slovak modern kulturkampf against Hungarians (irony).Ditinili (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, inacurracies 

message: I propose that the (minimal) content and references from Slovakization (identity) be added to this article, and the former article removed. As far as I can see this is an unnecessary duplication of the topic, although the references may be useful to this article. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your proposal. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I have edited the section due to translation misinterpretation.
Prime minister Robert Fico (now ex-prime minister) was criticized for using the term "Old Slovaks" (Starí Slováci) and not "Proto-Slovaks" (Praslováci) like the section "Wise historism" suggests. Just as we translate terms "Proto-Norse language" as (Praseverčina) and "Old Norse" as (Staroseverčina), the same principle should be applied here as well. Proto-Slovaks was a bad translation of the original statement.
Source for Robert Fico's statements: https://www.sme.sk/c/3659769/vlada-a-premier-menia-dejiny.html
(Fico's claims reviewed in the interview with Slovak historian Dušan Kováč) 
The article explains, he was further criticized by academia after claiming Great Moravia is a "Slovak state of Old Slovaks" which is problematic in terminology, as we cannot talk about Great Moravians as "Slovaks" the same way we cannot talk about Anglo-Saxons as English. Dušan Kováč explains the Slavic tribes of Great Moravia didn't differ that much from each other and that we can talk about "Slovaks" only after a centuries long process of becoming a separate ethnicity and becoming aware of it, all due to the obvious political and other factors that began after the dissolution of Great Moravia.
Problem number 2:
Also, there is a failed verification: "the history books are getting rewritten at a faster pace than before, and in an increased "spirit of national pride" and so far I have never seen the usage "Old Slovak" in any serious history book or article. Can someone double-check this citation? If not, I suggest it should be deleted, as it does not reflect the reality. ChroniclerArgyl (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wise historism" section 

message: The paragraph under 'The use of the Hungarian language' about the reorganization of Catholic dioceses fails to explain its connection to Slovakization. It should either rewritten to explain the connection or lacking that, removed.
Similarly, the section about the 2011 Census is simply stating that the expectations of a single Hungarian sociologist were not confirmed by the collected data. This is neither an example nor an evidence-based consequence of Slovakization. There is also no evidence that the 7% figure of people who have not specified their nationality has any bearing on Hungarians specifically. The only source for the entire section is a broken link to the census data. I suggest this section be removed as it is at best irrelevant and poorly sourced.
Dorian grejp (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to edit/remove irrelevant sections