Talk:Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams

message: The article should be split into two articles. One would be Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros project dealing with the initial project and the case in the International Court of Justice and the other would be Gabčíkovo Dam about the realized dam with two levels: Gabčíkovo and Čunovo.--Svetovid (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don´t find it needed, because there is not so much information in this article yet.--Michalides (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into 2 articles

message: I would like to rename the article on Gabčíkovo Dams, because there is no "Nagymaros". Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project is just a part of it´s history.--Michalides (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not do that for one year by 2011. User:Izomtibor 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the article

message: this article is like it was written by meciar or slota themselves.
michalides, svetovid and ruziklan are all slovaks and they keep every non-slovak interpretation of the case swept off the table.
the treaty that defines the border says the border is the middle of the shipping channel of the danube. since they altered the shipping channel the border was 'de jure' moved. this isnt a personal opinion, this is an official Hungarian claim.
to editor ruziklan - your surname is Hungarian yet u dont speak Hungarian and are one big-time slovak nationalist. funny but in a shameful way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.82.97 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is under control of slovak nationalist 

message: I think this source in English is a good summary about environmental issues. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. It looks good, the main question is whether this PDF can be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. If yes, would you consider updating the article? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, the study is from experts. See the full version of that: Fakirbakir (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want seem like the Devil's advocate, but "written by experts" may not be enough (even though this looks impressive). Was it published? Normally, PDFs from websites are not accepted as reliable sources (I can write anything in a PDF and upload it somewhere). Is the website reliable?  KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The website "www.bosnagymaros.hu" was part of the websites of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. This administrative unit ceased to exist in 2010. Now, the environmental topics, tasks belong to the "Ministry of Rural Development" (and its new page is kormany.hu).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  environmental issues 

message: ""Stabilization of the bottom and stream of the Danube.""  ---Sorry, but this is so stupid. There is practically no water in the old Danube bed. (see, for example,   p. 190 "....(in) the Old Danube bed, where the the total losses  (fish biomass) in all parameters exceed to 95%"). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the Old Danube gets only 400 m3/s water however the water output used to be 2000 m3/s (average). I remember when people could take a walk in the river bed (Old Danube), because that was dry as a desert (in 1998 if I am right). Anyway I inserted some data about environmental issues into the article, because that statement above is not true. Fakirbakir (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Dear user Petrinec1, I still maintain that http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is not a reliable source. We need neutral independent sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is a self-published source, which is not acceptable here. Also, where does this source  state that the Dam resulted in "Improved living conditions of aquatic animals and forest animals in areas around old Danube"? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific on what asumption it is "self-published source"? 1) As far i know page is owned by government (you could check with domaintools, UVSR - Urad Vlady SR) 2) Annual report is manuscript (without ISBN) and is only available on web (gabcikovo page) or in paper form at slovakian Enviro ministry... 3) you have there reports from '99 until now, which seems to me as quite reliable source as its published by both authors (svk/hun) 4) gabcikovo page is used on Hunagrian&Slovak wiki without problems <BR>ad conditions - seems i put there wrong citation, worked with too many at the time i wrote it, allthough without floods, forest animals are not endangered anymore by spring/summer floods (2013 flood reached 8m+ in old Danube before station got flooded)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrinec1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  environmental issues 2 

message: The switchyard of the power station is disguised on Google Maps
This is probably not true anymore. See this photo taken in 2009:
http://www.google.sk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.rajce.idnes.cz%2Fd0303%2F3%2F3925%2F3925496_9163d58c5dd49cbad08bc1ef94fc7d98%2Fimages%2F067_Gabcikovo.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkucajirka.rajce.idnes.cz%2FGabcikovo_letecky_2009%2F&h=901&w=1200&tbnid=cTKgwAbGdFSiYM%3A&zoom=1&docid=EMjisSa7g5ZWVM&ei=L4hdU63WBoSfO-CRgQg&tbm=isch&ved=0CJoBEDMoPDA8&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=357&page=2&start=35&ndsp=35
And the corresponding google maps section:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dobrohost&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.883524,17.541191&spn=0.003274,0.007907&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.186014,129.550781&t=h&hnear=Dobroho%C5%A1%C5%A5,+Slovakia&z=18
The image is not sharp, but everything is visible. It is also not a problem to walk around the complex pretty close to the buildings, so i see no reason why it should be hidden on google images.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.1.50 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130142121/http://rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk/doc/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Marked it as NPOV as it reflects only the Slovak aspect of the topic: 
- with possible factual errors (Hague lawsuit resolution) 
- missing some important points of environmental aspects (only describing the positive side, citing from the Slovak powerplant’s home page), 
- missing description of Hungarian civil movements that led to aborting the original project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.0.70.248 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV debate