Talk:Slovakization/Archive 1

message: Rather than an invention of user Arpad, the term has been used by the most respected of 20th century Slovak historians. I refer Juro to Ľubomír Lipták, Changes of Changes: Society and Politics in Slovakia in the 20th Century, Studia Historica Slovaca XXII (Bratislava: AEP and Historický ústav SAV, 2002), pp. 35-44. This entire section of Liptak's article, which details the cultural reconstruction of Nitra, Trnava, and Trenčín after 1918, is titled "Slovakization." Jesse47 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Juro, read it carefully. It does not say is only used in relation to Hungarians and Rusyns, it says it is OFTEN used. Feel free to add Germans, Roma, Vlachs, etc. to the list (with references of course), but I think people would want to know who specifically the term is used for—it's important information! —Khoikhoi 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the second sentence 

message: Етнічні відносини П. досить складні й мінливі. Багаторічне культ. і побутове співжиття українців та сх. словаків і угорців, при перевазі чужого елементу, особливо у низинних р-нах П. (між Брановом, Гуменним, Михайлівцями і Собранцями, куди у 18 в. почала напливати сильна словацька колонізація), сприяли мовній словакізації українців; лише частково (у містах та етнічних островах на півд.) вони угорщилися. При цьому, в одному й другому випадку вони зберігали релігію (гр.-кат.). Гр.-католики з словацькою мовою до 1920-их pp. становили переходову групу, яку єднала з українцями віра й традиції, з словаками — мова. Їх ч. постійно збільшувалося через перехід частини укр. населення на словацьку мову. Найбільший відсоток становили гр.-католики з словацькою мовою у півд.-сх. частині Словаччини — від ⅓ до ½ всього населення. Разам з цим укр. суцільна територія зменшилася до сх. і півн. частини П.; поза нею залишилася ще низка укр. мовних та гр.-кат. островів з словацькою, а на півдні з угор. мовою (див. каргу). Словакізація укр. населення збільшилася за чехо-словацької влади; тепер гр.-католики і правос. з словацькою мовою почувають себе вже словаками.
:The ethnic relationship of Prešov Region is complex and volatile. A long term cultural and everyday cohabiton of Ukrainians, Eastern Slovakians and Hungarians, under the prepodence of the non-Ukrainian element lead to the linguistic Slovakization of Ukrainians, while in some parts (in cities and ethnic islands in the south) they where Magyarized. Still, in both cases they preserved their religion (Greek Catholicism). Until the 1920s, the Slovak-speaking Greek-Catholics composed a transitional group that was connected with the Ukrainians through religion and traditions, with Slovak as their language. Their number was gradually increasing with the transition of the parts of Ukrainian population to the Slovak language. [snip] Slovakization of the Ukrainian population increased in the times of the Czechoslovakian authorities. The Greek Catholics and Orthodox started to perceive themselves as Slovaks.
Розподіл гр.-католиків і правос. за мовою й докладне визначення кількости українців зробити трудно, бо угор. і чехо-словацькі переписи населення подавали ч. українців невірно. На підставі цих переписів ч. гр.-католиків і правос. у всій Словаччині було таке (у тис.): 1890 — 185, 1900 — 199, 1910 — 200, 1921 — 198, 1930 — 223; ч. українців за ці самі pp.: 84,4, 84,6, 97,0, 85,6, 91,1. Укр. дослідники (В. Гнатюк, С. Томашівський, М. Кордуба й ін.) визначають ч. українців значно вище. За оцінками В. Кубійовича 1930 на П. жило щонайменше 110000 українців (у тому ч. на укр. суцільній території — 87 000 або 73,8% всіх; крім них, 16 000 словаків і чехів, 11 000 євреїв, 1 000 угорців, 3 000 ін.), на укр. островах і в розпорошенні 23 000; ч. гр.-католиків з словацькою мовою бл. 80 000. Повоєнні переписи подають ч. українців на П. цілком невірно (у тис.): 1950 — 46, 1960 — 33, 1970 — 38. За цей час опитування Словацької Нац. Ради в 1967 знайшло у 206 с. (з усіх 250) 98 000 українців. Їх ч. на П. можна нині визначити на 110-125 000. На зменшення ч. українців на П. за останні ЗО pp. вплинула не тільки словакізація, але й еміґрація значного ч. українців за межі П., гол. до чес. країв.
:It is difficult to estimate the distribution of the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics by the language as well as to determine the number of Ukrainians because both the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian censuses provided the incorrect number of Ukrainians. [snip statistics and its criticism and alt estimations] The decrease of the number of Ukrainians was influenced not only by Slovakization but also by emigration of a significant number of Ukrainians from Presov, mainly to the Czech lands.
:::But this is about a natural process. When Slovaks go to neigbouring countries, they are frequently Czechised  or Polonized within a month, because of the linguistic similarity, but I would not write an article about that. Secondly - and this nationalist text "forgets" to mention that, of course - it is exactly the policy of Ukrainization of the Rusyns (dictated by the then UdSSR also to Czechoslovakia) which caused that Rusyn/Russian schools were turned into Ukrainian ones, which in turn made many Rusyns (whose language is between Slovak and Ukrainian) to prefer Slovak schools rather than Ukrainian ones (they hated the Ukrainians after WII because of the developments at that time), but again that was neither organized nor directed and belongs under "Ukrainization". Juro 11:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, this Rusyns or Ruthenians were mostly highly loyal to the Hungarian cause all over history, called by "gens fidelissima" (the most faithful people) by Rákóczi himself. Árpád 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:uk:Пряшівщина|Prešov Region]]

message: Словацький тиск на українців на С. збільшився з 1919, коли до С. включено частину укр. Закарпаття, положену на зах. від р. Уж. Словакізація українців була в програмі Словацької Нар. Партії, лідери якої відмовилися від співпраці з укр. політиками Закарпаття (але співпрацювали з угрофілом А. Бродієм), які тому увійшли в зв'язки з чес. політ. партіями, що ставилися позитивно або невтрально до укр. питання. Культ. словацько-укр. взаємини тоді були мінімальні. Деякі зв'язки існували між С. і Закарп. Україною (у Братіславі діяв Клюб друзів Закарпаття, що видавав ж. «Podkarpatská Revue», вийшло кілька кн. про Закарпаття, переклади творів закарп. письм.), зате ін. укр. землі та їх культура залишалися невідомими для словаків. У той час і Україна не виявляла зацікавлення С.
:The Slovakian pressure on Ukrainians in Slovakia increased after 1919 when Slovakia incorporated the parts of the Ukrainian Transcarpathia to the west of the Uzh river. The Slovakization of Ukrainians was a part of the program of the Slovak People's party, whose leader refused to cooperate with the Ukrainian politicians of Transcarpathia but cooperated with Hungarian-speaking A. Brody. Therefore, the Ukrainian politicians opened the links with the Czech political parties which were supportive of neutral towards the Ukrainian question. The cultural Slovak-Ukrainian relations at the time were minimal [snip to the end]
—Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text is a Ukrainian nationalist text (which can be seen from the use of the term Ukrainians) and you do not know that. First of all, people living there were Rusyns, not Ukrainians; it is only Ukraine itself and some extremists who claim the opposite. Otherwise, the text is plainly wrong and literally ridiculous, because Slovakia as a political unit did not exist at that time and had no influence whatsovere in the separate Transcarpathia territory. There was no Slovak administrative unit at all, not to mention a Slovak government or central authority. So the "pressure" - if any- came from Prague, and the whole paragraph is just historical non-sense; the author did not even bother to inform himself on basic things. Juro 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I know it—but it's not our job to pass judgement on the validity of our sources. This is a widely-used academic encyclopedia in Ukraine, and thus a verifiable source. If you want to counter these views, add (don't just say that they exist) appropriately cited material of your own. —Khoikhoi 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I see that you are just a completely ignorant person or a sockpuppet, so in the first case please just stop to comment on things you do not have the slightest idea of. I really have the impression that I am talking to a 5-years old child.  It is not a "widely used" whatever, it contains even errors on such things as subdivisions of Carpathians, and irrespective of this it IS our job to  evalute the sources, because a source can be found for virtually anything you want and because sources can contain errors. And most importantly, maybe you have not been told this yet, but there are things called libraries and books in the world, not only the internet, and (except for one or two exception) there is no single reliable longer text regarding the history of Slovakia, not even on google book search, so whatever you find on the web is just ridiculous. The USA might be covered well on the web, but not the rest of the world....So, I repeat: the above text is plainly wrong, because:Slovakia as a political unit did not exist at that time and had no influence whatsovere in the separate Transcarpathia territory. There was no Slovak administrative unit at all, not to mention a Slovak government or central authority. Which part of these very simple facts are you denying or which part of this do not you understand? These are absolutely elementary facts.  Juro 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:uk:Словаччина|Slovakia]]

message: The extent of Slovakization can be easily seen in historical references (e. g. population statistics can be reliably estimated from medieval tax records). The general trend characterizing the percentage of Hungarians in the former Felvidék is as follows: ca. 40% around 1490, ca. 30% around 1910, ca. 20-25% around 1930 and 10% today). From these figures it is apparent that the general tendency in the former Felvidék was Slovakization with the most dramatic population shift being the expulsion policies following WWII.
These are hard-core data and not "19th century lies" or "hypernationalist crap" as (I can't help saying) our fellow-user Juro likes to put it whenever he is facing exact data contradicting his POV (On the other hand, when he is asked to prove his statements, he often evades this by referring to them as "common knowledge" or "every schoolchild knows this". He seems to be a historian of some sort but clearly has a problem with historical objectivity. Árpád 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical statistics 

message: *The author is another sockpuppet of user Arpad alias HunTomy alias XY.
*Read my comment on the deletion talk page to this article.
*Nobody was "expelled" after WWI, they lost their jobs. 
*The story of individual persons is irrelevant. Opinions of individual persons are irrelevant. Quotes from revisionist webpages (50% of Hungarian webpages are such) are irrelevant.
*If you are going to call this "Slovakization" we will have to add a section about how the whole administrative staff and schools were previously Magyarised without any special motivation (no creation of a new country, no world war etc.), how all Slovak-language schools were shut down (without any special motivation) etc. etc. 
*The whole Slota part was firstly an insane lie, secondly even if it was not, it is again out of place and irrelevant. And as for the video, you can be sure there are 10 000s of such videos on the internet (I mean worldwide). Also, the nationalist SMK cannot be in the government forever, because no party can be in the government forever.
*I still have not been answered the question how one can speak of Slovakization of Hungarians, when their number increased while their number in Hungary itself decreased. Juro 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you have removed sourced information. Once again I'm asking to stop doing so. User:Angr 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I have said my reasons. Can you provide arguments? The topic is Slovakization, not anti-Hungarian quotes. Juro 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasons do not justify the removal of sourced statements. If you disagree with them, then find sourced statements that argue the contrary, add them, and cite the sources. If you blank a section of this page again, I will block you for disruption. User:Angr 11:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Could you explain - in detail - why my arguments do not justify the removal. Secondly, could you explain what the current quotes of one person have to do with the title and definition of this article. Thirdly, could you explain why it is acceptable that Arpad creates a sockpuppet (alphy...) and you have no problem with that? Fourtly, a general question: Do you REALLY want me to start quoting nationalist webpages and texts containing mostly crap - just like Arpad does?  Because that is "sourced" information. This is the last time I am asking this, because I would prefer not to do that, but if the name of any source is an argument for you, I will really start to do that. So, this is the last time I am asking this. Juro 11:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, your arguments do not justify the removal because your arguments are unsupported. Simply saying "This is all lies!" isn't a sound argument. Secondly, the material you removed was clearly related to the concept of "Slovakization", though Zello's NPOV rewrite is a clear improvement. Thirdly, I don't know whether or not User:Alphysikist is a sockpuppet of User:Árpád, and until there is a request for CheckUser, neither do you. Fourthly, no, I want you to start citing reliable, neutrally written sources by authors with no ethnic stake in the matter at all. User:Angr 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Arpad can cite any webpage he finds, of course..."Well" done... Juro 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last removal 

message: The article is still far from complete, I have only corrected the basic errors. Juro 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state 

message: I propose the deletion of the article as it is absolutely senseless in the current form. There is no need for a second article about Magyarization and a praise of the Slovak minority policy. Hungarians know the truth anyway. I finished editing this absurd article. Zello 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zello, but we shouldn't delete it, we should fix the problems that we have now. Just because the page now is filled with bullshit doesn't mean that it's always going to be like that. I'm sure we can fix things up. —Khoikhoi 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I listed the article on Request for Comment. Zello 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: (1) Slovakization is often rationalized as a response to forced magyarization, which happened mainly after the Ausgleich (Compromise of 1867). While no one now considers magyarization a positive trend, for several reasons the rationalization of slovakization as a response to it is questionable: magyarization happened during the times of the monarchy, and it happened in a time period when human rights were not considered nearly as universal as now. Slovakization is happening since then and it was as severe under communist dictatorship as it is now in democratic
I have removed this paragraph, not because I would necessarily disagree, but because this is a speculative formulation (a "POV" in wikipedia terminology) not suitable for an encyclopaedia. If this was an undisputed topic, maybe such formulations could work, but since that is not the case, it is definitely better to stick to pure sourced data. Juro 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removed paragraph 

message: I also propose to delete the comparisons with Slovak minority in Hungary. Not only because of the obvious content dispute which is hard to solve. The main reason for my proposal that every comparison in tendentious: If I can prove that Hungary was the Hell itself for Slovaks that justifies Slovakization, on the other hand if I can prove that Hungary was almost a Paradise for them then I suggest that Slovakization was even worse than itself. There is chance for other comparisons, similarly tendentious: Swedish in Finland, Südtyrol versus other nation states. I think instead of such dubious effort this article should concentrate on Slovakization. Data should be copied to a new article about Slovaks in Hungary where 
later content disputes can be solved. Zello 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: When speaking of Slovakization, the cultural aspect should not be neglected, like the destruction of the Hungarian education system (from the 3298 Hungarian elementary schools, only 727 remained, the rest was slovakized. The same happened to educational institutions in towns with Hungarian majority or significant Hungarian population like Besztercebánya, Kassa or Lőcse (where the great Hungarian writer, Szabó Dezső used to teach before WWI). As a result of cultural Slovakization, the Czechs had one high school for  every 48,000 inhabitants, the Hungarians one high school for every 137,000 inhabitants. Cultural Slovakization encompassed the destruction or confiscation of cultural property such as the confiscation of theatres (like the City Theatre in Pozsony which is presently functioning as Slovak National Theatre), destruction or vandalization of monuments (like the Maria Theresa monument in Pozsony, the Millenary Monument in  Dévény or the vandalization of the Petőfi Statue in Pozsony) and misrepresenting the predominantly German and Hungarian cultural history of the region (hence the expressions "Slovak Gothic architecture" or "Slovak baroque" or "Slovak heraldry".), whereas it is well visible that the historical city centres of present-day Slovak cities follow the general Hungarian architectural pattern (just compare Pozsony and Sopron, for example) found everywhere in the Carpathian Basin. Árpád 01:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Slovakization 

message: While it is appropriate to discuss Slota and the present situation, it would also be worthwhile to discuss Meciar and his reign in relation to this issue.  He was also not exactly a champion of equality for the Hungarians...  Alphysikist 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meciar 

message: There were no ethnic clashes between Slovaks and Hungarians in Hungary. There were two incidents: the graffiti on the embassy and the football protest. That's not the same as the three severe beatings and harassment that happened in Slovakia. Misleading to draw equality between the two. Zello 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several name tables of the municipalities with a Slovak minority in Hungary, as well as the Slovak embassy and a statue were damaged. The cases of hate speech and threatening banners in the footbal stadium were not punished. Both countries should be mentioned, Zello. Tankred 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope no more Hungarians will be ever beaten in Slovakia and all crimes will be punished soon. But I would say that any attack against the integrity of the embassy is a very rare and serious incident. If you feel the word "clashes" is too strong, just change it. But I must insist on the inclusion of both countries in the sentence because this conflict has been escalating on both sides. Anyway, the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article covers it all. Tankred 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The first incident occurred in August, but the elections were held in June. The link between Slota and the attacks is just an assertion of Hungarian politicians and journalists, but there is no proof of the causality. I say this with regret because I am not a big fan of Slota and I would prefer to have SMK in the government instead of SNS. BTW, the Slovak embassy in Budapest was attacked before anyone had been actually beaten. Tankred 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic clashes 

message: At the beginning of the article, after "creation (or imposition) of Czechoslovakia", it would be important to mention that the German population was more numerous than the "state-forming" Slovak ethnic group, the latter did not even reach absolute majority in the region to be called Slovakia. It would be also important to mention that in pre-WWI Hungary, high-ranking officials, like the Catholic Primate (Csernoch János, he openly opposed the creation of Czechoslovakia) were of Slovak origin, which again contradicts to the charges of Magyarization. Another important point is that the Czech occupation of Felvidék was not uniformly greeted positively by the local inhabitants. Even Andrei Hlinka, who later took a fascist political course (see the Hlinka guards) said that Slovak suffered more during several month of Czech occupation than after long decades of Hungarian rule. As for the creation of Slovak schools, emphasis should be placed on the fact that instead of creating their own schools, the Slovaks simply confiscated previously flourishing Magyar schools in most towns of present-day Slovakia which had vibrant Hungarian cultural life (and the Slovak cultural life in those towns was negligible, being mostly restricted to villages). The same process took place in theatres, instead of building a Slovak theatre in Pozsony, they simply confiscated the Hungarian theatre, expelled the Hungarian director and theatrical company. For several years, using the old names of the city (like Pressburg or Pozsony) was a punishable offence and after 1945, people were even persecuted for speaking Hungarian on the streets. Some more important details will follow.Árpád 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further important edits 

message: I do not understand why User:Chery deleted the information that Miklós Duray is a nationalistic politician. It was not meant as an offense. Nationalistic parties exist in almost all political systems with free elections. They are a legitimate and legal manifestation of ethnic cleavages within the system. The political program of SMK is clearly nationalistic, the demographic structure of its leadership and electoral support is determined by ethnicity, and Duray is the leader of the extremist wing of that party (in contrast to Bela Bugar, who leads the moderate wing). If you want to quote Duray, it is important to briefly describe who he is, especially when we have no article about him. What is wrong with that? I did not call him a fascist (fascist parties are illegal in Slovakia), I did not call him irredentist (though he has made irredentist statements). I just described his political affiliation. Both Duray and Slota are nationalistic politicians and this description should not be deleted just because some users like them. Please, do not delete this reference without offering any convincing argument. Nationalism is not a bad word, but a term from political science with a certain meaning. Tankred 18:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it has a scientific meaning, but in a general context, as Wikipedia is not Politopedia, it can be very ambiguous. Mentioning that he's member of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition should be enough here for the reader to learn about his political role in Slovakia. Saying that he's nationalist, well, whether or not true in a political scientific context, for many it can also mean fascist, as you mentioned that above. chery 19:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But an encyclopedia should use the correct meaning of words. Nationalism is not fascism and the word "nationalism" has very diverse connotations. Some of them are positive (almost all contemporary democratic states are nation-states and they provide protection, welfare, and political rights to their citizens), some of them are negative (nationalism has been used to justify organized violence). Wikipedia should not be crippled by incorrect popular beliefs and fluid trends in public opinion (such as the perception of nationalism as something intrinsically bad, liberalism as immoral, and conservatism as militaristic). Tankred 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but if possible, an encyclopaedia should avoid ambiguity (science vs. popular beliefs). Maybe we could find a more univocal synonym? chery 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miklós Duray 

message: They are in that article, this is about slovakization, so only these should be in here. It is a nonsense, that slovakization page talks about magyarization mainly. Pan Slavism was the reason why pro-hungarianism arose, but it soon stopped. Wasn't forced. If it was, bring the source, not here, but on the magyarization page. That page is full of nationalist bullshit right now. (if I speak patiently). --195.56.12.121 13:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut out parts by me 

message: Half of the content of this page should be in the magyarization article, wich itself is a mess.  --VinceB 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a joke 

message: I request again a new deletion of this article.--87.236.196.63 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Relevant and not-obsolete discussion was deleted from this page, justyfying it by archivation.
Nevertheless, archivation should leave at least a summary of the archived discussion.
147.175.98.213 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: 
*there was a sign at the top that read "this talk page is too long", archive was necessary
*'Relevant and non-obsolete' discussion ended one and a half years ago
*I've never seen a summary of an archive on Wikipedia 
*anyone can start a new discussion on any related topic on this talk page (at the bottom)
Squash Racket (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Note 2: 
*I cannot find the sign saying "this talk page is too long". Could you please tell me, where to find it?
*'Relevant and non-obsolete' is not mutually exclusive with 'old' 
*Read the WP:ARCHIVE. There is a sentence:"It is also helpful to label your archives with dates and briefly summarize their main discussions." The simple fact, that you have never seen it, does not mean it does not exist.
*Summary belongs to the top. Just because it is a summary. Feel free to add other topics to the summary if you like.
147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant discussion was archived 

message: === This article is based on total misinformations and false statemets. ===
 
For example: 
"Independence of Slovakia from the former Czecho-Slovakia increased the hardship faced by the Hungarian minority. The 1992 Slovak constitution is derived from the concept of the Slovak nation state[29], to the exclusion of minorities." Absolutly not true!
The Slovak constitution (No. 460/1992)in its Preamble says: "We, Slovak nation... together with representavives of national minorities and ethnical groups living in  Slvoakia.... adopt this constitution."
Duray is not a reliable source (IQWXC (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  QWC 

message: For example: 
"Independence of Slovakia from the former Czecho-Slovakia increased the hardship faced by the Hungarian minority. The 1992 Slovak constitution is derived from the concept of the Slovak nation state[29], to the exclusion of minorities." Absolutly not true!
The Slovak constitution (No. 460/1992)in its Preamble says: "We, Slovak nation... together with representavives of national minorities and ethnical groups living in  Slvoakia.... adopt this constitution."
Duray is not a reliable source (IQWXC (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is based on total misinformations and false statemets. 

message: Yes, that is true- but after the teachetr of the university rejecter to swear an oath of loyality to the new Czechoslovak state. They moved to Pecs/Pätkostolie/Funfkirchen. 
QWXC (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Hungarian University in Bratislava/Pozsony was immediately closed after the Czechoslovak occupation of the town." 

message: "According to the 1910 census conducted by the Central Statistical Office of Hungary, there were 884,309 ethnic Hungarians, constituting 30.2% of the population, in what is now Slovakia compared to the 9.7% number recorded in the 2001 census, amounting to a 3 fold decrease in the percentage of Hungarians. The Czechoslovak census of 1930 recorded 571,952 Hungarians. All censuses from the period are disputed, and some give conflicting data for example in Kosice according to the Czechoslovak censuses 15-20% of the population was Hungarian. However during the parliamentary elections the Ethnic Hungarian parties got 35-45% of the total votes (excluding those Hungarians who voted for the Communists or the Social democrats)"
This is a diagra showing a development of the official representation of ethnical Hungariaons in Slovakia:
1880: 22.2%
1910: 30.3%
1921: 21.7%
1930: 17.6%
1950: 10.3%
1961: 12.4%
1970: 12.2%
1980: 11.2%
1991: 10.8%
2001:  9.7%
the high numbers of hungarioans in 1880 and 1910 were a result of th campaigbn of magyarisation and therefore do not correspondent toa real situation. After 1918these "statistical Hungarians" simply returned to their origianl Slovak ethnicity. (The rather low number in 1950 is a result of the temporal politicly motivated reslovakisation)
But thThe real reprersentation of Hungarioans in Slovakia was always about 10-12 %. The decline of this representation afte 1961 is a result of two factors:
a) lower natalitily of ethnical Hungarioans in comparison with Slovaks (it is visible also in a case of hungarioans in Hungary:-))
b) natural assimilation in dominantly Slovak country
QWXC (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census. 

message: In 1991 there was not simply any such adminsitrative reform. 
QWXC (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The administrative system governed by laws created in 1991, included 17 regions and 2 regions with a majority Hungarian population 

message: It must be some misnderstandig. The district of Komarna was established in 1960, it has existed till now, it has a Hungarioan majority and its borders are almost the same as the ancient county of Komarno had  in the past.  :-)
Look: [] and []
QWXC (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMK asked in vain for the creation of a Hungarian majority Komárno county. Although a territorial unit of this name existed before 1918 

message: The reform from the 1996 left the borders of districts (11) in South Slovakia untached! Thea are the same as they were shaped in 1960! No slvoak government had a courage to do some changes there, becouse it would have meant a changes in a power and etnical balances in these regions. For example in the district of Nove Zamky the ethnic composition of inhabitans is about 50:50. A proposed division  of this district to two smaller districts (Sturovo and Nove Zamky) would have ment that In nove Zamky Hungariaons would have become a real minority (20%) and thea would ahve complaned (I am sure) and in Stuove they would have forme majority over Slvoeks whio also would have complaned. :-)
QWXC (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the reorganized system only 2 districts (Dunajská Streda and Komárno) have a Hungarian majority population. 

message: I am too tired to continue :-)
QWXC (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etc... 

message: Practically each statement in this article is contraversial. If this article is based only on arguments from Hungarioan propagandistic booklets and articles, it will be better to erase it. 
QWXC (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution 

message: I guess this site should discuss that the Slovakization started from the Turkish wars in Kingdom of Hungary. In fact the first Slovakization appeared after battle of Mohacs because approximately 80-90 percent of Kingdom of Hungary population was Hungarian before the Turkish wars. When the Turkish wars ended the Hungarians constituted just approximately 50 percent of the population of Kingdom of Hungary and later that number indicated a massive reduction because of the new settlers from abroad. 
The native Hungarian population -which lived in north of Kingdom of Hungary from the Settlement of the Magyars- started to change identity because the Slavs were the majority in north of Kingdom of Hungary. That area could develop between relative peaceful circumstances while the ethnic area of Hungarians suffered. The ethnic of Slavs increased and a lot of ethnic Hungarian village altered to Slovak. It would be good if somebody made a perfect contribution with reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakization from the Turkish wars