m As I said before, the revision didn't show vandalism whatsoever (HG) |
99.249.224.61 (talk) |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
I think not... I'd like to hear from Hobartimus... If not then perhaps I'll begin to erase his edits... fair is fair <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.249.224.61|99.249.224.61]] ([[User talk:99.249.224.61|talk]]) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I think not... I'd like to hear from Hobartimus... If not then perhaps I'll begin to erase his edits... fair is fair <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.249.224.61|99.249.224.61]] ([[User talk:99.249.224.61|talk]]) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Work Against Hobartimus! Slovani Spojme Sa! == |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Hobartimus' POV violations on this Page Must end. I purpose a watchdog comity that will monitor and undo Hobartimus' Anti-Slovak and Anti-Slavonic edits! just check his edit history and you will see the agenda he is pushing! It is time to fight back! |
Revision as of 23:39, 23 March 2009
Slovakia Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Hungary Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Slovak Version Edit
the current outline (that contains the Slovak events) was coppied in whole with permission from a work by Josef Kirschbaum, Professor of Central European and Slavic History at the University of Toronto. I suggest it be left alone as it is not a POV rather a published academic paper. so stop the edit war Hobartimus and accept History as it IS not as YOU would LIKE it to be! It is only fair that if Hobartimus is allowed to push his agenda then the other side of the issue must also be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
conflicting versions...
The most recent version, Uploaded by Nygaard was pathetic... the sources were redirects that ended up in some Hungarian language newspaper and the others to a poorly organized ramble on Slovak history... Perhaps mr Nygaard should stop pushing his own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.200.10 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Two Suggestions
First, just from the standpoint of helping the reader understand the significance of this event, IMO, the intro and opening sections could be sharpened up so that the reason for the conflict is made plainer for the general reader. I'm having trouble totally understanding why, for example, the locals were so wrought up over this to begin with.
Second, phrases like 'false apostles of Magyar culture' suggest POV-ness which should probably be avoided. Again, I get that there were two sides to this fight, but I'm not sure I could explain what the differences were. I think the first things that should be stated are what the government policy was, and why the locals were on a collision course with it.
Terry J. Carter (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That version was a likely copyvio inserted completely by an IP editor of dubious track record. I'm reverting to the earlier version before his involvement, contributed by the community. Hobartimus (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, You have added some quotations to the article, but with no reference. Another unsourced quotation is there since January 2008. Can anyone find the corresponding citations? If not, those supposed quotations should be removed. Tankred (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- For some odd reason I can't see the references and the categories right now, when I go into the edit window I see that they are there but not when just looking at the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have just fixed that. Are they all right now? Tankred (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes perfect now, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have just fixed that. Are they all right now? Tankred (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- For some odd reason I can't see the references and the categories right now, when I go into the edit window I see that they are there but not when just looking at the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, You have added some quotations to the article, but with no reference. Another unsourced quotation is there since January 2008. Can anyone find the corresponding citations? If not, those supposed quotations should be removed. Tankred (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The offender returned with his offensive biased text, which I've removed (Again). Someone may want to watch this page. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks 68.39, it's a thing to watch out for. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
the current outline (that contains the Slovak events) was coppied in whole with permission from a work by Josef Kirschbaum, Professor of Central European and Slavic History at the University of Toronto. I suggest it be left alone as it is not a POV rather a published academic paper. so stop the edit war Hobartimus and accept History as it IS not as YOU would LIKE it to be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- And reverted again. For one thing, there's no evidence anyone gave permission to copy anything. For another, we're not in the habit of slavishly copying other people's work, rather we rewrite and incorporate multiple viewpoints. Franamax (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
YES multiple viewpoints! exactly my point! Some may hold one version superior to others, let them decide which they prefer. No evidence? I asked Pan Kirschbaum months ago if I could use his paper as the basis for an online dictionary, I can ask again tomorrow
if you like.
The reality is, that neither version can be deleted, because the represent the experience of both ethnicities concerned, for the Hungarians it is a minor event, for Slovaks it was an example of oppression by a foreign power. I think both version stress that. Further I think it very to leave it as it is. Hungarian editor have their preferred version and Slovaks have theirs. Wiki is democratic... remember that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Czechslovakia
A country appered from nowhere, but Cernova is a piece in an unprecedented puzzle. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
from nowhere? the people and politicians had been discussing the merger for years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality
I have seen many politically biased texts in my professional career, but such an example of a one-sided selection of sentences and quotes cited without context as it is presented in this text is really a "record". I really wonder why nobody has noticed that both because it is obvious from every single sentence that the "author" tries to play down the whole tragedy in a ridiculous attempt to say that police is cruel everywhere and because only Hungarian (and I dare to say only non neutral Hungarian) sources are used and because I see no other than Hunagrian editors editing here and because the history of this article shows that a long detailed text (probably written by a non-Hungarian) has been completely deleted without giving any reason why the details should be wrong. But that seeems to be called "neutrality" here, such an article would normally not have been written even in the Hungarian wikipedia in this way, but some radicals from Hungary seem to take advantage of the fact that American admins have no idea what is going on here. "Excellent". Evening8888 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- by the way, article in hungarian wp is somewhat neutral. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of neutrality... why does the Hungarian version make reference to the SNS Slovak national party? this is pathetic... they are a fringe party will little popular support? I have never heard the SNS even mention Cernova in regards to political gains. how can this be acceptable by the wiki community and a verifyable published academic work is not? what is the real agenda here? think! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why somebody frequently erased majority of this article?
Hi, I cannot miss, that somebody cut off this article from 31kB to 6kB version. I want to notice you, that wikipedia is information portal, not a portal for presenting your opinition about something, when you don't have proper education. Soon, I'll fix it, but if somebody again cut this article, I have to write to admin and report a rules breaking. Thanks. --Empiko (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me like Hobartimus has quite properly taken out a lot of point-of-view material. For instance, the previous version began "Slovak version of events" and was an obvious copy-paste of a previous version.
- We try to keep all articles neutral, based on reliable and verifiable sources. If there are specific issues, you can discuss them here on the talk page. No rules have been broken, except by the IP editor. Franamax (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
clumsy translation
Others have already commented (and will continue) about the NPOV issues "if any", this is about something else. Much of this material appears to have been translated either from Hungarian, or some other language, by someone whose first language is not English. No insult intended, but some of the translation has room for improvement. For example, it seems clear to me, from looking up the word "gendarme" in some on-line dictionaries, that the Hungarian word "zsandár" should probably NOT be translated as "gendarme", but rather, seems to have the same meaning as the simple English word "policeman". See, for example, the entry for "any policeman", under "Translations", (under "English"), at the wiktionary entry for gendarme.
Some other examples: In the first sentence in the "Consequences" section, why is the word "regardless" not followed by the word "of"? In my opinion, it is simply an example of some translation by someone who is not sufficiently familiar with English.
I would "consider" devoting time to improving the translation myself, but judging from the previous section ("[...] Why somebody frequently erased majority of this article?"), there is some doubt about whether that would be "wasted work" or not. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Mike the majority of the article is erased because it doesn't suit the "remembered history" of some Hungarian editors. They insist that any article that may reflect negatively on Hungary is erased and replaced by a version that is written by a two year old. I have continuously sought the permission and guidance of the author of the longer "Slovak" version, a UofT professor, and have seen it erased time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hobartimus
Is it fair that Hobartimus is editing material without an explination?
I think not... I'd like to hear from Hobartimus... If not then perhaps I'll begin to erase his edits... fair is fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Work Against Hobartimus! Slovani Spojme Sa!
Hobartimus' POV violations on this Page Must end. I purpose a watchdog comity that will monitor and undo Hobartimus' Anti-Slovak and Anti-Slavonic edits! just check his edit history and you will see the agenda he is pushing! It is time to fight back!